Author: Ms Bich

Harry Styles wants to erase his history with One Direction

Harry Styles WireImage

He was the biggest name in One Direction but as a solo artist Harry Styles appears determined to erase his past.

I can reveal Harry wants to shake off his boy band days after any mention of 1D was airbrushed from the pre-publicity for his new BBC documentary.

The upcoming hour-long entertainment show, titled “Harry,” will be broadcast in November and feature an interview with his pal, Radio 1’s Nick Grimshaw.

But an official article put up by the BBC about the program described how Styles will, “perform tracks from his self-titled No. 1 debut album and chat to Grimshaw about his life, being a solo artist and starting his acting career.”

It makes no reference to the world’s biggest boyband, which helped to make Styles a global superstar.

It’s understood the decision to airbrush his history is down to Styles wanting to be taken seriously as a credible musician.

His debut solo single, “Sign of the Times,” went straight to No. 1 and his album also topped the charts.

Plus, he wowed audiences and critics with his performance in hit war movie “Dunkirk.”

A source revealed: “The path Harry has taken with his music is very different to the type of big pop songs he was performing with One Direction. As a result Harry is keen to get away from his teenybopper days and reinvent himself as a rock star.”

The source added: “Despite that, it’s understood that a One Direction segment has been filmed as part of the documentary.”

The snub will no doubt come as a huge blow to the millions of die-hard 1D fans around the globe who have supported Harry and his former bandmates Liam Payne, Louis Tomlinson and Niall Horan throughout their careers.

Meanwhile former bandmate Zayn Malik hinted at a feud with Styles this week, saying he hadn’t expected to stay in touch with him after he unexpectedly quit the band in 2015 as they never really interacted.

He admitted: “I never really spoke to Harry even when I was in the band. So I didn’t really expect that much of a relationship with him when I left.”

They’ve certainly got a lot of History — but why Styles wouldn’t want to remember his boyband days is beyond me.

Harry Styles’ One Direction Bandmates Niall Horan and Liam Payne Congratulate Him on Grammys Wins

“Harry you deserve every millisecond of that moment,” Liam Payne wrote on Instagram

Harry Styles’ One Direction bandmates are celebrating his big wins at the 2023 Grammy Awards!

After the “As It Was” singer scooped up the trophy for the coveted album of the year award for his album Harry’s House, both Niall Horan and Liam Payne offered their congratulations.

“Wow… this image is really something to wake up to and when you write music like you do Harry you deserve every millisecond of that moment looking down smiling at the trophy you’ve earned,” Payne, 29, wrote on Instagram. “God bless you brother congratulations.”

The “Strip That Down” singer shared his post alongside a black-and-white photo of Styles, 29, admiring his new hardware on stage.

Horan, meanwhile, shared an Instagram Story that featured a photo of the moment Styles took the stage.

“very proud ❤️ @harrystyles,’” he wrote.

The three singers, alongside Louis Tomlinson, 31, and Zayn Malik, 30, formed One Direction on The X Factor in 2010, and released their debut album the next year. Malik left the group in 2015, and after releasing the album Made in the A.M. as a foursome, the rest of the band announced an extended hiatus in 2015.

All five members have since gone on to pursue solo careers, and on Sunday, Styles also took home the prize for best pop vocal album before performing his No. 1 hit “As It Was.”

Harry Styles Is Emotional After 2023 Grammys Album of the Year Win: ‘There’s No Such Thing as Best’

Niall Horan, Harry Styles, Liam Payne. Lester Cohen/Getty, Alberto E. Rodriguez/Getty, Samir Hussein/Getty

“S—. Well, s—. Man. I’ve been so, so inspired by every artist in this category with me at a lot of different times in my life,” he said while accepting his best album win. “I listen to everyone in this category when i’m alone and I think on nights like tonight, it’s obviously so important for us to remember that there is no such thing as best in music. I don’t think any of us sit in the studio thinking, making decisions based on what is going to get us one of these.”

He continued: “This is really, really kind. I’m so, so grateful. I’m gonna pass it over to my collaborators who are…. I’m just so…this doesn’t happen to people like me very often and this is so, so nice, thank you very, very much.”

Since going their separate ways, the boys of One Direction have remained supportive of one another. Horan, 29, was spotted in the crowd at one of Styles’ Love on Tour shows over the summer, and told American Golf in August that “As It Was” was his favorite song.

Yoko Ono was called ‘dragon lady,’ blamed for Beatles breakup. Now, her legacy is re-examined

The new docuseries “Get Back” is making fans re-evaluate Yoko Ono’s relationship with the band. But any reckoning must contend with the racism and sexism she faced, experts say.

Yoko Ono, at home July 1971. Getty Images file

After enduring a half century of vitriol for allegedly “breaking up” The Beatles, Yoko Ono’s contentious place in pop culture is once again being re-examined following the release of Peter Jackson’s new documentary series “Get Back.” The reckoning coincides with a growing, broader movement in which many are interrogating the ways Asian women have been depicted and the consequences of misrepresentations, experts say.

Ono, who was married to Lennon for 11 years before his assassination in 1980, is hardly the main subject of the eight-hour series on Disney+, in which she’s credited as a producer. But her appearance has prompted viewers to see her differently. While she’s long been blamed for pulling Lennon away from his bandmates — The Beatles broke up a year after Ono and Lennon married — for many viewers, her behavior in the documentary, which Jackson described as “benign,” shows no such thing, and has led many critics to call for a collective apology toward her.

But this cultural moment of self-reflection is incomplete, experts say, without examining the sexism, racism and xenophobia that contributed to Ono’s vilification.

Ono, an accomplished performance artist before she met Lennon, was routinely demonized in both the British and American press, and by Beatles fans. “John Rennon’s Most Excrusive Gloupie,” read one 1970 Esquire magazine article about Ono, mocking her Japanese accent. According to the 2004 book “John Lennon Imagined: Cultural History of a Rock Star,” fans would often surround The Beatles company headquarters in London and call Ono a “’nip,’ ‘Jap,’ ‘Chink’ and other insulting names, insisting that she should get back to her own country.”

John Lennon with his wife, the Japanese-born American artist and musician Yoko Ono, in 1970.Getty Images file

These descriptions of Ono were common and persisted for decades. In a 2018 episode of the TV show “Family Guy,” for instance, Ono is described as the “woman crawling out of the well from ‘The Ring,’” a reference to a supernatural being in the popular Japanese horror film.

Experts said the villainization of Ono was rooted in demeaning stereotypes about Asian women that were inflamed by the political climate of the time. Ono’s refusal to capitulate to any of the criticism and minimize the heavily maligned aspects of herself, experts add, was a subtle yet powerful act of resistance.

