Sink the Bismarck: Fact and Fiction

Forgotten By Cinema

71 years ago today, the British Navy sank the German Battleship Bismarck,   Three days earlier, in the Battle of the Denmark Strait, the Bismarck had sunk the British Battlecruiser HMS Hood and damaged the Battleship HMS Prince of Wales while attempting to break out into the Atlantic.  The Prince of Wales had itself scored a few hits on the Bismarck, which began to trail oil, and the latter changed course for Brest, in Nazi-occupied France. 

The film Sink the Bismarck (1960) portrays British efforts to prevent Germany's finest battleship from reaching the Atlantic and raiding British convoys.  The film, one of this blogger's favorite war movies, departs from the actual historical record in several ways worthy of note on this anniversary.

1.  In the film, both the Hood and the Prince of Wales open fire on the Bismarck at the outset of the Battle of the Denmark Strait.  In fact, the Hood initially targeted the heavy cruiser Prince Eugen, which it mistook for the Bismarck, firing at least six salvos at the cruiser before realizing its error.  (By contrast, the Price of Wales correctly directed its fire at the Bismarck from the outset, scoring a hit before the Hood redirected its fire.)  By the time the Hood realized its error, the Bismarck and Price Eugen had already found the range and begun scoring hits on the Hood. Bismarck's fifth salvo struck the fatal blow to the Hood.  (See Zetterling and Tamelander, Bismarck: The Final Days of Germany's Greatest Battleship, 163-71 (2009).  We can only speculate what would have happened if the Hood had targetted the Bismarck, a larger target than the Prinz Eugen, at the outset of the battle.

2. In the film, the British heavy cruisers Norfolk and Suffolk continue to shadow the Bismarck after the Battle of the Denmark Strait, until the Bismarck evades the pursuers and steers toward Brest.  The Norfolk and Suffolk did shadow the Bismarck as depicted, but they did not do so alone. Instead, the battleship Prince of Wales, although damaged in the Denmark Strait, accompanied the two cruisers in the continued pursuit.  Indeed, the Bismarck and the Prince of Wales exchanged fire for several minutes on the evening of May 24, with neither ship scoring a hit.  Eventually the Prince of Wales and Suffolk broke off pursuit and sailed for Iceland to refuel.  (See Zetterling and Tamelander, Bismarck: The Final Days of Germany's Greatest Battleship183-85, 196-97 and 233.)

3.   The film portrays the destruction of a Swordfish torpedo plane by the Bismarck's anti-aircraft fire during the first attack on the Bismarck by planes from the aircraft carrier Victorious.  In fact, the Bismarck did not shoot down any British planes.

4.  The film depicts a torpedo attack on the Bismarck by several British destroyers, one of which the Bismarck sinks shortly after the attack.  Several British and one Polish destroyer did launch torpedoes at the Bismarck during the night of the May 26th and the very early morning of May 27th.  Moreover, the Bismarck did fire on several of these destroyers and exchanged fire with one of them --- the Polish destroyer Piorun.  However, the Bismarck did not score any hits.  (See  Zetterling and Tamelander, Final Days, at 251-56.)

5.   Late in the film, Admiral Lutjens expresses hope that, once in Brest, the Bismarck could put to sea with the pocket battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisnau and together raid British convoys.  The scene implies that this is a new idea    In fact, the initial plan for the operation called for the two pocket battleships to sortie at the same time as Bismarck and Prinz Eugen.  However, Scharnhorst required extensive repairs after returning from a previous sortie with Gneisenau (led by Lutjens), and an attack by British torpedo planes had damaged Gneisnau.   Thus, Bismarck and Prinz Eugen had to sortie alone in search of convoys.  (See Zetterling and Tamelander, Final Days, at  82-86.)

