IKE AND WINSTON: WORLD WAR, COLD WAR, AN EXTRAORDINARY FRIENDSHIP by Jonathan W. Jordan

June 25, 2026June 25, 2026szfreiberger Biography, Uncategorized, World War II Leave a comment

(Churchill and Eisenhower)

Jonathan W. Jordan has written a superbly blended dual biography of Dwight D. Eisenhower and Winston S. Churchill entitled IKE AND WINSTON:WORLD WAR, COLD WAR, AN EXTRAORDINARY FRIENDSHIP. He focuses on their relationship from the time they met in 1941 carrying through World War II and the Cold War. It is carefully researched and written for the general reader rather than the professional historian as there is little that is new, though to the author’s credit he highlights the most important components of their relationship. The monograph explores their enduring and complex relationship as disagreements abounded, but they always seemed to come together exhibiting a genuine respect for each other. The differences center on their backgrounds as Eisenhower was an amiable man from the Midwest, Abilene, Kansas who could also exhibit a cold and ruthless drive to achieve his goals which could be hidden by genial facial expressions. Churchill, on the other hand, was a charismatic aristocrat who often came across as a 19^th century figure as he did his best to preserve the British Empire. Despite differences in approach to war and diplomacy they worked closely together to defeat Nazism and deal with the crisis that emanated from the Cold War, but in all cases they seem to have their own agendas.

At the outset Churchill held the upper hand as Prime Minister of England as a wartime leader who held his country together in its darkest moments fighting Nazi Germany. Eisenhower was a career military officer who worked his way up the bureaucratic chain of command behind a desk and never held a military command. As World War II evolved their positions in the hierarchy of power and influence shifted dramatically as Churchill became more dependent on the United States to defeat Nazism, and Eisenhower with the support of General George C. Marshall became the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe who developed the ability to say no to Churchill’s whims and desires. At times there was great tension between the two particularly over Eisenhower’s refusal to kowtow to Churchill’s wishes in Greece as the Prime Minister believed Eisenhower owed him deference because of his previous support for the general. They would also come to larger heads over planning for an invasion of France to create a two front war and how to approach Russia as it conquered Eastern Europe as its army moved west.

Jordan delves into the bureaucratic machinations associated with Operation Overlord, the Normandy invasion deftly as Eisenhower wanted to use a bombing campaign near the beaches to block any German reinforcements in the area. Eisenhower wanted to make the landings as safe as possible by preventing the Nazis from strengthening their positions in the area. The problem was the thousands of French citizens who would be collateral damage which Churchill refused to agree to fearing for the postwar hatred of the French toward England. Jordan presents the different personalities and arguments accurately as Churchill unhappily gave in to Eisenhower who was willing to sacrifice French lives to save the lives of American soldiers to win the war. His view was clear – if the bombing did not take place even more French citizens would be killed by the Germans. As the debate unfolded Eisenhower was dumbfounded by Churchill’s opposition.

(George C.Marshall, Field Marshal Sir John Dill, Churchill, and Secretary of War Henry Stimson viewing airborne training at Fort Bragg, NC).

Throughout IKE AND WINSTON Jordan pits “Winston the romantic against Ike the realist.” Eventually Churchill would admit a grudging respect for Eisenhower, recognizing he possessed “a great creative, constructive and combining genius.” However, Churchill was often angered and puzzled over Eisenhower’s analytical coldness in his decision making. Eisenhower’s refusal to take the Greek Island of Rhodes in 1943 facilitating Churchill’s overall view of the Balkans was a case in point as Eisenhower viewed it as a distraction and unnecessarily as it withdrew troop strength from Italy.

Jordan should be commended for his ability to describe the private lives of his two main characters, their numerous meetings and conversations, and their overall opinions of each other. He takes the reader inside their relationship providing a greater understanding as to how they interacted and reached the decisions they did. Many insights are offered as at first Eisenhower would develop exceptional physical and intellectual stamina to keep up with Churchill whose daily schedule was the opposite of most people. As the war progressed and Churchill began to realize that the United States might take over Britain’s preeminent position in the world he needed a voice to influence Roosevelt and Marshall, and that would be Eisenhower. An interesting insight is offered as Churchill believed Eisenhower was out of his depth in dealing with the French be its Generals Henri Giroud, Francois Darlan, and Charles De Gaulle in 1942, so he sent Harold MacMillan to advise Eisenhower and steer him the right way. If we fast forward to the Suez Crisis of 1956 it would be Eisenhower who would help install MacMillan as English Prime Minister after the failures of Anthony Eden. From the time Churchill sent MacMillan to be at Eisenhower’s side in 1942, the two men would develop a strong friendship.

