OUR FRIENDS IN MOSCOW: THE INSIDE STORY OF A BROKEN GENERATION by Andrei Soldatov and Irina Borogan

szfreiberger Russian History Leave a comment

(People walk in snowfall on Red Square in Moscow, Russia, on Nov. 15, 2022)

By 1991 Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev had resigned, a coup failed to bring conservatives back to power, and Boris Yeltsin would lead the new Russia through a period of corruption and kleptocracy that by the end of the 1990s saw the former Soviet Union at a precipice.  Would it continue to try and improve relations with the west, or would it turn inward?  However, a watershed moment took place as Russian President Yeltsin resigned on December 31, 1999, and appointed Vladimir Putin as acting head of the government.  According to historians Philip Short, Steven Lee Myres, and Catherine Belton, that behind the scenes Putin, after serving as the Director of Federal Security Service (FSB) and as Secretary of the Security Council, had cut a deal to protect Yeltsin and his family from any criminal charges emanating from his presidency, and that Yeltsin resigned in order to give his protégé a leg up in the coming presidential election to insure that protection.

Once Putin was elected and took firm control Russia engaged in a series of wars, first a massive military invasion and occupation of Chechnya to restore federal control which lasted until 2009.  By 2008, Putin had decided that moving closer to western economic interests was not going to be Russia’s future and invaded Georgia in support of separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.  The five day war resulted in Russian occupation of these territories which are internationally recognized as part of Georgia.  According to Andrei Soldatov and Irina Borogan in their new book OUR DEAR FRIENDS IN MOSCOW: THE INSIDE STORY OF A BROKEN GENERATION by 2011Putin came to an understanding that globalization with its ideas and technologies was the major threat to Russia and him personally.  Since 2011 Russia engaged in a series of actions and maneuvers to detach Moscow from the West.  In 2014 in response to Euromaidan protests, Russian forces took control of the Crimean peninsula.  In addition, Russia initiated a war in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine, supporting separatist forces.  On February 24, 2022, Putin unleashed a large-scale invasion of Ukraine with the goal of quickly toppling the Zelensky government in Kyiv and installing a regime that was pro-Russian and would not make any moves toward the European Union or NATO.  In a few weeks, the war will enter its fourth year and no matter the pipe dreams of Donald Trump it appears Putin has no inclination toward making peace particularly as American support for Ukraine has eroded.

(the authors)

In their new book Soldatov and Borogan explore former friendships with people dating to the spring of 2000 following Putin’s election who met at the Russian daily newspaper, Izvestia.  By 2022, some of those friends in Moscow were serving Putin in one way or another.  At the same time, the authors were in exile in London separated from family and were wanted by Russian authorities.  Why had those friendships which had been so close evolved in the way they had?  How did former friends end up on such violently opposed sides?  The answer to these questions form the core of a fascinating and heart rendering book as the authors reconnected with a few of their former friends and follow this group from the optimistic years of the early 2000s, a time of brief liberalism under Dmitry Medvedev, the annexation of Crimea and the repressions that followed between 2016-2021, and the current war in Ukraine.  It is a journey that describes a soon to be global society with tremendous aspirations to “a dismal walled-in fortress.”

The authors spend the first segment of the book tracing their careers as they move from one newspaper or media outpost to the next.  In their discussion they integrate a series of friendships and the belief systems of those who they see as their compatriots.  Among the most important individuals that the authors discuss is Evgeny Krutikov who at one time was head of the Political Department at Izvestia and over the years developed extensive contacts in the Russian intelligence community.  The authors would work with him at the newspaper.  Petya Akopov emerges as another important relationship.  Akopov is a scion of Moscow intelligentsia who was the chief correspondent in the Political Department at Izvestia.  He and his wife Marina were always critical of the west and were against liberal values and believed Russia was a more spiritual civilization than the west.  Zhenya Baranov was an intrepid war correspondent for a Russian television channel who was good friends with Akopov. Olga Lyubimova, a television host with connections to reactionary film maker Nikita Mikhalkov.   Lastly, Sveta Babayeva who replaced Krutikov as head of the Political Department, an individual who had been a member of the Kremlin press pool attached to Putin.

