Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner is refusing to apologize after resurfaced online posts appeared to show him mocking a Purple Heart recipient who was almost killed in a firefight with the Taliban. Platner was confronted near his home in Sullivan, Maine, and asked whether he regretted a since-deleted Reddit post in which he said wounded Army veteran Ted Daniels “didn’t deserve to live,” according to Fox News. Platner initially refused to answer directly before attempting to defend his own military record, referring to the accusations as “slanderous and offensive.” “I did four tours in the infantry, any attempt to say that I disrespect veterans is slanderous and offensive,” Platner responded. The outlet asked Platner if he owed Daniels an apology. The Democratic candidate remained defiant, saying, “Do you know how many of my friends have Purple Hearts? Do you know how many of my friends got wounded? Yeah, a lot of them, thank you.” The post, written in 2019, was a brutal takedown of a viral video from the helmet-cam of Pfc. Ted Daniels, during a 2012 firefight with the Taliban, The Daily Wire previously reported. Daniels received a Purple Heart after being shot four times during that firefight — but Platner argued in a post attributed to his old account, “P-hustle,” that Daniels did not “deserve to live” because he’d made “sh*t” decisions in combat. “This video never gets old,” the commentary began. “Dumb motherf*cker didn’t deserve to live. At least his stupidity and fat-*ss wheezing are available for all future infantrymen to witness and hold in contempt. Poor marksmanship on the Taliban’s part is the only reason this mouth breather made it home, he managed to make every possible sh*t decision possible when it comes to small unit combat.” The Platner’s comments have received significant backlash. He is currently backed by progressive Democrats, including Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Veterans groups, Republican officials, and former military servicemembers have condemned his comments, Fox News reported.

Let’s just get right into it: if you clicked on this piece, we’re on the same page. You don’t need me to explain that Hollywood keeps pumping out moralizing slop for blue hairs and wine moms. You don’t need me to explain why that’s both boring and dangerous. But if you’re here, you might need some suggestions for your next binge. I’m happy to help. But first, a few caveats. I’m not including classic TV shows like “The Waltons” or “Father Knows Best.” These shows are obviously not woke, so putting them on this list would be like putting a hospital chapel on a list of worst first date spots. I’m also not including “24” or “Band of Brothers” because I know you’ve already seen them. Nor am I listing game shows or singing competitions or professional sports, all of which are inherently apolitical — although maybe not so much anymore with the NFL. Finally, just because these shows are not woke doesn’t mean they are explicitly conservative. Some of them have jokes about Republicans, and pretty much all of their stars and creators are huge liberals — we’re talking about Hollywood, after all. I acknowledge that, but still think these shows are great. Consider yourself warned. Landman You had to know this would be on the list. Billy Bob Thornton stars as a Texas oilman battling Mexican cartels and environmental regulators while looking out for his wife and daughter and guzzling Dr. Pepper. His character, Tommy Norris, is proudly not politically correct, loves smoking cigarettes, and is vigilant about his sobriety — although Michelob Ultra doesn’t count. “Landman” is, like all properties in “Yellowstone” creator Taylor Sheridan’s ever-expanding universe, a show by, for, and about real Americans. The Man In The High Castle This Amazon Prime show imagines a world where the Axis Powers won World War II, and the Nazis and Imperial Japanese divide up the United States. Nothing reminds you of the essential role America has played in defending freedom more than imagining a world where Washington, D.C. is a nuclear crater, and Swastikas fly in Times Square. Rufus Sewell delivers the performance of a lifetime as Obergruppenführer John Smith, an all-American man turned high-ranking Nazi official, whose rejection of his heritage and embrace of fascism slowly eats away at his family and his conscience. Frasier The “Cheers” spinoff stars (prominent conservative!) Kelsey Grammer as Dr. Frasier Crane, a snobby but lovable psychiatrist putting his life back together after a divorce. Sophisticated and smart but never condescending or preachy, watching “Frasier” is like spending an evening in a more civilized time. And while vulgarity was not a dealbreaker for placement on this list — looking at you, Taylor Sheridan — ”Frasier” is refreshingly genteel, devoid of profanity and bluster. 