6.   The film's portrayal of the final engagement between the British and the Bismarck departs from the actual events in several respects.  For instance, in the film the Bismarck opens fire first.  Moreover, the British Battleship King George V, flagship of the British Home Fleet, is the first to open fire in return and scores a hit on the second or third salvo.  In fact, the British Battleship Rodney (pictured above), performing escort duty and on her way to Boston for an overhaul, opened the final attack on the Bismarck, at 8:47 AM, shortly before the King George V itself opened fire.  (See Zetterling and Tamelander, Final Days, at 265-69)  The Bismarck answered three minutes later. (See id.)  Moreover, while Zetterling and Tamelander are ambiguous on this point, some sources report that Rodney struck the first blow, at 9:02 AM.  (It should be noted that the film does mention the diversion of the Rodney to intercept the Bismarck several scenes before the final engagement.)   Finally, while the King George V witnesses the Bismarck sinking in the film, the Bismarck did not in fact sink until both British Battleships, low on fuel, had left the scene and headed for Scapa Flow.  (See Zetterling and Tamelander, Final Days, at 280.)  The heavy cruiser HMS Dorchester, which had joined in pummeling the Bismarck with her eight inch guns, fired several torpedoes into the Bismarck after the British battleships departed.  (In the film, the Dorchestire joins the King George V at the end of the engagement and launches her torpedoes in full view of the British battleship.)

President Obama's Rejection of Economic Science

Thought the Earth was Flat

Thinks Tax Cuts Slow the Economy

Embraced Economic Science for the Common Good

A recent survey (discussed here) finds that Conservatives are losing faith in Science.    Remarks by President Obama in Iowa earlier this week (reported here by USA Today) suggest that he, too, has abandoned some basic tenents of science, in this case, economic science.  In particular, the President accused Republicans of clinging to policies that would, in his words "double down on some of the policies that didn't work and got us into this mess in the first place."  According to the report in USA Today, the President "cit[ed] in particular proposed tax cuts for the wealthy" as examples of such policies that caused the current downturn and would, if maintained prevent recovery.  The "tax cuts for the wealthy," of course, referred to the 2001 across-the-board reduction in tax rates advocated by President Bush and passed by Congress.

Perhaps USA Today has mis-reported the President's remarks.  If not, the President has apparently decided the repudiate basic science.    There is simply no plausible economic theory or evidence supporting the President's claim that tax cuts for the wealthy or  tax cuts for anyone else, result in an economic downturn.  On the contrary, tax cuts put more money in the pockets of consumers, including rich consumers, who in turn spend a portion of this new wealth, thereby increasing aggregate demand and national output.   See N. Gregory Mankiw, Macroeconomics, 296 (7th Edition 2010) (explaining how tax cuts increase aggregate demand and thus increase national output).   This result is a basic scientific fact, taught annually to thousands of college freshmen annually across the country.  Indeed, the nation's unemployment rate remained below 5.0 percent for all 24 months in 2006-2007, compared to a peak of 5.7 percent the year Congress enacted the tax cuts the President Obama has decried.  (Of course, there were other sources of fiscal stimulus during the first term of the Bush Administration, including increased military spending, such that the tax cuts were not the sole source of economic stimulus.) There is only one circumstance in which tax cuts will not increase output and employment, namely, when the economy is already at full employment.  While tax cuts (or spending increases) will increase aggregate demand in these circumstances, national output will remain the same, because society is already employing all of its resources in their highest-valued uses, with the result that national output is at its maximum.  No one argues that the current economy is at or near full employment.

The President's rejection of scientific fact and theory in this context is particularly odd.   After all, the centerpiece of the President's economic recovery program entailed a so-called "Stimulus Package" of nearly $800 Billion (discussed previously on this blog), spread out over five years, a portion of which included tax cuts.  The logic of the stimulus package depends upon the very same economic models establishing that tax cuts, even tax cuts for the rich, stimulate aggregate demand and national output.

It is also noteworthy that President Obama's attitude toward economic science stands in stark contrast to the approach taken by President Kennedy, pictured above with Dr. Walter Heller, who chaired the Council of Economic Advisors during the Kennedy Administration.  As previously explained on this blog, President Kennedy advocated across-the-board tax cuts as a means of "getting America moving again," the theme of his 1960 presidential campaign.  In so doing, he followed the advice of Heller and others who understood that across-the-board tax cuts would stimulate the economy, not get us into a "mess" as President Obama now claims.

Of course, across-the-board tax cuts are not the only means of stimulating the economy.  The national government could also rely upon spending increases and/or an expansive monetary policy.  Moreover, the government could reduce taxes for lower income and middle income workers.  Nonetheless, any claim that extending such cuts to "the rich" will cause an economic downturn is akin to the claim, by Thales of Miletus, pictured abouve, that the earth is flat.

Obama's Actual Biography No Match for Coolidge or Reagan

The Actual Calvin Coolidge

 

The Actual Ronald Reagan

 

Coolidge/Reagan Wannabe?