Apart from their newspaper work Soldatov and Borogan launched a website, Agentura, “a ring of spies,” that was designed to be a community for journalists to write about security services for different newspapers.  At the outset, the FSB did not interfere because it sought to improve its image  and hoped to consolidate positive news reports on its actions.  At the same time, they launched their website, Vladimir Putin’s presidency  was experiencing difficulties.  The brutal Chechen civil war which led to repeated terror attacks was ongoing; and the sinking of the nuclear submarine Kursk while Putin was on vacation in Sochi became a propaganda nightmare.

Microphones on long booms extend out from a circle of journalists, some writing in notebooks with as a man at center ansers questions. A gridded glass roof is seen above.

(Microphones on long booms extend out from a circle of journalists, some writing in notebooks with as a man at center ansers questions. A gridded glass roof is seen above.Journalists question Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in Moscow, on Dec. 15, 2011).

At this point, the authors should have realized that they were not on the same page as their compatriots who found nothing wrong with Putin undergoing cosmetic surgery at a time when Russian sailors were drowning inside a submarine.  Akopov and others blamed the west for interfering in the crisis causing the authors to realize they could no longer work at Izvestia.     This would begin a journey of employment at a series of media outlets after resigning from Izvestia after a number of editorial conflicts over articles dealing with Russian security services.  The authors would hook on with Versia, a weekly tabloid which had worked with the KGB in the past and they suspected was corrupt, but they needed a job.  On October 23, 2002, Putin’s political problems reemerged as terrorists seized the Dubrovka Theater.  Special Forces would rush the theater and three days later 130 people, 5 terrorists were killed out of 1000 hostages taken.   Putin declared victory over terrorism as he did not want to appear weak despite the fact most were killed when government forces unleashed poison gas which backfired.  When Soldatov and Borogan posted an article entitled, “Not True” on their website and Versia picked it up the result was an FSB raid , interrogation at the infamous Lefortovo  prison and new employment.  The authors would move on to the Moscow News which coincided with the Brelan school massacre in the North Caucusus which consisted of 334 dead hostages of which 186 were children.  Their friend Baranov would praise Putin’s response and  made a derogatory and false documentary describing the leader of Georgia.  By this time, it was clear Baranov and Krutikov were propagandists working for security agencies.  Shortly thereafter, the authors were let go by the Moscow News.                                                                                                                                                                                                

Russian Minister of Culture Olga Lyubimova attends a ceremony in Moscow

(Russian Minister of Culture Olga Lyubimova) 

Soon the only place they could publish was on their website and a new platform, Ej.ru which was a home for anti-Putin liberals.  By this time, the Russian economy was booming due to oil revenues.  People began experiencing economic improvement and wealth seemed to touch a large segment of the urban population.  Putin saw this as an opportunity to crack down on any opposition resulting in the assassinations of Anna Politkovskaya, an anti-Putin journalist at Novaya Gazeta, and Alexander Litvinenko, a former FSB officer.  Anyone who opposed Putin was a target including Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the head of the largest energy company in Russia who was accused of tax evasion, embezzlement, and assassination and would be imprisoned for over ten years and find his wealth confiscated.

The authors do an excellent job integrating their journalistic journey with events in Russia.  By 2008 Putin will invade Georgia expanding on his belief that the breakup of the Soviet Union was the worst thing that ever happened to Russia.  It was the first step in a two decade long campaign to restore Moscow to its proper place in the world order.  Putin would emerge from the Georgia imbroglio with an 88% popularity in Russian polls.  2008 was also a watershed year for the authors as they learned the murder of Anna Politkovskaya involved an FSB officer leading to their newspaper firing them.