“They’re four full-grown men in a band together in a domain that is already very tenuous, where you see lots of bands break up,” Nadia Kim, a professor of Asian and Asian American Studies at Loyola Marymount University, told NBC Asian America. “So the question itself that people pose, that she could have broken up ‘The Beatles,’ the racist and sexist and nativist dimensions of the question, show how preposterous it is.”

The docuseries, which debuted last month, follows the band through the making of their 1970 album “Let It Be.” In it, Ono remains in the periphery. Described by British and American tabloids as a master manipulator of Lennon and a divisive presence among the band members, Ono is shown in the documentary doing mundane activities like knitting, reading the newspaper, or eating what appears to be a chicken cutlet as the band rehearses. In one scene, she is seen deep in conversation with McCartney’s wife at the time, Linda Eastman. Though omnipresent in the footage, Ono never appears to meddle in the band’s affairs or opine on any of their decisions.

In recent years, many have come to acknowledge the role that sexism played in Ono’s image in the press. Kim said women are too often blamed for men’s failures and given no credit when men succeed. But Kim also underscored that the way Ono, a Japanese immigrant, was uniquely singled out. Other band members also had long-term partners — including Eastman and George Harrison’s partner, Pattie Boyd, who were white — but they were never blamed for The Beatles’ breakup. Ono herself blamed “sexism, racism” for the accusations, telling CNN’s Anderson Cooper in 2010 that she had been “used as a scapegoat.”

Still from “The Beatles: Get Back.”Courtesy Apple Corps Ltd.

Ono was also regularly labeled a “dragon lady.” Loren Kajikawa, an associate professor of music at George Washington University who specializes in race and politics in American music, said the dragon lady trope comes from the idea that Asian women are conniving beings who use seduction in manipulative, dangerous ways. Asian female power, Kajikawa said, has often been met with these accusations of deceitfulness.

At the height of The Beatles’ popularity in the 1960s, Britain was also experiencing a resurgence of nativism.

The docuseries briefly showed how the song “Get Back” was a commentary on the xenophobic views of Enoch Powell, a member of Parliament, Kajikawa pointed out. An early version of the song parodied Powell’s incendiary “Rivers of Blood” speech, in which he warned that if immigration persisted, a violent race war would be inevitable. Against this political backdrop, many would always see Ono as an outsider, no matter how long she lived in Britain or the U.S., Kim said.

Grace Hong, director of the Center for the Study of Women at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the incessant attacks on Ono for her appearance, with the media repeatedly describing her as “ugly,” also had roots in racism. Ono, who came from the avant-garde art scene and, with her long black hair and Japanese features, did not fit the European standards of beauty, was often compared to the other band members’ partners, who were thought to embody a more glamorous aesthetic.

“Yoko’s purported ugliness has all sorts to do with expectations about white femininity, and the ways in which she wasn’t fitting into that,” Hong said.

But as she weathered the vitriol, Ono did not appear to change her behavior or style, Hong added.

“People really resented the public staging of their relationship and the sexual nature of it. There’s the magazine cover where John Lennon’s naked and he’s straddling Yoko Ono, he’s passionately kissing her,” Kim said. “It’s like, ‘Why does she deserve to be the girlfriend of John Lennon when it should be a nice English, i.e. white girl, or a nice white American girl?’”

Given this perceived racial hierarchy, and Lennon’s status as one of the most desirable men from Britain, Ono’s passionate relationship with him alongside her own refusal to assimilate made her a “threat,” Kim said.

“Nothing angers the people who are, I guess, native-born members of Great Britain, or the United States, more than an immigrant who seems to be eclipsing them or overtaking their place,” Kim said. “She never pandered or genuflected, and especially for someone who was a public figure, that just enraged people. … It’s the idea that she can’t fully have her personhood, that we have to dehumanize her in some way because she’s, in our eyes, not equal anyway.”

While some are calling for a reframing of Ono’s place in history, Kajikawa said that some defenses of her as an unobtrusive, quiet presence play into other stereotypes of Asian women.

“That vindication, in some ways, is moving her from being the dragon lady that broke up the Beatles to being the submissive passive Yoko Ono, which is also not fair necessarily,” Kajikawa said. “The idea that that vindication has wrested on how she’s not doing anything in the documentary, also, for me, falls back on a familiar, stereotype of Asian femininity.”

In reality, Ono was known to be anything but “quiet,” Kajikawa said. Though Ono seemed unbothered by the insults, when asked how she felt about the “dragon lady” label, she said she was “honored,” adding that “the dragon is a very powerful, mythical animal . . . well, probably they think I’m powerful, thank you very much.”

Ono’s insistence on sharing space with a legendary band that’s making history is a powerful statement, even if it is perhaps an unintentional one.

“The Beatles are a defining group of the 20th century in some ways. The fact that Yoko insisted on being there, so that in some way, we can see something nonwhite in the frame of this history, is really important and cool,” Kajikawa said. “It does go against this idea that we can imagine the Beatles as something that was like all-white, all born in Britain … like there’s a version of her presence that challenges the ownership of that history.”

Inside Paul McCartney’s Life Following the Split of the Beatles: ‘It Was the Only Job He Knew’

In late 1969, Paul McCartney was reeling from the impending breakup of the Beatles. John Lennon had left the group, and while they’d kept it quiet, Paul packed up his family and retreated to a remote Scottish farmhouse. “He is not wanting to get out of bed and drinking way too much once he did get out of bed,” biographer Allan Kozinn tells Closer.

“He’s completely depressed. He had been in the Beatles his whole adult life. It was the only job he knew.” Suddenly, Kozinn says, “Paul had a lot of self-doubt.” It was the darkest time in Paul’s life to that point. “I didn’t know what to do at all,” the iconic singer recalled. “How could anything I do be as good as the Beatles?”

As he sunk into sadness, “that left [his wife] Linda with the job of trying to bring him back to life,” says Kozinn, coauthor of the new book The McCartney Legacy: Volume 1: 1969-73. “Linda’s got these two kids, and they’re in the middle of Scotland in a ramshackle farmhouse, and she’s trying to hold it all together.”

Fortunately, she succeeded. The pair had married in 1969, and their first of three girls, Mary, was born later that year. While Linda, a photographer and mother to 6-year-old Heather from a previous relationship, understood Paul’s distress, she brought a no-nonsense attitude to their new situation.

According to Kozinn, Linda told Paul, “Wait a minute. You’re one of the greatest songwriters of the 20th century and you’re a great bass player, you have a voice that people will kill for, why is this a problem? Why can’t you just go out on your own?” Paul was worried, however, that he’d be blamed for the Fab Four’s breakup.

“I kind of bought into that a little bit,” he admitted later, “and although I knew it wasn’t true, it affected me enough to be unsure of myself.” Linda urged him forward. “Paul has an artistic side that isn’t levelheaded, and I like that,” Linda said. “His mind is amazing.”