World War II produced a number of outsized personalities Eisenhower had to deal with aside from Churchill. Chief among them was Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery whose ego knew no bounds. Montgomery believed that he should be in charge of all land forces in Europe and was not shy about complaining to Churchill and others that he was not. Once the Ardennes Forest (Battle of the Bulge) fiasco took place in December 1944 it provided Montgomery with the fuel to go after Eisenhower’s command once again. His letters and other correspondence with Eisenhower were demeaning and insulting constantly, accusing Eisenhower of “failure.” Eisenhower resented Montgomery’s ill treatment of General Omar T. Bradley and finally read the British general the riot act. Eventually a contrite Montgomery would back off, but he never would change his opinion of the Allied Supreme Commander.

Winston Churchill and Field Marshal Montgomery visiting men of 79th Armoured Division, March 1945

(Winston Churchill and Montgomery visiting 79th Armoured Division after the Rhine crossings, 1945)

In terms of ego, it is hard to discern whose was larger Montgomery or the leader of the French Free forces, General Charles De Gaulle. Eisenhower repeatedly had to deal with disagreements with De Gaulle especially over the French city of Strasbourg. When Eisenhower would not cave to De Gaulle’s wishes the French general threatened that he would pull the First French Army out of the allied fold and fight on its own. Eisenhower had vowed never to shortcut military objectives to please political leaders, and when Eisenhower threatened to cut De Gaulle’s supplies, a compromise was reached.

Jordan argues that the most important disagreement between Eisenhower and Churchill emerged at the end of the war over who should seize the city of Berlin. Churchill wanted to beat the Russians to Berlin and seize as much eastern territory as possible. The issue became a bone of contention when Eisenhower decided to halt his army at the Elbe River. Churchill was fresh from the Yalta Conference, and his distrust of Stalin was growing, fearing for the post-war world. Eisenhower’s viewpoint was purely military, arguing that the most efficient way to finish off the Nazis was to drive through Leipzig and Bavaria. Churchill had no choice but to back off and despite his anger he would defend Eisenhower from criticism from the British Joint Chiefs as no matter how many riffs existed Churchill valued Eisenhower’s friendship and usual support. Despite these feelings Churchill never got over Eisenhower’s Berlin decision as he knew it signaled trouble for the future.

Jordan does not deal with the post war era in as much detail apart from Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech on March 5, 1946, in Fulton, Missouri, and a few other events. He picks up their relationship substantively as Churchill returns to 10 Downing Street on October 26, 1951. He had concerns about Eisenhower in that his supporters for the presidency were bankers, lawyers, and corporate types who were more concerned about money and profits as opposed to military matters. Further, he believed he did not trust John Foster Dulles and his moralistic approach to foreign policy. Lastly, he feared he would not be able to maintain the special relationship with his wartime ally.

The main point of contention between Eisenhower and Churchill would center on the Prime Minister’s obsession with having a summit meeting with the Russian leadership, a recreation of the “Big Three” especially after Stalin died in March 1953 and Eisenhower assumed the presidency. Eisenhower would refuse any summit until the Russians took steps to lessen tensions in Austria and Eastern Europe. When Churchill tried to go it alone and meet with the Chairman of the Soviet Council of Ministers, Georgy Malenkov, Eisenhower rejected his plan. Churchill would blame Dulles for manipulating the President and the two held very low opinions of each other. The idea that Dulles was the most prominent architect of US foreign policy is a misnomer. In my own research for my monograph DAWN OVER SUEZ: THE RISE OF AMERICAN POWER IN THE MIDDLE EAST 1953-1957 documents clearly show that Eisenhower was in charge and at times had to rein in his Secretary of State.

(Sir Anthony Eden)

If there was an area that the two agreed it was over events in Iran. When Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossedegh nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1953 an Anglo-American coup took place as it was feared that Mossadegh was creating inroads for Russia in the region. However, the summit issue with Russia would drive them apart as did Eisenhower’s new approach to defense. “The New Look” would rely less on conventional weapons due to their expense and put the emphasis on covert operations by the CIA and arguing that threats of small nuclear weapons would save money. Churchill was horrified as he believed if it came to a nuclear showdown with Moscow, London would be one of the first Russian targets. The Prime Minister would argue with Eisenhower over the possible use of weapons of mass destruction repeatedly. More and more Eisenhower saw Churchill “as a man past his prime. A cavalier in an atomic age….Winston is a curious mixture of belligerence and caution, sometimes amounting to almost hysterical fear.” Churchill could not accept he had lost his influence over Eisenhower and continued to blame Dulles.

Jordan correctly delves into the ideological split between the two men which rested on the issue of “colonialism.” Eisenhower feared that Moscow was taking advantage by promising to break the chains of old world oppression – chains forged by England and France. To keep Moscow from exploiting populist rage, the United States needed to show support for independence movements and self-determination when speaking in public. England was seen as the epitome of underdeveloped world bullying. The example of Egypt and the Suez Canal reflected this reputation as Egyptian President Gamal Nasser was able to use American pressure on England to agree to the “Heads of Agreement” to gain greater control of the Canal, a topic that Jordan does not discuss in enough detail. As far as French colonialism is concerned, events in Vietnam which produced the disaster at Dienbienphu, and the deterioration of their Algerian colony created hatred for France throughout the underdeveloped world. Eisenhower would have to navigate a public stance of sympathy for colonialist oppression and in private he would engage what Blanche Wessen Cooke argues in her book DECLASSIFIED EISENHOWER being ”the coup president,” as was seen in Iran in 1953 and Guatemala in 1954.

