Skip to main content

The Ride of BALDWIN of Albany, part 1


Don Martin developed a following through his vivid war stories. Here is an example, which the New York Herald featured on the front page of its Magazine section in the Sunday edition of October 13, 1918, shortly after Don Martin's death on October 7 in Paris of Spanish influenza.
RAT-TAT-TAT!   RAT-TAT-TAT-TAT!” sang the German machine guns. The Yankee soldier who had been peering over the top of the American trench across the Vesle River tumbled back into the arms of his comrades. Just above the brim of his helmet was a tiny hole.
Rat-tat tat! Rat-tat-tat!” chuckled the Hun machine guns. 
The company commander swore; the soldiers muttered curses against those carefully hidden machine gun nests. Some of them gathered in the doorway of the dugout into which had been carried the soldier’s body. They were brushed aside by a physician, who took one look at the khaki clad young figure stretched on a rude table. He hardly examined the form. What was the use? In the centre of the white forehead of that upturned young face was a blot of scarlet. 
One of the soldier lads, looking down into the dugout from its doorway, was weeping. He was quite a young soldier, that American, and war was very new to him. The dead man had been his closest friend. Other soldiers, although more calloused to death, respected his tears. Some of them had been in the trenches for months. Another man’s head drilled by a machine gun bullet? Well, this was war. What could one expect? 
One of them mounted his helmet on his bayonet and cautiously stuck it above the trench top.
Rat-tat-tat! Rat-tat-tat-tat!” chanted the German machine gun. 
Darn” said the soldier.
Makes the third helmet they’ve bored this morning,” nodded another Yankee, leaning on his rifle. “Two of the helmets had heads in ‘em. Those boches have the range, the aim, and we can’t seem to locate the nests. Say, what did you want to spoil your new tin hat for? You knew they’d get it.”
When’s the artillery going to get busy?” asked he of the ill-fated helmet.
When they get the location of those Hum batteries and machine guns,” answered the other. 
And when’ll that be?”
When the cavalry or sharpshooters find out.” 
Down in the dugout the company commander was growling an order to his orderly at the telephone.
Send it in code,” he said, “the Huns may have tapped our wires. Say that half a dozen machine gun nests have us tied up in the trenches here. Tell them that unless the location of the Hun batteries is given our artillery, we’re going to lose more men.”
Half an hour later a runner dashed up to a cavalry captain surrounded by his troop, far back of the American lines. As he read the captain straightened in his saddle. Then his eyes flashed as they swept his detachment. 
Companeee, Atten-shun!” he commanded. “Men,” he continued, “a bunch of machine gun nests, north of the Yankee lines across the river, is worrying our boys a lot. Our artillery lacks the location of the Hun batteries. Volunteers wanted to spy out those nests.” 
Lieutenant W. R. Baldwin, whose home is at No. 291 Lark street, Albany, N. Y., spurred his mount forward. Behind him came half a dozen troopers. Young men they were, men who a few months past looked eagerly upon life as a glorious thing, well worth the living. Now they were volunteering for the performance of the deadliest of missions. They felt that some of them would never come back, but what of that? Volunteers were wanted, and was it not the duty of Americans to volunteer when came the call?
Lieutenant Baldwin was placed in command of the little detachment of men willing to ride with death to aid the American infantry. He dismounted, tightened his saddle girth and saw to his pistol and carbine. He saw that his men carefully imitated him, too, and then he swung into his saddle. His captain was watching, pride in his eyes. Baldwin and his men saluted and there burst a cheer from the troopers left behind. Then away cantered the volunteers, spurs and bridles jingling, saddles creaking, the morning sunlight flashing, glinting from rifles and sabers.
To be continued tomorrow.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

‘New war with Israel at any moment’, ‘still digging through rubble’

The news about Iran has taken an ominous tone in the last couple days. Here is some reporting and commentary.  Newsweek on August 18, 2025, reported that Yahya Rahim Safavi, senior military adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, said ‘ We are not in a ceasefire; we are in a stage of war. No protocol, regulation, or agreement has been written between us and the U.S. or Israel. A new war with Israel could break out at any moment .’  Yonah Jeremy Bob commented in The Jerusalem Post on August 19, 2025, that ‘ Khamenei can either “drink from the poisoned chalice” of diplomatic concessions … or face more airstrikes, possibly next time some targeting him directly ’.   Bob also noted that ‘ right now Iran is still digging through rubbl e’. The U.S. attacked Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan on June 22. Two months of digging. No surprise that there has been no public news about that.

Assessing possible outcomes of the snapback mechanism

The initiation by the E3 of the 30-day snapback mechanism in the UN Security Council makes everything more difficult and there is great uncertainty about the outcome. Will it be peaceful with a new nuclear deal with Iran, negotiated by the U.S., endorsed by the UNSC and verified by IAEA, or will Iran withdraw from NPT with further military action by Israel and the U.S.?                 To perhaps shed a little light on what the outcome will be, here is my analysis of how the players - Iran, U.S. and E3 - may be assessing the acceptability of the range of outcomes. Four levels of acceptability were used: 1 Fully acceptable; 2 Less acceptable; 3 Just acceptable; and 4 Not acceptable. Four near term 30-day outcomes are listed, and two optimistic outcomes with an interim U.S.-Iran agreement reached within a 6-month extension.                 For the 30-day near term, the best outcome would b...

‘Making nuclear fuel’ under the NPT

It is with some hesitation that I take issue with the latest publication of the renowned Henry Sokolski and Sharon Squassoni on August 15 in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, titled: “ Actually, the NPT doesn’t guarantee a right to make nuclear fuel .”  But someone should defend the IAEA and international safeguards! Here are points in question.            ‘ The [NPT] treaty was designed to prevent dangerous bombmaking activitie s.’  NPT is far more complex than that. It is common to state the three pillars of NPT: nuclear disarmament; nuclear nonproliferation; and peaceful uses of nuclear technology. Nonproliferation involves the commitment of non-nuclear states not to pursue nuclear weapons and to accept IAEA inspection to confirm that commitment is being followed. Perhaps Sokolsky intends to refer to INFCIRC/153, which lays out how IAEA and the state cooperate to carry out that confirmation. If so, INFCIRC/153 is not designed to ‘prevent’...