Soldatov and Brogden’s thesis trying to understand how their compatriots had wound up on the other side of the political spectrum from them has a clear answer – the signs were evident from the outset of their friendships as they learned the views and backgrounds of these individuals.  Akopov’s belief in the monastic traditions of the Russian Orthodox Church as an alternative to western philosophy should have been a warning sign.  Even Baranov spoke of the orthodox faith  as he reported on Channel One, the main Russian television station.  As Putin decided to make Russian orthodoxy a national ideology, the authors should not have been surprised.

Former Russian journalist Ivan Safronov before a court hearing on treason charges in Moscow on July 7.

(Former Russian journalist Ivan Safronov before a court hearing on treason charges in Moscow on July 7, 1997)

Many believed the term of Dimitri Medvedev symbolized a more liberal Russia.  But it was clear Putin was making the decisions in the background and would soon resume the Russian presidency.  Once Putin returned and seized Crimea and attacked the Donbas region in Ukraine it was clear what his ideology was and would continue to be.  Soldatov and Borogan’s disappointment in their friends would continue as  they chose the path of going along with the government as their Izvestia  friends showed their true colors.  In 2014 Baranov was a presenter for Channel One, the Kremlin propaganda channel, pushing a narrative of Nazis in Ukraine and Nato aggression, while his wife crossed the almost non-existent line between state and press to become Deputy Minister of Culture the following year.  Akopov authored a triumphalist essay, published in February 2022: ‘Putin has resolved the Ukrainian question’; it was swiftly removed from the internet when the Ukrainians stopped the Russian army outside Kyiv.

One would ask why these people made the choice of becoming government propagandists.  They were well educated, intelligent people, but financial need, family, health issues carry great weight in decision making or perhaps it was nostalgia for the power of the Soviet Union – for each individual it is a personal choice once Putin’s direction was clear.   Journalists had little choice if they hoped to make a decent living but to work for state media and get in line with the official ideology. Putin was suffocating the independent media and civil society that emerged in the early 2000s and by 2014 that suffocation was complete.

The depth of the author’s break with past friends is evident as Douglas Smith writes in the August 3, 2025, edition of the Wall Street Journal;  “In the eyes of their friends, Mr. Soldatov and Ms. Borogan were either traitors or fools. In 2012 Mr. Akopov called them “scum” and implied they were foreign agents for their investigations into the security services. Ms. Lyubimova, who built a career making patriotic films and eventually climbed the government ranks to become the minister of culture, mocked the notion that Russia could ever be moved from its authoritarian historical foundations. Resistance was futile, submission was the only option. In what became known as the “Lyubimova Manifesto,” she stated that the way to survive was to give in, as she did, like a rape victim: “I lie on my back, spread my legs, breathe deeply, and even try to enjoy it.” 

By February 24, 2022, the day Putin unleashed his attack on Ukraine the authors had already moved to London, however there was and is a target on their backs.  They have been followed, warned by police that they were in danger, and in June 2022 the Russian Interior Ministry issued an arrest warrant for them.  They have had to resort to what they learned about spy craft during their journalistic careers as part of their survival strategy.

(People walk in snowfall on Red Square in Moscow, Russia, 2022)

THE FINEST HOTEL IN KABUL: A PEOPLE’S HISTORY by Lyse Doucet

szfreiberger Afghanistan Leave a comment
Kabul, Afghanistan - July 25, 2023: Aerial view of Intercontinental Hotel Kabul Stock Photo

With the recent American incursion into Venezuela to capture the country’s dictator Nicolas Maduro and President Trump’s comments that the United States was now in charge of the South American country the situation has reintroduced the terms “nation-building,” and “forever wars” into the American lexicon.   This has fostered memories of our twenty year war in Afghanistan along with thoughts of loss of life and treasure.  Lyse Doucet, a Canadian journalist and the BBC’s chief correspondent’s new book, THE FINEST HOTEL IN KABUL: A PEOPLE’S HISTORY explores the war in Afghanistan from a novel perspective that being the staff and guests of the luxury Hotel Inter-Continental Kabul which opened its doors in 1969.  Doucet presents the views of many individuals she met after first checking into the hotel in 1988.  From inside the hotels’ battered walls she experienced events until 2021 when the hotel finally shuttered its doors for good.  From her perch in the hotel, she weaves together the many stories of Afghans who kept the hotel in business despite the violence, political corruption, and death that seared their lives.  Doucet’s approach is richly imaginative as she narrates the war through the eyes of those people who worked in and passed through the hotel for over two decades.