Churchill finally agreed to leave office and turn 10 Downing Street over to his Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden in April 1955. Jordan will recount the Suez Crisis in detail reflecting how Eisenhower refused to go along with the Sevres Agreement whereby England, France, and Israel agreed on a plot to recover the Suez Canal which Nasser had nationalized. Eden believed he would have Eisenhower’s support and twisted their communications to reinforce this pipe dream. Jordan discusses the main aspects of the crisis and the final pressure by Eisenhower that would force the three conspirator countries to withdraw from Egypt by March 1957. What he leaves out is the hypocrisy of the Eisenhower administration which had its own coup planned for Syria at the end of October 1956 the same week the Israeli invasion of Egypt took place. At that point, the coup had to be called off. Further in December 1956 Eisenhower would work behind the scenes for Harold MacMillan to replace Eden as Prime Minister when Eden was visiting Jamaica. Some might call it a coup! It is clear that the US was actively working to replace English domination of the Middle East with American control. With the issuance of the Eisenhower Doctrine in January 1957 which would be first tested in Lebanon the transfer was complete.

In evaluating Jordan’s work, he has produced a wonderful synthesis of the Eisenhower-Churchill relationship, one in which remained a true friendship despite the lack of agreement on a myriad of issues over the years. The book is written in a style that the general reader would enjoy, and I recommend it to anyone who is interested in one of the most important personal relationships of the 20^th century.

Image: Dwight D. Eisenhower and Winston Churchill, 1946

(Churchill and Eisenhower)

THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF SPIES: THE ARCHEOLOGISTS WHO FOUGHT THE NAZIS AND SAVED THE TREASURES OF ANCIENT GREECE by Stephan Talty

June 19, 2026June 19, 2026szfreiberger Uncategorized Leave a comment

(Nazi German flag being raised over Acropolis, 1941.)

Most people with a knowledge of history are aware of the Nazis insatiable appetite to steal and destroy the cultural artifacts of others. Whether we are speaking of the art works stolen from the Louvre in Paris, the personal possessions of Jews, archeological treasures from museums, and a host of other sources the Nazis had to be outsmarted by those who sought to save their countries treasures. A special example of how a group of people made up of archeologists, academics, epigraphers, classists, and other vocations did so in World War II Greece which is wonderfully portrayed in Stephan Talty’s latest book, THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF SPIES: THE ARCHEOLOGISTS WHO FOUGHT THE NAZIS AND SAVED THE TREASURES OF ANCIENT GREECE.

Talty’s monograph is broken into a number of subjects. First, the problem of the relics and how to keep them from the Germans. Second, a useful description of how and where the relics would be hidden and preserved. Third, the recruitment of individuals to serve as agents for the Greek Desk created to oppose Nazi actions. Fourth, the conduct of the missions needed to defeat and block Nazi attempts at destroying relics or shipping them back to Berlin. Fifth, the introduction of the most important individuals, their training, and missions to thwart the likes of Adolf Hitler and Herman Goering as they attempted to seize Greece’s cultural heritage. Sixth, a section on the status of relics following the end of the war.

. (William J. Donovan).

Talty immediately introduces the reader to Rodney Young, the first of many important characters that are developed. Young was an American archeologist, an east coast blue blood and heir to the Ballantine Beer fortune whose mother had a passion for Latin and Greek culture. Young earned a Ph.D from Columbia in the Classics and Archeology. He rejected the life of the “social register” to pursue his chosen field in Athens. He would be based at the American School of Classical Studies in Athens. He would be recruited by OSS head William Donovan to set up a spy ring to thwart the Nazis in Greece. Young would recruit an unusual cadre of people who would be known as “the Greek Desk.”

Once the Germans arrived in Greece many American archeologists returned to the United States as Hitler in particular made plans to seize as many artifacts as possible. The Nazis had taught their followers that Ancient Greece had been built by their own ancestors. The Nazis wanted to curate Athenian ruins and see what they could bring back to Berlin as Hitler and his cohorts were fixated on Ancient Greek artifacts. Hitler believed that the Aryan race had given birth to Ancient Athenian culture. He wrote in MEIN KAMPF that a racial kinship connected Ancient Greeks, Romans, and Nazis in a straight line. Heinrich Himmler, the head of the SS created a German Ancestral Heritage Society and charged scholars to locate the missing links between the “true German culture.” Alfred Rosenberg, Hitler’s racial theorist would order teams of archeologists to central Greece to locate “pre- and post-historic” Germanic and Slavic finds which would prove the connection between Ancient Greece and early Germanic culture. By using what Talty describes as archeological strip mining, the Germans located 10,000 relics which they argued proved the missing links were found.