30 Rock Tina Fey’s sendup of “Saturday Night Live” is the greatest sitcom of the 21st century for a number of reasons, but two in particular landed it on this list. The first is Alec Baldwin’s scotch-swilling, hippie-hating, Republican-boosting titan of industry, Jack Donaghy. Is this character a liberal’s caricature of a conservative? Yes. Does that change the fact that he is the show’s indisputable moral compass? No. This brings us to the second thing that makes this show borderline conservative: it’s a seven-season story of one woman’s quest to get married and have children. Liz Lemon (Fey) begins the show as a single, quirky artist who loves feminism and living alone in a crappy apartment. Ultimately, with Jack forcing her to be honest with herself, she finds love, has kids, and achieves financial success. It’s the best defense of bourgeois morality since “Democracy in America.” Silo Another dystopian drama that highlights the blessings of liberty by imagining a world where it has disappeared. “Silo” is, literally, about a silo: a massive underground bunker where the last remnants of humanity live under the thumb of a merciless surveillance state. Our protagonists don’t know why the silo was built or what happened to the world outside, only that they can’t leave. But even in this hermetically sealed environment, people yearn for truth and freedom — and that yearning has consequences. An aside: if you, like Daily Wire editor-in-chief Brent Scher, find yourself “bored as hell” two episodes into “Silo,” try “Paradise.” Similar concept, way more action, and significantly less depressing. Gilmore Girls This isn’t the most conservative show of all time, but it’s definitely the most pro-life. The entire premise hinges on the notion that a freewheeling bad girl chooses not to abort her unplanned teenage pregnancy, and instead throws herself into becoming a mom. Having children is always portrayed as an unalloyed good in “Gilmore Girls,” and essentially every female character has a motherhood arc. But “Gilmore Girls” is also about the value of classical education, the importance of local government, and the virtues of masculinity. The show’s universe also operates on a pretty old-school moral code: good deeds are rewarded, and bad deeds are punished. Bonus points because this show appeals to all ages and genders — something you can’t really say for “Band of Brothers.” Derry Girls That’s right, more girls! Set in Ireland in the 1990s, “Derry Girls” follows a group of high school friends working their way through adolescence in the midst of The Troubles. Though it’s clear that the girls’ lives are shaped by the turmoil of Northern Ireland, they never talk about politics — they’re just regular teenagers. They spend most of their time trying to pull one over on their parents or Sister Michael, the fantastically droll headmistress of their school. “Derry Girls” is funny and poignant, and maybe the best depiction of cultural Catholicism ever put on television. The only downside is that it’s a BBC show, which means there are only 19 episodes across three seasons. The British really do ruin everything. For All Mankind What if the Russians beat us to the moon by just a few days? That’s the premise of “For All Mankind,” a sprawling alternate history of the United States from 1969 on. The first few seasons of this show are like “The Right Stuff” on steroids: riskier space missions, interstellar gunfights with the Soviets, you name it. As we get closer to the present, things get admittedly squishier: there’s a strong implication that increased government funding of science can end racism, for instance. But even as the generations change, the OG astronauts remain on the scene to warn about the dangers of “progress” and remind everyone that the Soviets are evil. You’ll want to watch this one with an ice-cold can of Schlitz. The Righteous Gemstones A profane parody of a megachurch pastor and his family may not seem like it belongs on this list, but bear with me. Creator Danny McBride, who also stars as the eldest Gemstone child, clearly knows and loves the type of people he’s poking fun at. And so while the Gemstones are greedy and selfish and over-the-top, deep down they’re good. More importantly, the patriarch pastor, Eli (played to perfection by John Goodman), is never suggested to be lying about his beliefs. “The Righteous Gemstones” respects and takes the Christian faith seriously, even as it mocks it. And the characters grow over time, learning to become better parents, children, and, ultimately, Christians. That’s a pretty remarkable thing in today’s media landscape. Plus, Walton Goggins’s performance as the Gemstone kids’ uncle, Baby Billy Freeman, is one for the record books. Girls Relax, I’m kidding! Lena Dunham is the worst. Here, watch this “Frasier” joke that’s so un-PC it would get a show canceled today.