Her dedication and his talent slowly revived his confidence. “He came back from that trip to Scotland with 1.5 songs to start his first solo album,” Kozinn says, although “it wasn’t until he was well into the middle of the album that he came up with ‘Maybe I’m Amazed.’ ”

Named one of the 500 greatest songs of all time by Rolling Stone, he wrote it, and many others, about Linda. “That was my feeling,” he said of “Amazed.” “Maybe I’m a man, and maybe you’re the only woman who could ever help me.”

As the album, McCartney, dropped in 1970 and he formed Wings, Paul still needed Linda’s support: “He wanted her to be in his band, and she wasn’t really a musician,” says Kozinn. “He wanted her with him all the time. They did everything together.”

Their partnership and marriage flourished for close to 30 years; Linda died of cancer in 1998. They had two more kids and were devoted parents.

Today, Paul, 80, is happily remarried to Nancy Shevell, 67, and is still going strong. He has released three albums since 2020 and continues to tour. “I’ve had a great time,” Paul said. “Even the bad times have turned out for the best in the end. I’ve got my family, my farm and my music. What else can a man ask for?”

The son of Beatles guitarist John Lennon, Julian reveals the ‘frustrating’ Beatles song that drives him ‘up the wall’

Hey Julian.

Julian Lennon, the son of Beatles guitarist John Lennon, revealed Tuesday that he hates the song “Hey Jude” because it reminds him of his parents’ bitter divorce in 1968, when John left her for Yoko Ono.

Julian, 60, remarked that Sir Paul McCartney penned the song to comfort both Cynthia Lennon and himself following the split.

“It’s a beautiful sentiment, no question about that, and I’m very thankful — but I’ve also been driven up the wall by it,” the Beatles scion told Esquire. “I love the fact that he wrote a song about me and for Mum, but depending on what side of the bed one woke up on, and where you’re hearing it, it can be a good or a slightly frustrating thing.”

6
Julian revealed Tuesday that he hates the song “Hey Jude” because it reminds him of his parents’ bitter divorce in 1968. VALERIE MACON/AFP via Getty Images
Despite the slew of bad memories it conjures, Julian did explain that “there’s not a bad word I could say” about the song itself.

According to the musician, people have often quoted the song to him, not realizing all the pain behind the lyrics.

“Every time you quote that,” Julian said, “it reminds me of my mother being separated from my father, the love that was lost, the fact that I rarely saw my father again ever.”

6
“It’s a beautiful sentiment, no question about that, and I’m very thankful,” Julian told Esquire of Paul McCartney writing the hit for him. “But I’ve also been driven up the wall by it.” Getty Images
“I saw him maybe a couple of times before he died,” Julian added of his father. “A lot of people don’t quite get how intense, how emotional, and how personal that is. It’s not just a ‘pick yourself up and dust yourself off and be happy.’ There’s deep emotional pain. I can celebrate it — but also it’s something that’ll always be dark to me.”

Before his murder in 1980, John was reportedly aware that his former bandmate McCartney, 81, had written the classic tune for his son, but said in an interview that he always thought the song was also for him.

“He said it was written about Julian, my child,” John told David Sheff per Far Out Magazine months before his death. “He knew I was splitting with Cyn and leaving Julian. He was driving over to say hi to Julian. He’d been like an uncle to him. You know, Paul was always good with kids. And so he came up with ‘Hey Jude.’”

6
According to the musician, people have often quoted the song to him, not realizing all the pain behind the lyrics. Hulton Archive/Getty Images

 6
McCartney, who was not a fan of Yoko Ono, confirmed the story in the multimedia Beatles “Anthology” project. Michael Ochs Archives
“But I always heard it as a song to me. If you think about it … Yoko’s just come into the picture. He’s saying, ‘Hey, Jude – hey, John,’” the rock star stated. “I know I’m sounding like one of those fans who reads things into it, but you can hear it as a song to me. The words ‘Go out and get her’ — subconsciously he was saying, ‘Go ahead, leave me.’”

McCartney, who was not a fan of Ono, confirmed the story in the multimedia Beatles “Anthology” project.

Speaking with The Post in September of last year, Julian revealed that the iconic song was originally named “Hey Jules” as an ode to his nickname, and that it took him a while to understand the song’s true meaning.

 6
Despite the slew of bad memories the song conjures, Julian said “there’s not a bad word I could say about it.” Miller/Keystone/Hulton Archive/Getty Images

 6
“Back then I was too young to understand what it represented,” Julian told The Post. “Obviously, it’s lovely to have a song written about you, and especially out of concern.” Dave Benett/Getty Images for MPL Communications
“Back then I was too young to understand what it represented,” Julian told The Post. “Obviously, it’s lovely to have a song written about you, and especially out of concern.”

“But I think a lot of the public never realized … that it reminds me of a very dark time in many respects, because, you know, that’s when Dad walked out the door,” he continued. “That’s when he left Mum and I, and my concern was for my mom’s welfare and well-being more than my own.”

Julian, who lives in Monaco, used the name “Jude” as the title of his most recent album, released in October of last year.

The Beatles vs. Rolling Stones: Which band is the most rock and roll?

The Rolling Stones (left) and The Beatles have been rivals since they first shot to fame in the early ’60s. Redferns; Getty Images

Preview in new tab

Megastars Paul McCartney and Mick Jagger, the respective faces of The Beatles and the Rolling Stones, last week reignited the decades-long rivalry between the two British supergroups.

McCartney, 79, belittled the Stones by calling them a “blues cover band,” while Jagger, 78, disparaged the Fab Four for failing to play giant stadiums — in contrast to the thousands of concerts staged by the “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction” singer and his cronies.

Fans have debated the relative talents of the bands ever since they shot to fame in the early ’60s. But, aside from the quality of their music, the groups earned the joint reputation of party animals — at least after The Beatles ditched their clean-cut image.

Although neither appears to have trashed a hotel room or bitten the head off a bat, The Post asks whether the Stones or The Beatles were the most rock ‘n’ roll.

Staying relevant

The Beatles

The mop-tops hoped to engage with Generation Z with the launch last week of their @TheBeatles TikTok channel. It features golden oldies, interviews with surviving band members McCartney and Ringo Starr and behind-the-scenes footage of recordings of songs such as “Let It Be.” But the key project bringing the Liverpool legends to prominence this year is the Nov. 25 release of the eye-opening, four-part docuseries “Get Back” on Disney+.