(This well-known photograph of Rodney Young at Gordion shows him in his excavation “uniform”)

Talty delves into the Greek government’s plan to bury their relics under the National Archeological Museum in Athens. Before he met William Donovan, Rodney Young was one of the volunteers. Fearing a full German invasion the volunteers had to work quickly to bury artifacts in the ground under the museum and throughout the city. In addition, homes, bank vaults ,and air raid shelters were also used. By April 1941, the most important items were taken from the museum which then stood empty which did not make the Nazis happy.

Donovan played a major role in blocking the Germans as he believed that a classic spy network was needed. He was convinced that conventional methods could not alone defeat the Nazis. His plan was to create a series of guerilla units to be drawn from Greek immigrant communities in the United States, train them in sabotage, and have them infiltrate their ancestral homeland. Once Young was chosen he recruited a number of important colleagues. Among the most important were Dorothy Hannah Cox, an excavation architect and numismatist; Jerome Spirling, an archeology professor at Yale with great experience excavating Troy in Turkey; and Jack Caskey, fluent in Greek he spent part of his youth in Athens and was a trained archeologist. Except for Cox, among Young’s two dozen classist recruits, most were overwhelmingly male, Wasp, and from monied families.

Talty does an exceptional job explaining how the Germans went about looting relics and shipping the ones they did not destroy back to Berlin. For example, items that were too large to ship or were attractive enough were ground up and used for military purposes, since marble and stone made for excellent building materials for bunkers and other needs.

Young’s headquarters were in Cairo and Talty goes to great lengths describing how agents were recruited with new identities provided, how information was gathered, and how cable traffic was managed. Young created his own merchant marine using Caiques, traditional Greek fishing vessels to transport agents, information, and the tools that a spy needed to operate. The Greek Desk created German documents employing a separate team of counterfeiters. The OSS bureaucracy was of little help, and neither were the British who saw the Balkans being part of their sphere of influence.

(Nedjmettin Bekhtori, age 12, and Dorothy H. Cox, architect of the expedition, washing an Amphora (vase) just excavated by Miss Cox).

Talty is correct as he explores British distrust of American agents in Greece. Cox reported that Winston Churchill saw Washington as interlopers in the Balkans who supported liberal elements rather than King George II. She believed that the British pressured the Turks not to cooperate with American agents. Once the Germans were defeated and withdrew from Greece Churchill wanted to forbid elections and hold on to power. Churchill and Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin met in Moscow from October 9 to October 19, 1944, at a summit codenamed the Tolstoy Conference. Their discussions defined the postwar map of Eastern Europe and produced the “Percentages Agreement,” on October 9, whereby Churchill and Stalin negotiated a secret “spheres of influence” deal for the Balkans. Churchill wrote percentages of dominance on a piece of paper (i.e., granting the Soviet Union 90% control in Romania and 10% in Greece). Stalin famously reviewed the list and simply marked it with a large red tick. The agreement was made without Franklin Roosevelt’s approval.

The reader is introduced to a number of remarkable characters. Cornelia Kapp whose father was an Abwehr agent posing as a diplomat switched sides and worked with the Americans spying on Ludwig Moyzisch, the German attaché in Ankara, Turkey. Helias Doudoulakis sent by Young to set up a network of spies and operators in Salonika, and his brother George was effective in obtaining valuable information about German rail and Caiques schedules, bridge locations etc. Nikolaos Platon the head of the Heraklion Museum on the island of Crete refused to give into the demands of Nazi Commander Julius Ringel whose stolen relics were mostly recovered after the war.

(Helias Doundoulakis in 2012)

Talty is very critical of the British role after the Germans withdrew and their refusal to cooperate with Greek leftists and allow elections which led to a bloody civil war fostered by the emerging Cold War. It would take until 1948 for the National Archeological Museum to reopen in Athens after three years of excavating and recovering relics. Despite the retrieval of thousands of objects, thousands more were not, though over the years many were returned.

Talty’s work tells the story of two sets of agents sent to Greece. Each had a distinct mission. One was to harass and kill Germans by blowing up trains, calling in airstrikes and passing on military secrets. The other group was to safeguard Greece’s treasure trove of archeological riches. Talty does well as he describes the work of these agents and how they survived and were able to make a major contribution to the war effort, in addition to recovering Greece’s national treasures.

Greek soldiers descend a slope during the war with Italy

(A group of Greek soldiers descends a slope during the war with Italy)

THE FIRST ALLSTAR GAME: BABE RUTH, FDR, AND AMERICA AT THE CROSSROADS by Randall Sullivan

June 15, 2026szfreiberger baseball Leave a comment

View of Comiskey Park, former home of the Chicago White Sox

(Comiskey Park, Chicago, IL)

By 1933 the United States had arrived at a crossroad. The country was in the midst of the depression with unemployment at 25% and breadlines blocks long in major American cities like Chicago where despite Franklin Roosevelt’s implementing a New Deal people were growing desperate. Overseas Benito Mussolini embarked on his imperialist goals, Adolf Hitler consolidated power and opened Dachau, and Japan had seized parts of Manchuria two years earlier.