This piece is part of MI x DW, a collaboration that brings Daily Wire readers exclusive commentary and research from the Manhattan Institute’s world-class team of scholars. Since 2016, governments, media, and tech companies have warned about online disinformation targeting adults. Far less attention has been paid to the information tools increasingly shaping children, even as such “kid-safe” platforms become more embedded into the internet’s trust infrastructure. One significant child-focused platform, Kiddle, delivers a striking pattern of geopolitical and ideological framing that softens authoritarian regimes and extremist movements while presenting itself as a trusted educational resource. Foreign terrorist organizations, like Hamas and Hezbollah, are whitewashed. Russia’s war on Ukraine is downgraded to a “military operation,” mirroring Kremlin language, while Joseph Stalin’s role in Russian history is reduced to his success in building a “strong, modern nation.” Launched in 2014, Kiddle, which bills itself as a visual search engine for kids, appears prominently in Google searches, often ranking near the top of results. When asked for child-safe educational resources, ChatGPT recommended Kiddle alongside legacy institutions like Encyclopædia Britannica, World Book, National Geographic, and the Smithsonian. While it boasts far less traffic than other search engines, Kiddle’s role in information infrastructure gives it outsize influence, as schools, libraries, and even PTAs link to the site. The International Society for Technology in Education (ITSE), an association with 100,000 education stakeholders, recommends Kiddle on its website, noting that “results are vetted by editors.” The top referrer of traffic to Kiddle in early 2026 was DiscoveryK12, an online homeschool curriculum. Yet the content is less kid-friendly than expected. The platform’s article on Vladimir Putin, for example, offers a softened portrayal of the Russian president. Putin is presented as a peacemaker who is “known for ending the Second Chechen War.” When it comes to Putin’s successive wars of territorial conquest, Kiddle users learn only that under Putin, Russia “took control of Crimea” and “supported a war in eastern Ukraine.” While the need to present information to children in simple language can be appreciated, this characterization is jarringly at odds with nearly a decade of horrific warfare. “Hamas facts for kids” informs young readers that “Hamas grew out of an Islamic charity” and supports “Palestinian nationalism,” meaning that it “believe[s] in the idea of a Palestinian nation.” Kiddle says that the U.S.-designated terrorist group’s “fight is with Zionists.” The word “terrorist” is mentioned just once, at the bottom of the article. Former Hamas leader and October 7 planner Yahya Sinwar is portrayed as a “very important leader” who “said he wanted to work for ‘peaceful, popular resistance’ against the Israeli presence.” Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, meanwhile, is “a special part of Iran’s military” whose goal is to “protect the Islamic Revolution.” Curious kids will also learn that the IRGC “work[s] to keep the country stable.” The late Ayatollah Khamenei, Kiddle claims, “supported Iran’s nuclear program for peaceful uses.” He was also a “strong supporter of the Persian language” with a penchant for poetry. No mention is made of the 2025-2026 protests during which state forces — acting at Khamenei’s direction — killed around 30,000 civilians. Occasionally, a Russo- and Sino-centric view of key conflicts and figures shines through. “Hassan Nasrallah facts for kids” acknowledges that Hezbollah has been designated a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union, but it notes that “some countries like Russia and China have different views.” Kiddle even clarifies that Russia considers Hezbollah a “legal social and political organization.” “Uyghur people facts for kids” makes no mention of the genocide against China’s Muslim minority ethnic group, Chinese state-run concentration camps, or any of the abuses committed against these people. In a similar vein, the article on the Wuhan Institute of Virology leaves out the most important single fact about the center: it is considered the likely origin point of COVID-19. Despite positioning itself as a trusted educational resource for children, Kiddle reveals almost nothing about who controls its platform or how its editorial decisions are made. The site publicly identifies no editors, no leadership team, no ownership entity, and no meaningful editorial standards governing politically sensitive material presented to children. Ownership is obscured behind a U.S.