5
The Beatles, pictured in 1964, are hoping to recruit fans from Generation Z with a new TikTok channel. Popperfoto via Getty Images

The Rolling Stones

Nearly 60 years after forming the Stones, the artists behind “Gimme Shelter” and “Sympathy for the Devil,” who last week retired their 1971 hit “Brown Sugar” due to cultural sensitivities, continue to play to sold-out crowds at the world’s most prestigious venues. Their 2021 No Filter tour kicked off last month at the Dome at America’s Center in St. Louis, with tickets costing as much as $500.

Drugs

The Beatles

5
John Lennon, photographed as a clean-living New Yorker shortly before his untimely death in 1980, was once addicted to heroin. Getty Images
Despite mixing in hedonistic circles in the band’s early days in cities like Berlin, John, Paul, George and Ringo were initially lightweights when it came to substance use. According to McCartney, Bob Dylan introduced them to marijuana when they visited New York in 1964. The septuagenarian said it was so potent, it made them feel like “the ceiling was coming down.” Nonetheless, it didn’t stop McCartney from becoming a dope and LSD fiend. He was reportedly fined and arrested numerous times for drug possession in the ’70s and ’80s and even served a week-plus stint in a Tokyo jail for marijuana possession. Now, as a doting grandfather, he claims his liking for weed is all in the past. Sadly, Lennon developed a heroin addiction in the late ’60s, which apparently contributed to his increasing alienation from his bandmates. He had put his opiate dependence behind him ahead of his shocking murder in 1980.

The Rolling Stones

5
Guitarist Keith Richards was one of the world’s most notorious drug addicts — he reportedly forked over an astonishing $16,000 a week to feed his cocaine and heroin habit. Getty Images
It’s been well-documented that the hellraisers from London smoked, guzzled and snorted. It has been reported that Ronnie Wood freebased cocaine using a Bunsen burner he smuggled into parties. Tragically, Wood’s fellow guitarist Brian Jones, then 27, drowned in his swimming pool in 1969, and an autopsy showed he had a heavily enlarged heart and liver due to drinking and drugs. As for Jagger, he received a three-month jail sentence (later quashed) in 1967 for possession of amphetamines. But the Stones’ premier drug user was lead guitarist Keith Richards, who remains alive today despite having reportedly once nursed a $16,000-a-week habit. He was repeatedly plastered across the front pages after numerous arrests involving marijuana, heroin and cocaine. In a sensational interview in 2007, the eccentric strummer made the bizarre confession of allegedly having snorted some of his dad’s ashes along with some “blow.”

Sex scandals

The Beatles

Paul McCartney has admitted that, back in his Beatles heyday, he had a “wonderful experience” with two “hookers” in Las Vegas — a liaison he claimed was “the closest I came to an orgy.” He also divulged that Lennon was partial to the occasional threesome, once inviting a husband and wife back to his house and encouraging the woman’s other half to watch. Perhaps most revealing of all, in 2018, McCartney acknowledged that he, Lennon and their friends would enjoy mutual masturbation sessions “instead of getting drunk and partying.”

The Rolling Stones

 5
British singer Marianne Faithfull, pictured in the 1960s, was involved with three members of the Rolling Stones: Mick Jagger, Keith Richards and Brian Jones. Corbis via Getty Images
It’s hard to know where to start with Mick Jagger’s headline-grabbing encounters with lovers of both genders. According to Christopher Andersen, author of the 2012 biography: “Mick: The Wild Life and Mad Genius of Jagger,” the rocker seduced David Bowie, his handsome A-list peer, in the early ’70s. Other men that Andersen linked to Jagger included Eric Clapton and posh English actor James Fox, with whom he allegedly embarked on a “sort of romance.” Rather surreally, the biographer also claimed that TV host Geraldo Rivera once found himself trapped in a “sexual sandwich” between Jagger and ballet dancer Rudolf Nureyev at a showbiz event.

As for women, Andersen purported that the Lothario had a somewhat “ambiguous” relationship with Princess Margaret, with whom he would party on the private Caribbean island of Mustique. But his four-year affair with singer Marianne Faithfull was widely known. Card-carrying British rock chick Faithfull happened to be the ex of Jagger’s bandmates Richards and Brian Jones. Another juicy detail Andersen claimed in his book was his estimation that Jagger, who now has eight children by five different women, had no fewer than 4,000 notches on his bedpost.

But Jagger’s exploits pale in comparison to the sexual proclivities of Stones bass guitarist Bill Wyman. In the mid-1980s, he allegedly began a relationship with then-14-year-old British schoolgirl Mandy Smith. The couple wed in 1989 when Smith was 18 and Wyman was 52, before divorcing just two years later.

Mutual rivalry

The Beatles

John Lennon fired the opening salvo against the Rolling Stones in 1970 when he accused Jagger and his pals of copying The Beatles. His claim centered on the release three years earlier of the Stones’ album “Satanic,” which, according to Lennon, featured songs that mimicked their music. “Every f–kin’ thing we did, Mick does exactly the same — he imitates us, ” Lennon said. A year later, he continued his rant, saying, “Mick’s a joke” and the rival band was “not in the same class, music-wise or power-wise” as the Fab Four.

 5
Drummer Charlie Watts (far right) died this summer but his bandmates, the Rolling Stones, are currently on their 2021 tour, called No Filter. Dave J Hogan/Getty Images for Th

The Rolling Stones

In 1987, reflecting on the breakup of The Beatles 18 years earlier, Jagger expressed mostly disdain. He claimed it was “a very good idea” and added that he “couldn’t give a s–t” about the split that devastated fans. Meanwhile, Keith Richards twisted the knife in 2015 when he described The Beatles’ ground-breaking 1967 album, “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band,” as “a mishmash of rubbish” and a “load of s–t.”

Not only that, but in a precursor to Jagger’s oneupmanship over the Stones’ impressive concert record, the guitarist patronized the competition by praising their “lovely sound and great songs.”

Then, as a final insult, he snarked: “But the live thing? They were never quite there.”

The Mighty Tirpitz – A Battleship’s Reign and Demise

The sinking of the Tirpitz, one of the most formidable battleships of the German Navy during World War II, marked a significant turning point in naval warfare. As the sister ship of the infamous Bismarck, the Tirpitz posed a major threat to Allied naval operations in the Atlantic and Arctic oceans.

Construction

The construction of the Tirpitz began in 1936, and it was commissioned into the Kriegsmarine on February 25, 1941. Designed as a Bismarck-class battleship, the Tirpitz was a marvel of engineering, embodying the German Navy’s pursuit of naval supremacy. Its construction took place at the Kriegsmarinewerft shipyard in Wilhelmshaven, Germany.

The Tirpitz being fitted out in Wilhelmshaven, Germany, February 2, 1940.

The Tirpitz was an imposing vessel, with a displacement of over 42,000 tons and a length of 251 meters (820 feet). It featured a sleek and formidable profile, designed to maximize speed and stability. Its massive size made it one of the largest battleships ever constructed, and it required an extensive network of shipyards and infrastructure to support its assembly.