Recent reports indicate that the Obama Administration has been re-writing the biographies of former Presidents on the White House website.  In particular, the Administration has been inserting references in such biographies to President Obama's purported accomplishments.  Indeed, the Administration has inserted such references in the biography of each President since Calvin Coolidge, with the exception of the biography of President Gerald Ford. 

Not surprisingly, some have criticized this form of self-promotion at the expense of prior Presidents, most of whom are not able to speak for themselves.   However, it is no surprise that President Obama would seek to associate himself with leaders like Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan.  Simply put, both Presidents had economic records that put the current President to shame.  As explained previously on this blog, the Reagan Recovery produced the equivalent of 455,000 jobs per month between April and November 1984.  By contrast, the Obama "recovery" is producing jobs at less than a third of that rate.  (See here and here.)   Moreover, when Calvin Coolidge left office in 1929, the nation's unemployment rate was near 3 percent.  Even if the unemployment rate was twice the Coolidge rate, the American People would likely re-elect President Obama in a landslide.

Will the Griffin Fly the Coop?

A recent article in the Richmond Times Dispatch recounts speculation that Old Dominion University, Virginia Commonwealth University and George Mason University might take their basketball programs and leave the Colonial Athletic Association for other conferences (the Atlantic 10 for GMU and VCU, and Conference USA for ODU).  Such departures would leave only 8 basketball programs left in the league:

Delaware

Drexel

Hofstra

James Madison

Northeastern

Townson

UNC-Wilmington

William and Mary

Departures by such marque programs would obviously be a blow to the CAA's national profile and thus the ability of CAA schools to recruit highly sought-after college athletes.  GMU, VCU and ODU have won twelve of the last thirteen CAA mens basketball championships, thereby earning automatic berths in the NCAA tournament.  Both VCU and GMU have, in the past decade, made it to the "Final Four."

If in fact all or even just some of these schools depart the CAA, the remaining schools will have three options: (1) Soldier on with eight basketaball programs of relatively modest national profile; (2) invite new and hopefully higher profile schools to join the CAA or (3) depart from the CAA for other conferences.  Of course, some combination of options 2 and 3 is possible.  That is to say, some schools could depart from the CAA which could in turn invite and welcome new programs.

Both the Times-Dispatch article and a separate piece in the William and Mary Flat Hat have speculated that William and Mary could ultimately choose to depart from the CAA and join the Patriot League, for basketball.

According to the Times-Dispatch, for instance:

"If William and Mary decided to leave [the CAA for basketball], it might find a partner in the Patriot League, which features similar institutions with high academic profiles."

The Patriot League, it should be noted, consists of the following teams.

American

Army

Bucknell

Colgate

Holy Cross

Laffayete

Lehigh

As the story notes, these schools have academic profiles more similar to that of William and Mary than the teams of the CAA.  For instance, the College of the Holy Cross has a 4 year graduation rate of 87 percent, while William and Mary's is 89 percent.  By contrast, the  4 year graduation rate at Towson State is 43 percent and 23 percent at Drexel.  (Though it should be noted that these rates rise to 73 and 68 percent, respectively, after 6 years.)  (The 4 year graduation rate at VCU is 24 percent, while the 6 year rate is 50 percent.)    Moreover apparently athletes have even higher graduation rates at some Patriot League schools.  Indeed, according to this story, 21 Holy Cross teams recently achieved a 100 percent graduation rate.  At the same time, the Patriot League would provide stiff competition on the court for the Tribe.  Both Bucknell and Lehigh, for instance, ended the 2011-2012 season with higher RPI rankings (87 and 94, respectively) than ODU (107).  Holy Cross (182) and American (158) ended with higher RPI rankings than William and Mary (293).  (Colgate earned an RPI ranking of 295.)

Of course, any speculation that William and Mary will some day join the Patriot League for basketball is just that, speculation.  This author knows of no evidence that William and Mary is considering such a move.

UPDATE:  Earlier today (May 17, 2012) Old Dominion announced that it will leave the CAA for Conference USA.  ODU's announcement follows by a day VCU's announcement that it will leave the CAA for the Atlantic-10 conference.  By contrast, George Mason University announced less than a week ago that it will remain in the CAA.  Unlike VCU, whose move only affects basketball, ODU will be moving its football program as well, thereby allowing it to move into the FCS division, where it will reportedly begin play in 2015.

Meanwhile, two remaining members of the CAA, Towson State and UNC-Wilmington, may soon find themselves barred from post-season play because of their respective failures to satisfy NCAA academic progress requirements.