Doucet first traveled to Kabul in 1988 to report on the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.  From that time, she developed relationships with a myriad of characters who worked at the hotel or were its guests.  She reports that most people have lost old photographs, videos, or written documentation of the period because of the brutal aspects of Soviet rule, civil war and living under the Taliban.  However, one thing they maintained was their memories which allowed them to relate their experiences as the hotel tried to maintain its decorum and care for its guests under rocket fire, suicide bombings, or terrorist incursions into the hotel itself.

(A waiter at the Inter-Continental Hotel in Kabul)

Doucet does a remarkable job reporting on the lives of her subjects tracing the evolution of their attachment to the hotel at the same time events transpired in Kabul and its environs which they had no control over.  Doucet lets the reader know what her subjects are responding to on a daily basis, but the war itself does not overwhelm the stories of the many people who remained loyal to the Inter-Continental hotel.

Each individual that Doucet presents seems to possess the Afghan sensibility to humanity expressed by empathy and doing the best for others in situations that most would give up on.  She explores the daily lives of the hotel’s staff, their families, survival, and their hopes for peace in the future.  She begins with the threat of the Taliban’s return in 2021 as the United States withdraws its remaining troops under the Biden administration and the fears it produces, then she turns back the clock and begins to introduce the hotel’s staff juxtaposed to political and military events in the Kabul region.

Among the most important individuals she introduces is Hazrat, who in his early twenties comes to work at the hotel during its glory years of the 1970s.  He would begin his career as a busboy who would earn a certificate from the Department of Vocational Education at the Royal Ministry of Education.  Hazrat’s would be the focus of many events that Doucet reports upon.  He would moonlight as a bartender, which is interesting in a Moslem country.  The author follows Hazrat’s promotions within the hotel hierarchy as a tool to describe the events in Kabul throughout his five decades at the hotel.  He would join the housekeeping staff in 1978 and eventually would be placed in charge of maintaining the diverse floors of the hotel.  He would develop an intimate knowledge of the hotel, its repeated refurbishing and rebuilding due to the war over the decades.  It would come in  handy decades later in 2018 when three Taliban gunmen smuggled weapons into the hotel and proceeded to kill and maim staff and guests indiscriminately.  He and two younger staffers were able to escape because of Hazrat’s knowledge of a closet with wide steel piping where they could hide.

Guests at the Intercontinental Hotel

(Guests being served at the Intercontinental Hotel)

The author integrates her mini-biographies and the attendant stories seamlessly throughout the narrative interspersing events that affected the lives of staff and the general Kabul population over the decades.  She reports on the December 1979 coup that would lead to the Soviet invasion and ten years of war against Moscow and the growth of the mujahedeen armed by the United States who eventually defeated the Soviets.  The brutality of the war is presented clearly, but not in the usual political and military fashion.  Once Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbahev announces in 1991 that Russia would no longer provide food and fuel to the Afghan people it would engender a decade of civil war that would produce the Taliban, a group of former mujahedeen who grew tired of the factionalism, warlordism, corruption, and violence that permeated Afghanistan during the period.  9/11 would become the watershed for the next twenty years as the United States and its Afghan allies would invade, defeat the Taliban, and install the corrupt regime of Hamid Karzai, a former mujahedeen, but a pragmatic and personal individual.  Doucet keeps these events in the background as she describes the plight of the hotel staff and the hotel itself.