The battleship was equipped with a powerful main battery, consisting of eight 38-centimeter (15-inch) guns housed in four twin turrets. These guns could fire 800-kilogram (1,800-pound) projectiles over a range of approximately 40 kilometers (25 miles), making the Tirpitz a formidable long-range threat. The ship also featured numerous secondary armaments, including 16 dual-purpose 15-centimeter (5.9-inch) guns and an array of anti-aircraft weaponry, comprising 38 and 105-millimeter guns as well as a significant number of smaller caliber guns.

To protect against enemy fire, the Tirpitz had a formidable armor plating system. Its main belt, composed of high-strength steel, was 360 millimeters (14 inches) thick at its thickest points, providing substantial protection against enemy shells. The battleship’s deck armor varied in thickness, with the thickest parts measuring up to 220 millimeters (8.7 inches). Additionally, the ship incorporated an innovative “turtleback” design, which enhanced its resistance to torpedo attacks by deflecting explosions away from vital areas.

A head on view of the Tirpitz.

Propulsion was provided by twelve Wagner high-pressure boilers, which powered three sets of geared steam turbines. This arrangement produced a total of 163,026 horsepower, allowing the Tirpitz to achieve a top speed of 30 knots (56 kilometers per hour or 35 miles per hour). Its massive fuel storage capacity of 7,772 tons allowed for extended operational ranges.

The crew of the Tirpitz numbered over 2,800 officers and sailors. The ship was equipped with state-of-the-art radar and fire control systems, enhancing its accuracy and situational awareness. It also had advanced communication systems, including a secure radio network for encrypted communications.

The construction and specifications of the Tirpitz showcased Germany’s technological advancements and the naval ambitions of the Kriegsmarine. Its size, firepower, and robust armor made it a formidable adversary, instilling fear in the minds of Allied forces and exerting a significant influence on naval warfare strategies during World War II.

Deployment Of The Tirpitz

Upon its commissioning, the Tirpitz was deployed to various locations, with its primary base of operations being the Norwegian fjords. The presence of the battleship in Norway posed a substantial threat to Allied forces and had significant strategic implications.

The Tirpitz heading out for sea trials in September 1940.

Anchored in the remote fjords, the Tirpitz presented a challenging target for Allied forces. Its location provided natural protection, making it difficult for conventional naval forces to engage or neutralize the battleship effectively. This geographical advantage allowed the Tirpitz to tie down a considerable number of Allied ships, diverting resources away from other critical operations.

One of the primary concerns for the Allies was the disruption of their convoys bound for the Soviet Union. The Tirpitz’s mere presence in the Norwegian waters threatened the crucial Arctic supply lines, which were vital for sustaining the Soviet war effort. The battleship’s ability to sortie from its base and launch attacks on Allied shipping routes put tremendous strain on these supply lines and endangered the success of critical operations.

The Battleship Tirpitz in Norwegian waters.

To counter the Tirpitz, the Allied forces had to allocate significant resources and implement various strategies. The Royal Navy, in particular, had to station a considerable number of ships in the vicinity to monitor and contain the battleship. This included battleships, cruisers, destroyers, and even aircraft carriers. These resources could have been otherwise employed for offensive operations or protection of other vital supply routes.

Furthermore, the presence of the Tirpitz posed a constant threat to the Allied naval forces in the region. The battleship’s firepower and advanced radar systems allowed it to engage and potentially sink individual ships or damage larger formations. The Royal Navy had to be cautious in its operations, conducting reconnaissance missions and air raids to gather intelligence and assess the battleship’s readiness and activity levels.

The Tirpitz’s threat was not limited to its direct engagement capabilities. Its mere existence had a profound psychological impact on the Allied forces. The battleship represented German naval might, instilling fear and uncertainty among Allied sailors and commanders. The presence of such a formidable adversary created a sense of vulnerability and forced the Allies to consider multiple scenarios in their operational planning.

Allied Response and Operations

Recognizing the threat posed by the Tirpitz, the Allied forces launched a series of operations aimed at neutralizing or at least limiting the battleship’s effectiveness. These operations encompassed a range of strategies, including air raids, submarine attacks, and special forces missions.

A shell from the Tirpitz found in 1968. Image by Kjetil Ree CC BY-SA 3.0

One of the earliest attempts to disable the Tirpitz was Operation Title, which took place in March 1942. British bombers targeted the battleship with torpedoes, but due to adverse weather conditions and the effectiveness of German anti-aircraft defenses, the attack failed to inflict significant damage.

Subsequently, the British launched a series of submarine attacks against the Tirpitz. In September 1943, the midget submarines of Operation Source, armed with explosive charges, made a daring attempt to disable the battleship. While the attack did not sink the Tirpitz, it caused substantial damage and forced the battleship to undergo extensive repairs, rendering it temporarily out of action.

Another noteworthy operation was Operation Tungsten, conducted in April 1944. British carrier-based aircraft targeted the Tirpitz with a concentrated barrage of bombs and torpedoes. Although the battleship sustained heavy damage, it managed to remain afloat.

In the summer of 1944, as part of Operation Mascot, the Royal Air Force (RAF) launched a series of heavy bomber raids against the Tirpitz. These raids, conducted by Avro Lancaster bombers, were intended to disable the battleship or force it to relocate, thus diverting German resources. While these raids caused damage, they were not able to deliver a decisive blow.

The Tirpitz’ Final Blow

Operation Catechism, conducted on November 12, 1944, marked the culmination of the Allied efforts to sink the Tirpitz. This daring operation was planned and executed by the Royal Air Force (RAF) with the objective of delivering a decisive blow to the formidable battleship.

The operation involved a massive aerial bombardment of the Tirpitz using specially modified Avro Lancaster bombers armed with “Tallboy” bombs. These bombs, weighing 5 tons each, were designed to penetrate thick armor and inflict catastrophic damage upon detonation.

A Tallboy bomb being hoisted into a Lancaster before a raid on a V-weapons site.

The Lancaster bombers departed from RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland, embarking on a long and perilous journey to reach their target in the Norwegian fjord of Tromsø, where the Tirpitz was anchored. The operation was conducted with meticulous planning, taking into account factors such as weather conditions, timing, and enemy defenses.

In the early morning hours of November 12, the Lancaster bombers reached their target. Flying at altitudes of over 6,000 meters (20,000 feet) to evade German anti-aircraft fire, the bombers unleashed their payloads of Tallboy bombs on the Tirpitz. The bombs plummeted from the skies with tremendous force, guided by skilled bomber crews who aimed to strike the battleship’s vulnerable areas.