Happy Mother's Day --- Despite Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Fought to Found Mother's Day

Tried to Quash It

Today Americans celebrated Mother's Day, founded by Anna Jarvis (pictured above) despite the efforts of Ruth Bader Ginsburg (also pictured above), now a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.  Believe it or not, now-Justice Ginsburg once signed a report suggesting that Congress "replac[e] Mother's Day and Father's Day with a Parents' Day as an observance more consistent with a policy of minimizing traditional sex-based differences in parental roles."  (Hat tip to Ed Whelan over at Bench Memos.) 

Whatever one thinks about the merits of now-Justice Ginsburg's proposal, Congress could not lawfully eliminate Mother's Day if it tried.  To be sure, Congress recognized Mother's Day by statute in 1914.  However, that statute did not purport to require Americans to celebrate the occasion.  Moreover, the national government is one of limited powers, and the Constitution does not authorize Congress to require the celebration of Mother's Day or ban that celebration, any more than it authorizes Congress to require or ban the celebration of birthdays or wedding anniversaries.  Thus, thanks to the genius of the Founders, and despite the misguided intermeddling of some, Americans will freely and enthusiastically continue to celebrate Mother's Day so long as there are mothers.

Vive La 49 ?

A recent article in Business Week highlights one inefficient byproduct of over-reaching French labor legislation.  The article reports that, in France, there are 2.4 times more companies with 49 employees than with 50 employees.  The article convincingly contends that there is a reason for this apparent statistical anomaly, namely, regulation.  Under French labor law, any company that employs 50 or more individuals is suddenly subject to certain onerous requirements.  Such companies must create three different "worker councils," inaugurate profit sharing, and submit proposed "restructuring" plans to the worker councils if the company plans to lay off employees for economic reasons.  (See this treatise for additional details of this regulation.)  (It is not clear whether employees of covered firms must also share losses with the a covered firm's owners.)  As Business Week reports, French entrepreneurs often seek to avoid such requirements by dividing what would otherwise be a single company of more than 50 employees into several companies with 49 or fewer employees, thereby avoiding altogether the onerous regulations explained above. 

It should go without saying that this artificial restructuring of economic activity to avoid regulation reduces the economic welfare of the French people, other things being equal.  For one thing, entrepreneurs must incur the real costs of organizing and incorporating more than one business entity.  These same entrepreneurs must also manage several nominally separate concerns, in some cases hiring additional and economically redundant managers to do so.  Such entrepreneurs must also forgo whatever economies of scale they might otherwise realize by expanding a single firm beyond 50 employees.  Finally, some entrepreneurs might forgo the benefits of vertical integration by dividing input suppliers and downstream customers into separate firms even if the combination of such entities would reduce the cost of economic activity.  Simply put, predictable efforts to avoid regulations applicable to firms with greater than 49 employees divert economic resources from productive to less productive uses thereby reducing economic welfare.

The sort of conscious regulatory avoidance just described does not exhaust the negative impact of the distinction between 49 and 50 person firms.  To the extent that the labor regulations just described increase the cost of economic activity, firms with 49 or fewer employees will, other things being equal, incur lower production costs and thus possess a competitive advantage vis a vis larger firms. 

Of course, the mere fact that firms will incur costs to avoid regulation does not necessarily counsel repeal of such regulations.  Such regulations might themselves increase welfare, by eliminating inefficient externalities or combating other sources of market failure such as monopoly.  Moreover, larger firms may pose a greater risk of the type of harm that the regulation seeks to combat and/or be better able to absorb the cost of such regulations.  In these circumstances, limiting such regulations to a subset of a nation's firms --- particularly its larger firms --- may constitute an optimal regulatory strategy.  If so, the costs of regulatory avoidance detailed above may be the unavoidable and incidental price of regulations that, on balance, create wealth.

Still, the labor regulations in question do not seem to combat any externalities or other market failure and thus themselves distort the allocation of resources and reduce welfare.  As a result, the costs of regulatory avoidance detailed above simply compound the inefficiencies resulting from the regulation itself and thus, along with many other anti-growth policies, help account for France's sluggish growth and high unemployment.  Indeed, some estimate that, by 2050, France's GDP, now 6th in the world and ahead of the United Kingdom's, will rank 11th,  behind that of Mexico and the United Kingdom.  Regulatory policies have consequences, and the consequences of the policies imposed by France are negative.