As the American people sought hope to overcome their economic troubles they elected Franklin D. Roosevelt as president to replace the growing hatred toward Herbert Hoover, a man who seemed to lack empathy for the masses. Two days before his inauguration Roosevelt survived an assassination attempt while visiting Miami, however the man who shared his automobile, the mayor of Chicago was killed. As things seemed to go from bad to worse even one of America’s opportunities for escapism, baseball was also experiencing a severe downturn.

As the situation in the United States grew increasingly dire a newspaperman developed the idea of playing a baseball game with the best players competing against each other as part of Chicago World’s Fair. It would offer people something to take their minds off their troubles, even if it was only a few hours. In THE FIRST ALLSTAR GAME: BABE RUTH, FDR, AND AMERICA AT THE CROSSROADS, historian Randall Sullivan explores how the game came about as he weaves together the storied characters and personalities that dominated the news cycle at the time. Sullivan’s monograph is a blend of economic, social, and political history with baseball’s development up to 1933. The author blends the most important aspects of the depression integrating the roles of important figures such as Franklin D. Roosevelt, Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis, John McGraw, Connie Mack, and of course Babe Ruth and a host of others.

(The American League prevailed in the first AL vs. NL All-Star Game on July 6, 1933, in Chicago, defeating the NL 4-2. The man in the suit is Arch Ward)

Sullivan brings a sharp focus on the city of Chicago and how it navigated through the depression. The author astutely points out that Chicago had overcome a Depression before as the crash of 1873 which continued on and off into the 1890s with the Chicago World’s Fair of 1893. The story begins with the introduction of the role of Franklin Roosevelt whose reforms were pushed through Congress zeroing in on the crisis in banking, unemployment, farm foreclosures, industrial production and labor. Next we are introduced to Arch Ward, a journalist for the conservative Chicago Tribune owned by Colonel Robert McCormack, who as a sportswriter and promoter came up with the idea of presenting an Allstar game. Lastly, we are introduced to Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis, a federal judge who became Commissioner of baseball following the 1919 Black Sox scandal as eight players on the Chicago White Sox threw the World Series against Cincinnati.

Sullivan’s monograph is deeply researched with wonderful vignettes concerning the major personalities of the period. The author carefully introduces each character by presenting a brief biographical sketch and integrating the lives he discusses with the economic and societal forces that dominated the period. Sullivan also explores a number of important aspects of his subject that are critical to his story but seem ancillary, but quite entertaining and important. One that comes to mind is the discussion of whether Babe Ruth was of “black” ancestry. In a chapter devoted to race the reader after learning all about Ruth’s life earlier in the book learns that Ruth was one of the few white ball players willing to play with blacks be it on barnstorming tours or other exhibition games. Sullivan discusses in detail the growth of negro baseball dating back to the 19^th century introducing men like Cool Papa Bell, Oscar Charleston, Satchel Paige and Josh Gibson and whether black players were equal in performance to those in the white major leagues. Later in his career, Ruth was castigated for his interactions with blacks especially by Commissioner Landis, who was a known racist who suspended Ruth for two months at the outset of the 1925 season.

(Lou Gehrig and Babe Ruth)

Apart from t players, the careers of John McGraw and Connie Mack are exceptionally important to the development of baseball. Sullivan describes McGraw’s flawed personality, “will to win,” and overbearing personality all subsumed in an amazing career. Mack’s ownership of the Philadelphia Athletics provides a window into the economic impact of the depression and a championship baseball team that Mack had to repeatedly take apart selling his players to meet the bills and then reconstituting his team as a champion and taking it apart again. As we are exposed to other aspects of baseball history men like Ty Cobb, Jimmy Foxx, Lefty Grove, Lefty Gomez, Frankie Fritsch, Al Simmons, Lou Gehrig, Carl Hubbel, Bill Terry and Pepper Martin, Mickey Cochrane, Hack Wilson among those discussed are integrated into the larger story of the Allstar game and make for wonderful reading for any baseball historian or aficionado.

When you pick up the book and explore its title the reader gets the impression he or she is about to embark on a sports journey. However, Sullivan does an excellent job broadening his topic to create a panorama of the United States from the early twentieth century to 1933. Whether the author is discussing the economic greed and poor decision making that led to the depression, its impact on the economics of baseball, the desegregation of the sport, or the special impact on the American population whether dealing with the Dust Bowl or putting food on the table and locating shelter Sullivan portrays his topic vividly and insightfully.

Connie Mack-John McGraw 1933 All-Star Game

If there is a criticism to be made it centers on Sullivan’s proclivity spending too much time on “social banditry” or “criminal anti-heroes” introducing Pretty Boy Floyd, Al Capone, Bonnie and Clyde, John Dillinger, among others. I understand the societal element that made these personalities important, but it does not deserve the time the author devotes to it. Further, the discussion of the Black Sox scandal is too drawn out, but upon reflection I understand why Sullivan dug deeply into that aspect of the sport since a number of players including Ty Cobb and others bet heavily on games during the period.