Multiple direct hits were scored on the Tirpitz, causing catastrophic damage. The sheer impact of the Tallboy bombs, combined with their ability to penetrate the ship’s armor, led to internal explosions, flooding, and the rupture of vital compartments. The battleship listed heavily to one side, ultimately capsizing and sinking into the waters of the fjord.

The destruction of the Tirpitz during Operation Catechism resulted in the loss of over 1,000 German sailors who were on board at the time of the attack. The sinking of the battleship was a significant blow to the German Navy, removing a formidable threat that had tied down Allied resources and disrupted vital supply lines.

The Wreck Of The Tirpitz

After the sinking of the Tirpitz, the wreck of the battleship remained at the bottom of the fjord in Tromsø, Norway. Over the years, the wreck became a target for salvagers and souvenir hunters who sought to collect artifacts from the famous battleship.

The wreck of the Tirpitz lying capsized in the Fjord.

In 1948, the decision was made to salvage the remains of the Tirpitz. The salvage operation, codenamed “Operation Deadlight,” aimed to remove the wreckage of German warships from Norwegian waters. However, due to the challenging conditions and technical difficulties, the salvaging of the Tirpitz proved to be a daunting task.

In the end, only a small portion of the battleship’s wreckage was successfully salvaged. The rest of the ship’s remnants were left in the fjord, slowly decaying and becoming a popular site for divers and underwater explorers.

In recent years, efforts have been made to document and preserve the wreck of the Tirpitz as a historical site. The remains of the battleship have become an underwater attraction, drawing divers and researchers interested in studying the vessel’s architecture and history.

Today, the Tirpitz wreck is considered a war grave and is protected under Norwegian law. Divers are required to obtain permits to visit the site, and the wreck serves as a reminder of the fierce naval battles of World War II and the enduring legacy of the German Navy.

Conclusion

Operation Catechism represented a remarkable achievement for the RAF and Allied forces. It showcased the effectiveness of the Tallboy earthquake bombs in dealing with heavily fortified naval targets. The operation also demonstrated the capabilities of the Lancaster bombers and the skill and bravery of the bomber crews who executed the mission under dangerous conditions.

The sinking of the Tirpitz during Operation Catechism had profound implications. It significantly boosted Allied morale, as it proved that even the most powerful battleships could be neutralized. The removal of the Tirpitz freed up valuable Allied resources that had been dedicated to countering its threat, allowing for increased focus on other strategic operations in the European theater.

 

 

The Air Force’s 50,000 Ton Press

In Cleveland, Ohio, resides one of the largest and most powerful presses in the world, the Alcoa 50,000 ton press. This is enough for to lift an Iowa-class battleship – but what did the Air Force possibly need such a machine for?

The 50,000 ton press has earned a place as one of the single most important manufacturing machines in the United States, functioning as one of the only places in the country that can press forge complex components for use in aircraft.

Measuring 12 stories tall and weighing 8,000 tons, the press was built in the 1950s, and remains in use today.

Contents

Background

The existence of the “Fifty”, as it is known to those who work with it, dates all the way back to the end of the First World War.

The Treaty of Versailles impacted numerous areas of Germany’s industry, including their iron-production capabilities. Much of this had to be given up, but they were still able to produce plenty of magnesium.

Magnesium has many uses in engineering; it is the lightest metallic element, is strong, weldable, and can be manipulated into different shapes. It has one drawback though: it is brittle.

Other commonly used metals, like iron, are quite flexible.

Iron and steel can be easily hammered into shape, like with a forging hammer. Image by Deutsche Fotothek‎ CC BY-SA 3.0 de.

In short, you can bend iron into shape. Try bending magnesium though, and it cracks. Germany got around this flaw by pressing magnesium into shape, rather than beating it. This is known as press forging, and it can be used to quickly and easily create extremely complex shapes.

This process also works with aluminium, and naturally, press-forged components from these materials were used extensively in German aircraft, as they were both light and strong.

These components were found by the Allies, and the US was impressed.

Deducing that they were being created with a large press, the US began a project to build their own press to speed up aircraft production. However, the war ended before this could finished.

A 15,000 ton press in the Friedrich Krupp AG factory in, Essen, Germany.

When Allied experts inspected German industrial plants after the war, they found that they had indeed built giant presses. They had two 15,000 ton presses, and a massive 30,000 ton press.

The US took the 15,000 ton presses, but unfortunately for them, the Soviets took the 30,000 ton unit. Aware that the Soviets were now able to create complex, lightweight and strong structures for their aircraft, the US began a large-scale project to solve this pressing issue.

With the backing of the US Air Force, the US started the Heavy Press Program in 1950. This program… well it produced heavy presses, but it also built up the knowledge base and training surrounding this new production technique.

The 30,000 ton Schloemann closed die press at the Bitterfeld factory. This press was taken by the Soviets, and is still in use today at the Kamensk-Uralsky Metallurgical Works in Russia.

Some defense contractors viewed the participation in this new industry a risk, but they certainly couldn’t have predicted how important these presses would become in the United States’ dominance in the air.

It ran until 1957, by which point the US had squeezed out 10 enormous forging machines. These were 6 extruders, and 4 hydraulic presses. Many of these machines remain in use today.

A few 35,000 ton presses were built, but the biggest and most famous was the monstrous 50,000 ton press, known simply as the “Fifty”.

The 50,000-ton press inside Air Force Plant 47 in Cleveland, Ohio.

In 1952, Air Force Plant 47 began construction in Cleveland, Ohio, specifically to house these new presses. Operations at the plant began in 1955, with the operating contractor being the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa).

The Mesta 50,000 Ton Press

The job of creating a press that is theoretically capable of lifting a battleship was given to industrial machinery manufacturer Mesta Machinery, based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Designing and building such a machine was an incredible feat of engineering.

The full press has a total height of 285 ft (87 meters), with 118 ft (36 meters) of that passing through the floor into a basement below. The Fifty’s total weight is around 8,000 tons.

A cutaway showing the full height of the Mesta 50,000-ton press. Note the columns running from top-to-bottom.

It is constructed from 16 enormous steel castings, some of which weighed over 350 tons each – making them some of the largest single castings ever made.

These castings were poured by Mesta at their own facilities, and were then machined to within tolerance by a custom-made 18 inch milling machine.

To make up the Fifty, these castings were stacked on top of each other in sections. The lowest two levels sat below the floor in the basement, and weighed 800 tons.

One of the enormous castings used in the press. This is the top-most section on its side. It contains the pressure cylinders at the top of the press. Note the person on the right for scale.

On top of these lower levels is the lower die, which is the shaped surface that the material will be pressed into.

Above this is the crosshead, which is the portion that actually moves up and down and contains the upper die. All in, this moving assembly weighs 1,150 tons. At the very top of the press are eight hydraulic pressure cylinders that generate the crushing force needed to press the material into shape.