-based privacy proxy. Kiddle does not disclose its founders, does not claim nonprofit status, and provides no public explanation of its governance structure despite operating as a heavily trafficked educational platform embedded across American schools and libraries. The site’s Google-adjacent branding makes understanding the nature of the platform much more difficult. Its search bar features the Google logo with the term “Custom Search.” In 2016, EdTech Magazine reported that while Kiddle was not affiliated with the search giant, its results “are powered by Google, tailored to the needs of kids.” The site’s name seems like a reference to Google, and its primary-color-heavy logo is a distinct echo of the search giant. Schools, libraries, educational blogs, and even professional educational organizations have repeatedly described Kiddle as a Google product or as “developed by Google.” Kiddle’s privacy policy states that the platform uses cookies “to personalize content and ads” and shares user information with advertising and analytics partners. That language raises a red flag concerning Google’s own advertising protections around child-directed services, which expressly forbid cookies that personalize ads. When I tested the site, Kiddle served children ads for cybersecurity threat reports, shopping extensions, mobile phone plans, steroid-related supplements, Robux acquisition guides, and other commercial content unrelated to education. Some ads solicited personal information directly through lead-generation forms — a clear violation of Google’s child-protection-related privacy policies. (Neither Kiddle nor Google responded to a request for comment for this article.) A 2016 investigation by EdSurge suggested that Russian-born entrepreneur Vladislav Golunov—previously associated with the search engine Lukol—may be the site’s creator. But a decade later, we still don’t know who owns, operates, or oversees the site. Kiddle has plans to expand into AI, with a new website, kiddle.ai, already live. Branded as “AI for kids,” the product is scheduled for release in July. DNS and hosting records show overlap between kiddle.ai and a subdomain, deepseek.kiddle.co, which references the Chinese AI company DeepSeek. While the exact relationship remains unclear, the appearance of Chinese AI branding alongside an opaque educational search platform with unknown ownership structures and problematic content raises further questions about who is building systems designed to engage kids at an important inflection point in the history of digital information. None of this establishes definitively that Kiddle has a relationship with America’s enemies. But it does underscore how little transparency exists around a platform increasingly trusted to mediate information for children. A search engine recommended by schools, surfaced by Google, and cited by AI systems operates with no publicly known editors, no disclosed governance structure, and no meaningful public accountability. That combination — institutional trust, opaque control, ideological framing, child targeting, AI amplification, and hidden governance — is what makes Kiddle more than just another strange corner of the internet. The platform has quietly embedded itself into the infrastructure through which children learn about war, politics, terrorism, and history. And almost nobody appears to know who is shaping that information, how those decisions are made, or whose interests it serves. *** This is republished with permission from the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal. The original can be found here. Ashley Rindsberg is an investigative journalist and founder of NPOV.

This article is part of Upstream, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you. *** Leave it to people on the internet to complain about even the most innocuous things. One X user snarked last week that a woman she “went to school with” is “trying to be a Raleigh, North Carolina influencer.” That tweet went mega-viral, with over 24 million views and tens of thousands of likes. The point of the tweet was obviously mockery, but about what, exactly? That the young woman grew up in a Raleigh suburb and still lives in the area? That she’s conventionally attractive and stylish without the edge of a jaded Brooklynite? That it’s embarrassing to try to be an influencer from somewhere as obscure as the capital city of a Southern state? “When I saw it, I was like, ‘What in the world?’” Bayleigh Adams, the subject of the viral tweet, told The Daily Wire. “I don’t know if she was being mean towards me specifically, or just like the idea of somebody doing it in Raleigh, who knows?” Bayleigh said she started posting about