As for the game itself which took place on Thursday, July 7, 1933, before 49,000 excited fans at Comiskey Park, Lefty Grove came on in the seventh inning to toss three scoreless innings of relief and earn the save for the victorious American League, 4-2. Fittingly, and to the fans’ uncontained delight, the aging Ruth’s two-run third-inning home run provided the victory margin.

Despite a few flaws, Sullivan has written an incredibly interesting book, but whether you come at it from the perspective of a baseball fan, an American history buff, or simply someone looking for an enjoyable, but at the same time thought provoking read, Randall Sullivan’s effort is a book well worth reading.

(Connie Mack and John McGraw)

(Comiskey Park, Chicago, IL)

LIAR’S KINGDOM: HOW TO STOP TRUMP’S DECEIT AND SAVE AMERICA by Andrew Weissmann

June 6, 2026szfreiberger American Political History Leave a comment

Image: Supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump gather for a rally in Washington

(January 6th attack on the US Capitol)

The last few weeks lends a great deal of credence to the ideas and positions offered by former federal prosecutor, NYU Law professor, and MS NOW contributor Andrew Weissmann. The American people have experienced a President who has put forth a plan to pay convicted January 6^th followers from a fund of close to $1.8 billion and provide himself and his family immunity from IRS prosecution from actions taken in the past and what could occur in the future. Further, the man responsible for the fund, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has continued to lie and cover up the Epstein files and prosecute anyone President Trump would like to seek revenge against (yesterday it was announced he was being put forward to be the permanent Attorney General). Trump has also nominated Bill Puilte as DNI to oversee all intelligence services even though he has no experience in the field and his main calling has been to dig up dirt on Trump’s perceived enemies. We are also exposed to the daily untruths put forth by Mark Wayne Mullin, the newly appointed Secretary of Homeland Security dealing with immigration issues and justifying the actions taken by ICE. If that is not enough we can watch the briefings offered by Pete Hesgeth, the Secretary of Defense justifying the murder of people on the open seas and further lies dealing with the conduct and state of the war with Iran. Then there is NSC head and Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s verbal machinations about the war in Iran, the state of negotiations, and positions the President actually believes in. Apart from the daily lies offered by the President on a myriad of issues be it the 2020 election, funding for his new ballroom, the reflecting pool, and massive arch he wants to build the public has become increasingly cognizant of the vast sums, roughly $4 billion the Trump family has amassed since Trump’s second term began. In addition, Trump has used “insider trading” to the tune of millions of dollars to augment his personal wealth. The operative words in all of these examples are fraud and lies.

Some might argue that what I have written is too partisan and over the years Democrats are just as guilty. I would point out that history and incontrovertible facts would disagree. The question must be raised; is there a solution to all the lying and corruption that screams from the headlines each day. In his latest book, LIAR’S KINGDOM: HOW TO STOP TRUMP’S DECEIT AND SAVE AMERICA, Andrew Wiessmann reviews examples of corruption and lies and how politicians get away with it and offers solutions on how we can hold people accountable for their actions and statements to try to invigorate our democracy. In a blend of personal observations and sound legal opinions Weissmann confronts the “chipping away of the rule of law” that has been ongoing the last few years. According to the author we need to shore up our legal system against demagogues who seek to use lies to destroy our democracy. Candidly, Weissmann asks why can people lie in politics, to gain office, power, and wealth with no legal consequence, when in other areas of lying and fraud they can be prosecuted? It is clear we are a nation awash in lies and fraud.

U.S. President Donald Trump, left, and Brazil's Jair Bolsonaro at Mar-a-Lago in 2020.

(U.S. President Donald Trump, left, and Brazil’s then-President Jair Bolsonaro at Mar-a-Lago in 2020)

Weissmann offers a number of examples to support his critique. The one that is repeated over and over in the monograph is that the 2020 election was a fraud and that Trump actually won (which he repeats on a daily basis). This has become a litmus test for Trump and anyone serving in the government. Trump is allowed to get away with the lies because there is no criminal law that says the lie is illegal – no civil law imposes any punishment for such falsehoods. In the end one-third of Americans support these lies.

Weissmann draws on his vast prosecutorial experience to provide examples of when lies can be prosecuted. He delves into the Enron case highlighted by the actions of Kenneth Lay who was effectively prosecuted as his lies brought material benefit. He focuses on organized crime centered on Vincent Gigante and the Genovese mob family, the environmental lies of Volkswagen and others. Remarkably it is a crime to lie to shareholders, it is a crime to lie to Congress, but it is not a crime to lie to the public. The problem is that lies metastases – i.e., J6 pardons, ICE enforcement and its consequences. We now learn that out of the 1500 J6 people pardoned, 97 have been charged with new crimes unrelated to J6, a number of which deal with sexual abuse and violence.