Doucet exhibits a sense of humor despite the horrors she reports on.  A prime example is how warlord factionalism leads to so many governmental changes particularly as the Soviet took control.  Afghani leaders from the 1970s onward have overseen a period of intense volatility, shifting from monarchy to republic, communist rule, civil war, Taliban fundamentalism, and democratic transition. Key figures include Daoud Khan (1973–1978), who established the first republic; the PDPA communist leaders Nur Muhammad Taraki, Hafizullah Amin, Babrak Karmal, and Mohammad Najibullah (1978–1992); Mujahideen leaders such as Ahmad Shah Massoud and Burhanuddin Rabbani (1992–1996); Taliban leaders Mullah Omar (1996–2001) and Hibatullah Akhundzada (2021–present); and post-2001 presidents Hamid Karzai and Ashraf Ghani.   Each time a governmental leadership change took place the hotel workers took out hammers and nails and replaced portraits with new leadership photos which would adorn the hotel on a seemingly regular basis.

The hotel served many functions throughout.  During the early 1980s about 85,000 Soviet troops fought in Afghanistan and more and more Soviet generals wanted to use the hotel as a command post.  Over the years the hotel served as a base for journalists, diplomats, and even the calling of the first Afghan Loya Jirga (Grand Assembly),  a traditional, large-scale national gathering of elders and leaders to make critical decisions for Afghanistan which met for the first time in decades in 2002 which elected Hamid Karzai.  The hotel was also a multi-purpose site as weddings and other family events took place if the political and military situation allowed.

The author does not shy away from the damage caused by war as entire villages are levelled by the Soviet Union’s carpet bombing.  Villages were then looted by rampaging rebel troops, weed tangled fields were infested by land mines, the coercive beatings and torture of local villagers, all resulting in death, lost limbs, and the destruction of the fabric of Afghan society.

The role of the mujahedeen is carefully explored paying special attention to their view of modernity as it applies to the hotel itself.  The staff was used to portraying photographs, music, video, women interacting with men, and many other aspects of life that Islamists found reprehensible.  The staff, like many Afghans made the best of their situations and adapted as best they could to whoever was in charge.  Doucet describes how hotel staff tried to maintain decorum and service it was known for even as they were confronted by mujahedeen.  The factionalism of the 1990s saw fighters repeatedly stripping the hotel of its contents as Hazrat and his compatriots mourned the perceived death of their place of employment which was their second home.  Eventually Hazrat and his family were hit by rocket fire at their home resulting in severe injuries to Hazrat, the death of his brother, but the survival of his daughters.

The hotel itself was seen as a safe place after many renovations from war damage and the implementation of extensive security measures.  However, no matter what precautions were taken the hotel and its staff could not escape the horrors of war.  For most of the 1990s the hotel suffered damage but nothing that would close it down as by 2008 Kabul’s street had become an armed fortress.  However, on June 28, 2011, nine suicide bombers hit Kabul and the hotel.  The hotel was full of wedding guests with a separate security conference taking place.  Ten would die and many were wounded in the carnage.  It took place a month after Osama Bin-Ladin was killed and President Obama announced a timeline for American withdrawal.  This attack was seared into the memories of the Hotel’s staff, which was again victimized in 2018 when three gunmen went floor to floor killing people as described by Hazrat.

(Taliban at the Intercontinental Hotel Kabul)

Doucet’s portrayal of Mohammad Aqa is an excellent source and his life is a microcosm of the hotel’s plight over the decades and Afghanistan in general.  Throughout his career he was able to maintain his waiter’s graceful bearing and air of authority which no one could deprive him of, even after serving in the Afghan army between 1991 and 1994.  The easy optimistic air under the leadership of Karzai beginning in 2002 would shortly give way to greed, and in 2016 further the tension which was endemic to the rule of Ashraf Ghani.

The situation in the hotel called for constant repairs.  The man who would later be known as “Mr. Fix-it,” Amanullah provides a different perspective as the hotel tries to survive and outlive the fighting.  For Amanullah and others, the hotel is more than mortar and steel, it is a living structure that belongs to its workers who have given their lives for its survival.  Amanullah was a laborer at the hotel until serving in the Afghan army and when he returned in the early 1990s he held numerous roles including “income auditor” as there was no one else.  Amanullah would graduate from the Polytechnic Institute  and would marry his sweetheart, Shala in the hotel’s ballroom which ended early as there was firing from the heights above the hotel.  As the war kept damaging the hotel, Amanullah was put in charge of repairs and after an Abu Dhabi businessmen financed renovations, Amanullah traveled the region securing parts and overseeing reconstruction.