local events on her TikTok account just in the past few months, gathering several thousand followers for her posts on the goings-on in North Carolina’s second most populous city. She says she knew of the woman who tweeted about her, but they had never even had a conversation. Nevertheless, the publicity was good news for her page. “Ever since that tweet, it’s done a lot better,” she says. Not everyone who exists publicly online aspires to Kardashian levels of fame, nor should she. Micro-influencers across the country keep countless people apprised of fun happenings in their neighborhoods and cities. Without them, we’d miss out on farmers’ markets, art fairs, happy hours, and plenty of community events. Whereas people once found out about upcoming events in the paper, today they hear about them on Instagram and TikTok. “I feel like Raleigh has started becoming a more up-and-coming city,” Bayleigh says. “We’re getting new trending restaurants and bars and more things to do where it used to be kind of the same old things, so I’ve just been trying to promote that.” “I really enjoy doing things in general,” she adds. “If anything, this has made me step out of my comfort zone with doing the same activities, and it’s making me try new places and do new things. And hopefully it’s helping other people find some things to do too.” The post that went viral listed several events happening that upcoming weekend. If you were in Raleigh earlier this month, you might’ve wanted to watch “Beauty and the Beast” by the Carolina Ballet, shop at a night market, or chow down at a food truck festival.  After Bayleigh went viral, many onlookers rushed to her defense. “[T]his is such a hating *ss post I had to find her and follow,” one person said. “Bayleigh from Rayleigh got a ring to it!”  Bayleigh herself took it in stride, posting to her TikTok, “[By the way] I’ve never even had a conversation [with] that girl from my high school, but [thanks] for the support girlie… anyways follow along for things to do in Raleigh.” @bayleighadams Thx gf! #raleigh #thingstodoinraleigh ♬ original sound – Ian Asher News of the viral drama went all the way to the governor’s mansion, where Bayleigh herself was invited to a wine-tasting event with other content creators — via DM from the governor’s account. Everyday viewers have also reached out, Bayleigh says, to thank her for sharing businesses and events that they’ve tried out themselves. It can be embarrassing to post videos of yourself, Bayleigh admits. But that’s no reason not to do it.  “At the end of the day, I think that the success that you want to have, it’s not going to happen by just sitting around. You have to actually do it,” she says. “If this is something you want to do and you want to post or whatever it is, you shouldn’t worry about what anybody says. There can be a thousand positive comments and you’re gonna have somebody that is gonna give you a hate comment or somebody that’s gonna make fun of you. And, honestly, who cares?” Gen Z’s aloof, irony-poisoned attitude may finally be giving way to something more earnest. Or, at least, more people are embracing the mantra, let people enjoy things. If anything, people need more reasons to leave their living rooms and meet up with their neighbors. Bayleigh is looking forward to trying a new cocktail bar and posting a video, which can take the edge off trying a new place for some viewers. “Those sorts of things help too because I know when I’m going somewhere I want to see the vibe,” she says. What are people wearing? What should you expect? “So I think that’s helpful too, and a lot of people seem to think that as well.” “Obviously people are loving it,” Bayleigh says, “so I’ll keep doing it.”

Editor’s note: This is the last of a four-part weekend series on the hunt for the Bismarck, coming up on its 85th anniversary this month. When the last of Ark Royal’s Swordfish plopped onto the tossing flight deck, their rain-soaked crews believed they’d scored no hits. At least none they could see. Yet something strange was happening. Bismarck had suddenly begun steering away from France. But why? Watching the air attack from a healthy distance, Sheffield’s lookouts reported what may have been the most consequential torpedo hit of the war. One said: “There was a big column of water, briefly dull red, at [Bismarck’s] base near the stern.” For the Germans, the torpedo had struck in the worst possible place. Though well-protected, trials revealed Bismarck had an Achilles heel: she could not steer using propellers alone. Without her rudder, she was uncontrollable. And now the rudder was jammed, frozen in place by the stern torpedo blast while the battleship was maneuvering