The whole press is held together by eight 76-ft tall steel-alloy columns that run from the very bottom to the very top of the machine. This columns are engineering marvels of their own.

One of the huge steel columns being forged from a 270 ton steel ingot.

They began as enormous castings before being forged into shape. They were then heat treated in a huge 112 ft-long furnace. Mesta’s initial forgings were so accurate that machinists only had to remove one inch from the columns to achieve the perfect finish – this was done by a 96 inch lathe.

The columns measured 40 inches in diameter, and were threaded in four sections. Massive 55-ton nuts measuring 52 inches in diameter were fitted onto these threaded sections.

The hydraulic medium is water, mixed with a small amount of oil for lubrication and rust-prevention. Pressure is generated by pumps powered by 1,500 hp motors.

The basement below the press. This room contains the press’s foundations.

Fluid pressurised to 4,500 psi is sent to huge accumulator bottles, which then transfer this into the eight cylinders at the top of the press when needed.

As the 60 inch-wide cylinders are pressurised, the press moves down with a force of up to 50,000 tons – enough to lift an Iowa-class battleship if the press was flipped upside down.

The hydraulic fluid’s flow direction is reversed to lift the crosshead back up.

A close view of the die inside the press. Ingots of metals like titanium and aluminium will be placed in here, and literally squished into shape.

But one of the most impressive things about this press is how precisely it can deliver this earth-shattering force.

A complex systems of valves allows a single operator to control the press instantly and incredibly accurately with the simple movement of a three-inch long lever.

The working stroke of the Fifty is one-foot, with a maximum stroke of six-feet. It optimises the production of complex aircraft components as it can stamp them at a relatively fast pace of 30 per minute.

This is much faster than machining parts individually.

Damage and Repair

After coming online in 1955, the Fifty has continued in use ever since, playing a crucial role in the manufacture of virtually all of the US’s major military aircraft. This has ranged from the F-15, to the advanced F-35 and even spacecraft.

It has been critical for manufacturers like Boeing and Airbus, who use it to make key components in their aircraft.

However in 2008, after 53 years of service, cracks were found in the Fifty’s lower sections. Similar issues had been found in the 1970s, but this time the machine needed a major overhaul in a financially unstable economy.

Space Shuttle components created by the press.

Alcoa, who still operate the press, were forced to consider a few options. They could scrap it, try to repair the cracks, or remake major components.

Scrapping was never really a real option considering the machine’s importance, and repairing the damage wouldn’t guarantee long future usage. Therefore Alcoa started a huge $100 million project to overhaul the Fifty.

Alcoa hired Siempelkamp, a German press-builder, to cast new sections for the press. They were to reuse the main columns and cylinders, and only replace the necessary components.

Titanium F-15 bulkheads before (left) and after (right) being press by Alcoa’s 50,000 ton press.

But this overhaul allowed the wonders of modern engineering to actually upgrade the press. One such upgrade was switching the sections’ construction material from steel to ductile iron. Iron is much more flexible than steel, and this will increase the life of the sections.

A redesigned control system gives Alcoa even more precise control of the press, at a varying range of pressures and die sizes.

This has increased the complexity of the shapes they forge, opening the opportunity for the manufacturer of components that were previously impossible to make.

Pressing material is often heated to high temperatures to increase its malleability.

Alcoa’s 50,000 ton press has served the US for 70 years now, helping to produce some of the most technologically advanced machines humanity has ever created.

Starting from an Air Force project in the 1950s, its safe to say the Fifty’s service has been a crushing success.

Waddy’s Wagon: The Legendary B-29 Superfortress That Defied the Odds

In the annals of aviation history, certain aircraft stand out not only for their technical prowess but also for the indomitable spirit they embody. One such aircraft is the B-29 Superfortress with the serial number 42-24598, affectionately known as “Waddy’s Wagon.” This remarkable plane became an emblem of courage and resilience during World War II, defying the odds and leaving an indelible mark on both military and aviation history.

“Waddy’s Wagon” took to the skies for the first time on August 6, 1944, from the Boeing aircraft factory in Wichita, Kansas. Commissioned by the United States Army Air Forces, it was one of the many B-29s built to support the Allied effort against Japan. Led by Captain William “Waddy” Young, a seasoned pilot with a reputation for his meticulousness and flying skills, the crew quickly developed a special bond with their aircraft.

The Superfortress was named “Waddy’s Wagon” by the crew in honor of Captain Young, who had become a beloved figurehead for his leadership and dedication. This B-29 stood out among the rest, not only because of its name but also due to the distinctive nose art adorning its fuselage. A whimsical depiction of a covered wagon, with Captain Young’s face painted on one side, became the iconic symbol of the aircraft.

B-29 Superfortress crew and their mascot “Damit” watch ground crewman touch up the nose art that depicts their caricatures, Siapan 1944

“Waddy’s Wagon” flew numerous missions over the Pacific theater, facing formidable challenges along the way. It braved relentless anti-aircraft fire, encountered fierce dogfights with enemy fighters, and navigated treacherous weather conditions. Despite the odds, the crew of this B-29 always managed to bring it back home, earning a reputation for their unwavering determination and skill.

One of the most remarkable chapters in the life of “Waddy’s Wagon” unfolded during the Battle of Tokyo on March 9, 1945. This infamous night saw a massive firebombing campaign carried out by the United States, with over 300 B-29s participating. In the midst of the chaos, Captain Young and his crew embarked on a daring mission, targeting crucial industrial sites and military installations in the Japanese capital.

As the Superfortress approached its target, it came under intense fire from enemy anti-aircraft defenses. The aircraft sustained severe damage, including a ruptured fuel line that left a trail of flames in its wake. The crew refused to give up, displaying exceptional teamwork and determination. Despite the dire situation, they managed to drop their payload and began the arduous journey back to safety.

Miraculously, “Waddy’s Wagon” made it back to its base in the Mariana Islands, defying all expectations. The crew’s heroic actions saved their aircraft from certain destruction, earning them accolades and recognition for their extraordinary bravery. The B-29, despite its battle scars, was repaired and flew additional missions, contributing to the eventual Allied victory in the Pacific.

 

The crew of B-29 Superfortress 42-24598 “Waddy’s Wagon” posing to duplicate the nose art. All were killed in action when the bomber was shot down over Japan in January 1945.

After the war, “Waddy’s Wagon” was decommissioned and put on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force, where it serves as a testament to the bravery and resilience of those who flew the B-29s during World War II. The aircraft stands as a symbol of the indomitable spirit of the crews who risked their lives in the skies, reminding us of the sacrifices made by a generation of aviators.