(President Donald Trump speaks at his Mar-a-Lago club, on Saturday, Jan. 3, 2026, in Palm Beach, Florida, as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense)

Our current media marketplace exacerbates the problem as it permits lies to flourish with no accountability. Weissmann is dead on arguing that our “media marketplace is polluted with propaganda, disinformation, and emotional manipulation all in the guise of defending the First Amendment. In short, authoritarians use the cloak of the freedom of speech to promulgate false factual speech and drown out the truth.” With the arrival of AI differentiating the public lie from the public truth is only going to grow harder in the future and as a society we have no strategy to deal with it.

(Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche)

Since we have no domestic solutions to try and mitigate the problem of fraud and lies in the public sphere Weissmann turns to other countries for possible solutions. He explores the case of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil. An example that mirrors that of Trump and how the Brazilian parliament has passed laws that rest on the premise that people have the right to truthful information in elections that supersedes the right of free speech when deliberate falsehoods threaten the democratic order. In France Marine Le Pen is barred from holding office for five years because she engaged in embezzlement and was convicted. In Germany there are laws that forbid free speech pertaining to a particular subject, denying the existence of the Holocaust is a prime example. Interestingly, the United States has laws that do not allow convicted felons to run for office, but it is only a state statute and does not exist on the federal level.

Weissmann proposes a Truth in Elections Act built on existing law. The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 redrawn in 2013 criminalizes lying about military honors with the “intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefits” which has survived a Supreme Court challenge. For Weissmann the courts are the key to any reform. Due process has the ability to get at the truth – we have a jury system that in most cases people take seriously. However, you need a Justice Department that is not headed by the President’s personal lawyer whose sole purpose is to carry out the revenge whims of the occupant of the White House. Some might find Weissmann’s short volume a polemic, however, his views are based on facts and the law, two things that most people would have difficulty arguing with, unless your name is Trump.

(President Donald Trump arrives to speak to supporters on January 6th)

A FATE WORSE THAN HELL: AMERICAN PRISONERS OF THE CIVIL WAR by W. Fitzhugh Brundage

June 4, 2026szfreiberger American Civil War Leave a comment

(Andersonville Prison, Ga.)

The American Civil War resulted in the death of over 650,000 soldiers. The carnage was unimaginable as new technologies were applied to combat. Apart from death on the battlefield was the loss of life in prison camps. Conditions were insufferable and the loss of life and the horrors experienced in the camps was extraordinary, particularly in Confederate camps like Andersonville. In W. Fitzhugh Brundage’s latest book, A FATE WORSE THAN HELL: AMERICAN PRISONERS OF THE CIVIL WAR the reader is exposed to the dread that was experienced in camps, attempts to improve conditions, the courage and tenacity of those who found the will to survive in a system that produced over 400,000 prisoners involving both sides in the war.

Brundage has written the most comprehensive monograph dealing with Civil War prisoners relying on diaries of the prisoners and officials who ran the camps in addition to other primary and secondary sources. Brundage’s account seems to cover every aspect of his topic ranging from the governments that controlled the prisons, the personalities on both sides that were the decision makers in determining prison policies, the travel that prisoners were subjected to, the training, or lack of training for Doctors, the exchange of prisoners, to the different treatment of officers and regular troops, and post-war issues. The author begins his study by introducing Andrew Jackson Riddle, a photographer who chronicled the only visual record of the notorious Confederate prison – Andersonville. Riddle would become a witness to the “mass prison pens” and produced a catalogue of POW experiences matched by few written accounts. Riddle’s photographs provided incontrovertible evidence supporting the written descriptions offered by POWs, i.e., acute deprivation, no permanent buildings to house prisoners, absence of sanitary facilities, and extreme overcrowding. Though Riddle’s photos dealt with Andersonville the author offers evidence that it was the norm not the exception in Civil War prisons, Confederate and Union, however it must be noted the Confederate prisons were crueler.

r prison on Belle Isle

Ruins of the Civil War prison on Belle Isle

(Belle Island Prison, Richmond, Va.)

Brundage’s template for each topic is to introduce a historical figure; a soldier, a physician, an officer, government bureaucrat, or family member at the start of a chapter and build the storyline around that figure. The author develops a number of important themes which are the core of the monograph. First, as the fighting progressed and the war lasted from year to year the treatment of prisoners and the facilities they were incarcerated in declined precipitously. A second important theme rests on how prisoners were exchanged, which greatly impacted the number of POWs who languished in captivity. The Confederate authorities refused to exchange black soldiers for white soldiers on an equal basis leading to President Lincoln’s refusal to continue to exchange prisoners equally which was the standard for the first two years of the war. Lincoln ruled out any further prisoner exchanges as long as black soldiers were excluded. In July 1863 he ordered that for any union soldier killed in violation of the laws of war, a Confederate prisoner would be executed; for any returned to slavery, a Confederate prisoner would be sent to hard labor. The Confederate view that a black soldier was nothing more than an escaped slave greatly impacted decision-making on both sides especially after the announcement of the Emancipation Proclamation and Lincoln’s realization that black soldiers were needed to help win the war. The key point is that had prisoner exchanges continued throughout the war, the prison population would have been greatly reduced leading to better care of POWs. Men like Walt Whitman argued that he was willing to sacrifice black POWs if it would save white ones, reflecting the undercurrent of racism that existed throughout the fighting.