to evade the incoming attack. Locked into a 12-degree turn to port, Bismarck began veering away from France in a helpless circle while damage-control crews repeatedly dove into flooded compartments trying to free the frozen rudder as if their lives depended on it — which they did. Sub-Lieutenant Ludovic Kennedy, serving aboard destroyer HMS Tartar, remembered: “We didn’t know what happened…all we knew was [Bismarck] was steering in our direction. And there was a feeling of tremendous exultation…she’d been delivered into our hands.” After hours of futile effort, it became grimly clear to Bismarck’s crew that her rudder could not be freed. Unable to steer, the situation was hopeless. Just 350 miles from Brest, a single torpedo from a slow biplane nicknamed the “stringbag” had delivered Hitler’s mightiest warship to the Royal Navy. And they were out for blood. Throughout the night of May 26-27, Tovey’s converging forces closed in on their helplessly circling prey, who would be in range by sunrise. The German crew knew exactly what awaited them at dawn. The Royal Navy would surround their crippled ship like a firing squad and blast her to pieces. Tension aboard Bismarck was palpable. Many of the crew simply wanted it over with. They knew their time was up when Lindemann told the men to help themselves to anything in the galley. Lütjens admitted as much when he radioed the fleet: SHIP UNMANUEVERABLE. WILL FIGHT TO THE LAST SHELL. LONG LIVE THE FÜHRER. During the night, messages arrived from Berlin promising help, but the men knew otherwise. Another announced gunnery officer, Adalbert Schneider, was awarded the Knight’s Cross for sinking Hood. Then came Hitler’s own message, effectively delivering their eulogy: ADOLF HITLER TO CREW OF BISMARCK: ALL GERMANY IS WITH YOU. WHAT CAN BE DONE WILL BE DONE. YOUR PERFORMANCE OF DUTY WILL STRENGTHEN OUR PEOPLE IN THE STRUGGLE FOR ITS DESTINY. Addressing the crew, Lütjens echoed the Führer. “The German people are with you. We will fight until our gun barrels glow red-hot and the last shell has left the barrel. For us seamen, it is a question of victory or death!” It was received in silence. If the admiral hoped to inspire the men, it had the opposite effect by confirming it really was over. Bismarck’s 2,282 men could do nothing now but await execution. One sailor muttered, “Let us think one more time about our home, our wives, our children,” before breaking down in tears. Across Britain, over 1,400 other messages were arriving. In Ringwood, the parents of one sailor aboard Hood received the devastating telegram: REGRET TO REPORT THAT YOUR SON THOMAS JOSEPH BERNARD SAMMARS, BOY FIRST CLASS P/JX 182136 IS MISSING PRESUMED KILLED ON WAR SERVICE. Joseph Sammars was just 16 years old. At 8:43 a.m. on May 27, 1941, the British sighted the huge German battleship over the horizon. Tovey intended to close the range, bring his broadsides to bear, and systematically annihilate the crippled enemy. Remembering Hood, he ordered Renown to remain clear. Prince of Wales had already been dispatched home for repairs, her crew still unaware how decisive their earlier hits had been. Leading the attack was King George V, supported by the 45,000-ton battleship Rodney. Though older and slower, Rodney mounted nine monstrous 16-inch guns, making her the most heavily armed ship present. Before battle, Rodney’s padre delivered a brief prayer that captured the mood of thousands of sailors on both sides: “Oh God, remember that we will be very busy today. And though we may forget you, please don’t forget us.” At 8:47 Bismarck came within range. Rodney swung her turrets toward the enemy and vanished in what one of her sailors described as “a sea of flame and pall of black smoke” as she unleashed two of her three forward 16-inch batteries. King George V followed with her own 14-inch salvos. Unable to steer, Bismarck was an easy target; the British quickly got the range. Soon a storm of shells tore through her superstructure, including one that obliterated the bridge, likely killing both Lütjens and Lindemann. Bismarck returned fire, but her crews could not aim effectively due to the ship’s erratic movements, and hits disabled her optics, forcing her to fire blind. (Only one near miss against Rodney caused any damage at all.) By 9:30 a.m., all four main turrets had been knocked out, and hundreds of men were dead, among them Germany’s newest Ritterkreuzer Schneider. Machinist Mate Karl-August Schuldt, emerging from the inferno below decks, later recalled the horror awaiting him topside: “The turrets were ripped open like a tulip. I could see inside. Everything was on fire. There were explosions. Twenty, thirty, fifty, a hundred