Today, visitors from around the world can gaze upon the majestic “Waddy’s Wagon” and pay tribute to the remarkable aircraft that etched its name into history. As we remember the heroes of the past, we are reminded of the enduring legacy of the B-29 Superfortress and the remarkable story of “Waddy’s Wagon” – a symbol of courage, determination, and the unbreakable bond between man and machine.

The following is a guest post by Irene Lule, a Library of Congress Junior Fellow working with the Veterans History Project (VHP) this summer.

In today’s highly visual world, a popular type of YouTube video is the “soldier coming home” video. These clips are fairly basic in their premise. Someone captures the moment a service member returns home to a spouse, parent, sibling or even a pet, and the viewer vicariously experiences the emotional moment of learning a loved one is home and out of harm’s way. These same scenes have undoubtedly been playing out for as long as soldiers have been coming home, but to learn about the experiences of previous generations, we must rely on the words they left behind. In the case of World War I veterans, diaries, correspondence and memoirs all captured the pain of separation, and the joy of returning home.
Philip Scholz (right) with three fellow soldiers, Philip E. Scholz Collection (AFC/2001/001/00864), Veterans History Project, American Folklife Center, Library of Congress.
As a Junior Fellow with the Veterans History Project, my primary goal has been to increase the discoverability of our World War I collections. To this end, my project partner, Justina Moloney, and I were assigned to develop biographical and descriptive information on several of these collections. The end goal is to create a digital tool, a finding aid, for greater accessibility and discoverability of the collections. The following paragraphs will provide snippets of reunions or “coming home” moments for several World War I veterans, and highlight the impact early transportation and communication technology had on these veterans. They each present a unique insight into the war and America from 1917 to1919.
Portrait of Ewing Miller in uniform, Ewing Harry Miller Collection (AFC/2001/001/104012), Veterans History Project, American Folklife Center, Library of Congress.
Ewing Harry Miller served in the U.S. Army from 1917 to 1919. Originally from Terre Haute, Indiana, Miller completed basic training at Camp Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, before moving to Camp Funston, Kansas. In February 1918, Miller was assigned to Camp Morrison, Virginia, an embarkation base for the U.S. Army. By early March 1918, Miller and the rest of the 481^st Construction Squadron set sail for France, where he would remain until July 1919. Miller maintained a diary throughout his service, and before he left for France, documented a surprise visit to his brother, Warren.
The surprise of my life came Sat after writing in this book, when the captain real casually told us we could go home after this over Sat & Sunday. Sanford & I promptly took advantage & ran for the station where we luckily caught a train immediately. When I arrived in T. Haute it was dark as could be 1 o’clock & I went out to Warrens & scared them with a midnight call. My Sunday was most enjoyable & the food & warmth were an inspiration.
Interestingly, VHP has another Ewing Miller collection in the archive. He served during WWII, and just so happens to be this veteran’s son and namesake. Ewing Miller, II’s collection is here.
Portrait of Peter Shemonsky in uniform, Peter Shemonsky Collection (AFC/2001/001/38915), Veterans History Project, American Folklife Center, Library of Congress.
Peter Shemonsky was born in West Prussia, Germany, in 1878. After immigrating to the United States, he enlisted in the United States Army in 1898. Serving during the Spanish-American War and World War I, Shemonsky was stationed in all parts of the world including The Philippines, Puerto Rico, Texas, Massachusetts and Kentucky. The letters he wrote while in The Philippines increasingly tell of his desire to return to the United States and his wife. Their only form of communication was correspondence. After three years in The Philippines, he was able to see his wife, Olga, in California. Unfortunately, the logistics involved in coordinating a smooth reunion presented setbacks. Shemonsky returned from The Philippines through Angel Island, California. His wife lived in Connecticut. Shemonsky wrote on April 21, 1914 to Olga as he waited for her on the island. He expressed his frustrations towards bureaucracy, and their delay in seeing one another.
Here I have been since the 11^th of April and have not yet received any orders. I telegraphed to you the other day and I was in hopes that orders would be in any day and than [sic] I would let you know where to come. However I am still in the dark hanging around Frisco and this island and you can bet there is no plasure [sic] here for me (especially without you) as I have had my mind made up to meet you so soon.
Edward Loudenbeck was a farmer through and through. Born in rural Iowa, he spent the vast majority of his life in Michigan. He was drafted in the U.S. Army, and reported on September 21, 1917. In addition to keeping a very detailed diary, he corresponded with his two sisters, a brother, and other family on a continuous basis. In early 1919, Loudenbeck expressed his eagerness to return to the United States after nearly two years of service. By this time, he was with the Occupation Forces in Germany. He wrote to his sister on May 17, 1919:
The world is using me fine now and I [sic] feeling happy too for we are to start back to the good old U.S.A. and will be on our way long before this reaches you…Happy! Why shouldn’t I be for I want to get home and see you all so much. We have had to wait OH! so long now our turn is coming seems I can’t hold myself.
Unfortunately, problems confirming the Treaty of Versailles delayed his return. As a member of the Army of Occupation, Loudenbeck remained in Germany in case war was to be declared again. He wrote to his sister again on May 23, 1919, from Urbar, Germany.
Having had my mind all set to stay here till July first at the soonest, was agreeably surprised to learn a few days ago we were to set sail by June 7. Happy as could be getting paper work ready, then here comes an order that troop movements are suspended till farther [sic] notice. Say – but the boy [sic] were blue and how we did rage because Fritz didn’t sign Peace so we could have gone on our schedule time.
Loudenbeck finally embarked from Europe on July 25, 1919, and arrived home by train on August 9, 1919.

Frank Van Pelt was born in rural Arkansas and raised on a farm near Newkirk, Oklahoma. He enlisted in the U.S. Army in June 1917. Serving in a radio company, Van Pelt’s duties included listening to German messages sent over radio signals, transcribing the messages, and submitting them to code breakers. He was discharged on April 29, 1919. He wrote in his memoir:
‘Home at Last.’ The first to greet me was Carlo, who came up the hill barking at me. But after smelling me over he recoganized [sic] me and he nearly had a fit, he was so glad to see me.
My experience with the Veterans History Project has been emotionally complex for two reasons: the veterans’ youth, and their homesickness. Nearly all of the men whose collections I worked with were in their twenties when they entered the U.S. Army and left for Europe. Away for the first time, their letters tend to compare what they saw in Europe to life back at home. From their observations on French farming practices, food, religion and family, the reader is made keenly aware of their sadness. Not only were they far from home, they were in a hostile environment filled with disease, lice and death.

In a survey by YouGov.com, only 35% of Americans surveyed knew the year the United States entered World War I. As time moves along, it is important to remember not just the facts and figures, but the perspectives of the veterans who served. Though the last American World War I veteran died in 2011, surviving written materials provide an emotional connection between 1917 and 2017.