Brundage offers personality studies of important decision makers like General H. Winder who was the architect of the Confederate POW system and created the abhorrent prison pens and guidelines for treatment of union captives. Winder, like other Confederate officials, never fully accepted the obligation to provide for POWs in the absence of exchanges. They saw prisoners as a security liability that imposed no ethical imperative. Union decisions were left in the hands of Lt. Colonel William Hoffman who under orders from Quartermaster General Montgomery Meigs, implemented strict, frugal policies to manage Northern camps and would always respond to the maltreatment of Union soldiers in Confederate hands with similar treatment in Union prisons. On both sides government officials found it difficult to find competent men to run and supervise the camps leading to men like Captain Henry Wirz who oversaw Belle Island and Andersonville and later was hanged for his treatment of Union prisoners.

1863 became the turning point for the treatment of POWs as the south’s low population did not produce enough prisoners to try and keep prisoner exchanges going. The result was Confederate prison populations markedly increased. Prisons would evolve from temporary holding pens to long term captivity facilities, the new prisons by design were mercilessly primitive leading to appalling conditions which the author carefully delineates.

(Elmira Prison, NY)

An interesting component of the book is how Brundage explores the social hierarchy of the prison populations. Each prison developed their own culture and tasks for the prisoners who in many cases policed themselves. They would create cultural and sports activities to pass the time and would rely on each other for survival as they dealt with the “half-witted cruelty” dealt out by prison guards and an environment that lacked any semblance of privacy. It was clear that those men who established social bonds were better able to survive than those who did not. Many POWs equated captivity with slavery!

It is clear that on both sides the war took precedence over the treatment and plight of POWs. Brundage’s chapters dealing with medical care bears this out as for the first time governments had to experiment with improving medical care on a scale they had never experienced. The problem rested on the lack of any effective medical infrastructure to train and appoint doctors to prison camps. Hunger was the key issue, and no medical care would suffice if food rations were inadequate. Even though the concept of the general hospital emerged from the war it did little to assist POWs who suffered from scurvy, diarrhea, exposure, and diseases like smallpox as overcrowding made it easier for disease to spread. The hospital at Andersonville was described as a death house as 12,541 POWs died there between February 1864 and April 1865.

As the war spread to areas where prison camps were located POWs had to be moved quickly. Brundage’s example of General Sherman’s march through Georgia perfectly encapsulates the problem as prisons were about to be overrun. Prisoners were transported by train, steamboat, and walking as prisoners were subjected to a captivity that saw them travel over 2000 miles throughout the south in a period of ten months. The process was brutal for prisoners and reflects a key component of the horrors they had to endure.

Captain Henry Wirz, commander of Andersonville Prison)

Once the war was concluded between April and November 1865 about 800,000 prisoners were transported home. Brundage spends the last hundred pages of his study exploring topics that included legal responsibility for the atrocities that are associated with the treatment of POWs, the trials and tribulations they experienced upon release, particularly readapting to society which today we would place under the heading Post-traumatic Stress Syndrome which the author does not mention, and how the war and its prison systems were described in the art and literature that followed for the next century.

Brundage focuses on a number of ancillary topics as he closes his study. First and foremost are the Civil War created precedents that come under the heading of war crimes. By 1862 allegations of deliberate cruelty against Union prisoners had accumulated and influenced Union policies . With victory the opportunity presented itself based on Lincoln’s General Order 100 to support the concept that transgressions by the enemy would be punished which would lead to the prosecution of Henry Wirz and other former Confederates which would establish a precedent not only for American law but international law. The trials are seen as the origin of the modern prosecution of war crimes.

Lincoln appointed Judge Advocate Joseph Holt to oversee the prosecutions who believed it “was essential to deprive the rebellion it’s architects of any residue of legitimacy.” The trials were designed to strip the Confederacy of any esteem or honor it still retained. Interestingly the two men most responsible for Confederate policies, President Jefferson Davis and Secretary of War James Sedden were never tried due to the attitude of President Andrew Johnson and the acceptance that justice was sacrificed in the craven pursuit of reconciliation. Another important issue Brundage raises is the concept of “custodial” POW camps. Over time they were generally accepted, the problem was how they could be effectively run with less negative impact on prisoners. However, these types of camps would appear in the future ranging from the Boer War, the war in the Philippines, World War I and II and onward.

In the end Brundage offers a deeply researched and well written account of Civil War prisons. It is a sensitive and important study of a neglected topic, whose implications go far beyond the battlefields of the war between the states to present day conflicts be it Ukraine, Iran, Lebanon, Gaza and elsewhere.

A black and white drawing of Andersonville Prison

(Andersonville Prison, Ga.)

Doc's Books

A window into Doc Freiberger's library

Month: June 2026