dead, some of them without legs, without arms, without heads.” To Zimmerman, who’d already seen two men ripped in half by a shell right in front of him, the dead strewn across the deck resembled “butchered meat” more than people. With the German guns silenced, Rodney closed to point-blank range and hammered the helpless battleship again and again while King George V stayed farther off to rain plunging fire onto her decks. Norfolk and Dorsetshire closed in, adding their eight-inch guns to the destruction. By battle’s end, the British ships would fire more than 1,800 shells, scoring roughly 400 hits. Yet Bismarck remained afloat, absorbing repeated blows like an exhausted boxer who, though out on his feet, refuses to go down. At 10:10 a.m., Tovey ordered a cease-fire. Bismarck lay dead in the water, witnesses describing her as “on fire from stem to stern.” British sailors watched German crewmen leaping overboard like ants fleeing a collapsing hill. It took three torpedoes from Dorsetshire to finally finish the shattered battleship, though German survivors claimed scuttling charges and opened sea valves had already doomed her. In the end, both sides claimed credit for sinking the Bismarck. At 10:35 a.m., less than two hours after the fight began, Germany’s greatest battleship rolled over and slipped beneath the waves, joining Hood and so many other wrecks at the pitch-black bottom of the Atlantic. Roughly 800 men escaped the sinking ship. Although satisfied they’d avenged Hood and restored national honor, victory brought little joy to the British. A feeling of pity replaced hatred. Lieutenant Commander William Crawford aboard Rodney later reflected: “A gallant ship had gone, and a lot of gallant people had gone, although they were our enemies.” The shivering and oil-soaked Germans clinging to wreckage in the frigid water were no longer mortal foes but fellow seamen in desperate need of rescue. Dorsetshire and the destroyer Maori cautiously entered the debris field and began hauling survivors aboard. Saved Germans would later express gratitude towards the British for their decent, even kind, treatment. But then came the final tragedy. After rescuing 110 men, the British received reports of a nearby U-boat. They had no choice but to flee, leaving hundreds to die a lonely, torturous death in the middle of the open ocean. One captive died of his wounds, while German vessels later recovered five more survivors. Of a total complement of 2,365 (including Lütjens’ staff), 2,251 Germans perished. Jack Austin, a Royal Marine aboard Rodney, contemplated the madness: “We lost a lot of good sailors on the Hood. But there were a lot of good sailors lost in the Bismarck or in the water afterwards. What a waste.” A waste, perhaps, but also a necessity. Had Bismarck been able to return to sea, especially if joined by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau already refitting at Brest, she could have ravaged Britain’s lifeline across the Atlantic. Bismarck had to be destroyed. Yet the manner of her destruction carried even greater significance. Slow carrier aircraft had crippled Europe’s most formidable battleship and rendered her helpless before the guns arrived. The five-day running engagement over 1,700 miles of ocean marked the swan song of the big-gunned battlewagon. Just six months later, Japanese carrier aircraft would devastate the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. Three days after that, Prince of Wales and Repulse would be sunk off Malaya by land-based Japanese bombers, taking Captain Leach to his watery grave. Even Tirpitz, Bismarck’s sister ship, would eventually succumb to air power. As would the eventual largest battleships of them all, the 72,000-ton IJN Yamato and Musashi. Thus did the destruction of Bismarck help close the curtain on one of the most iconic chapters in naval warfare. When one German survivor was hauled aboard Dorsetshire, he reportedly warned his captors with eerie foresight: “Today us. Tomorrow you.” Dorsetshire herself would indeed be sunk by Japanese carrier aircraft barely a year later. The age of naval air power had arrived. And though Bismarck’s brief reign of terror was over, a wider war at sea was just beginning. *** Brad Schaeffer is a commodities fund manager, author, and columnist whose articles have appeared on the pages of The Wall Street Journal, NY Post, NY Daily News, The Daily Wire, National Review, The Hill, The Federalist, Zerohedge, and other outlets. He is the author of three books. You can also follow him on Substack and X. His latest book, A War For Half The World: Why the Real Battle for the Future was Fought in the Pacific, will be released in February 2027.