US soldiers board an US Air Force aircraft at the airport in Kabul on August 30

(American soldiers board a U.S. Air Force aircraft at Kabul’s international airport on Aug 30)

Doucet relates many horror stories as Afghans tried to survive.  Perhaps the most poignant involved families trying to leave Kabul as the last flights out of the city took place as the Americans withdrew and the Taliban took over once again.  Stories like Abida Nazuri whose life story reflects the lack of rights for women and her battle to support her family after a life with a husband who was thirty years older from an arranged marriage, the burden of supporting seven children after he died, and her quest to become a chef at the hotel are all impactful.  Through Abida’s experiences we witness the chaos and inhumanity of the American withdrawal and the Taliban takeover that saw continued fighting, suicide bombers, and rocket attacks as people tried to escape the war zone for freedom.  In the end Abida and her family did not escape.

The arrival of the Taliban was described by hotel staff in 1996 and again in 2021.  Talibs ransacked the hotel repeatedly and the staff did their best to accommodate them.  Portraits of the different Taliban leaders are presented, the most important of which is Mullah Mohammad Omar, the “commander of the faithful.”  But the most important personalities in the book are the staff and Doucet does justice to the memory of those who did not survive and those who did.  As Doucet writes about the 2018 attack; “in just one night, more of the hotel had been destroyed than all the war-torn decades gone by….the ruin didn’t stop at marble, wood and steel.  The hotel’s people were broken.”

As Amy Waldman writes in her November 30, 2025, New York Times Book Review; “It’s those people who haunted me after I closed the book. They are at the mercy of the power hungry. They may believe their fate is in God’s hands. Yet their sheer determination to survive, to feed and house their families and keep them safe, and to improve their children’s chances, never flags. If their absence of flaws doesn’t ring completely true, Doucet’s choice to highlight their ordinary heroism in this deeply felt account is understandable.”

The lobby of the Intercontinental Hotel in August 2023.

EVERYDAY IS SUNDAY: HOW JERRY JONES, ROBERT KRAFT, AND ROGER GOODELL TURNED THE NFL INTO A CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC JUGGERNAUT by Kris Benson

szfreiberger Sports Leave a comment

(Robert Kraft, Roger Goodell, and Jerry Jones)

Major league baseball used to be considered America’s pastime.  Sometime in the early 1990s after a number of decades the National Football League overtook baseball as the dominant spectator sport in America.  Professional football always seemed to be in the news, even out of season with collegiate combines, the draft, off season practices, training camps and of course the season that lasted from July through February.  The coaching carousel, which today is in full swing, trade speculation, sports betting, player safety, new stadiums seem like normal dinner time conversation, in homes, bars, and elsewhere.  How did football achieve this exalted position in American culture and maintain it?  According to New York Times business writer, Kris Belson in his new book  EVERYDAY IS SUNDAY: HOW JERRY JONES, ROBERT KRAFT, AND ROGER GOODELL TURNED THE NFL INTO A CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC JUGGERNAUT the credit falls to a group of NFL owners who remade the league by taking a low scoring game dominated by defenses into a high scoring game dominated by unheard of athletic skill and controlled violence perfectly matched with a media revolution that is constantly seeking new content.  Benson’s narrative is an entertaining examination of what he has labeled “an immensely profitable American religion.”

Commissioner Paul Tagliabue stands with Gene Upshaw the President of the NFL Players Union during the 1993 NFL draft April 25, 1993 at the Marriott...

(Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw)

The book itself is more than mini-biographies of the three figures mentioned in the title.  It explores the growth of the league going back to the 1960s and brings its focus to the 1980s onward emphasizing certain watershed dates and deals.  Other figures aside from Jerry Jones, Robert Kraft, and Roger Goodell emerge as important to the leagues growth and success and Benson is able with his many contacts and deep research to formulate a number of important themes that dominate the book.  They include a fascinating description of the evolution of NFL owner cliques that made the decisive decisions that led to the league’s unparalleled success – even describing how they fought for certain chairs at league meetings like a high school cafeteria.  Certain personalities dominate but Benson’s thematic approach includes the growth of billion dollar stadiums and their financing, labor negotiations that allowed the league to take off financially, rules changes that altered the game into high scoring entertainment, and how the owners policed themselves to avoid renegades like Al Davis and Dan Snyder to impact league decision making.

Murdoch poses in front of newspapers and magazines at the New York Post offices in 1985. That year Murdoch became a naturalized US citizen, and he purchased Twentieth Century Fox for $600 million. In 1986, he bought several US television stations and created Fox Broadcasting.

(Robert Murdoch)

Almost immediately Benson describes the NFL as more than a “sports league, it was an immensely profitable religion, complete with acolytes, pomp, and tax breaks.”   Benson is correct in arguing that 1989 is a watershed date  for the league as then commissioner Paul Tabliabue worked with players union head, former Oakland Raider offensive lineman, Gene Upshaw and owners like Dan Rooney of the Pittsburgh Steelers to craft a new revenue sharing agreement with a salary cap and free agency which still provides the economic foundation for the league today.  It was also at this time that Jerry Jones and Robert Kraft entered the NFL as owners and over the next thirty years built their teams into two of the world’s most valuable franchises and had a hand in every financial decision the league made.  Their partner in this endeavor was Roger Goodell, who craved being commissioner his entire adult life who always took a maximalist approach to growing the NFL.

Goodell and the owners have turned the league into a 365 day a year enterprise through record setting deals with networks and sponsors, and other businesses that have taken black Friday, Christmas day, and other sacrosanct holidays and turned them into NFL showcases.  Further, the Draft has morphed from a sleepy event for football addicts that now draws hundreds of thousands of fans, the NFL even unveils its schedule on prime-time television – there is no off season.  As a result, Benson is dead on when he states, it is highlighted by “measures of greed, corporate welfare, violence, misogyny, self-promotion, and bland officiousness.”  The violence of the game and its resulting injuries that linger throughout the player’s lives is not the focus of fans as games are too much of a narcotic.  Even the offseason provides drugs to feed the fan’s fix as owners created NFL films, NFL network and radio, with talking heads drawing fans in.

Benson describes in detail the labor deal of December 1992 that altered the trajectory of the league as it provided free agency for the players after five years in return for a salary cap and the credit goes to Tagliabue and Upshaw who got their constituents to agree to an almost 50/50 revenue sharing document.  Of all  the personalities not mentioned in the title perhaps the most impactful is Robert Murdoch the head of FOX television.  It was Murdoch who watched his Sports subscription service in Britain through Sky sports showing Premier League matches and its success in attracting viewers and revenue who applied the model to the NFL, creating the FOX sports network.  Benson explains how Murdoch outbid CBS, hired their football group, hired announcers like John Madden and Pat Summerall, created the glitzy pre and post-game programming in eight short months that created the foundation for the NFL to cash in on media revenue.  Despite the fact, Murdoch overpaid in every area, Benso refers to him as a genius if one looks at the results of his actions.

(At & T Stadium)

Benson seems to have a handle on all the major issues that impacted the NFL over the last three decades.  From spy gate and deflate gate involving Kraft’s Patriots to the problem the NFL had with women due to players like Ray Rice who was caught beating his girlfriend.  Benson takes a deep dive into the misogyny that afflicted the NFL and how reluctantly they remediate the situation through suspensions and fines as it needed to tap the female market to enhance its profitability – a term that dominates everything Goodell and the league are obsessed with.

The game of musical chairs conducted by teams is a highlight of the book as owners like Art Modell sneaked his Browns out of Cleveland in the middle of the night to become the Baltimore Ravens.  The movements of Al Davis’s Oakland Raiders from Oakland to Los Angeles and back, then Las Vegas is a fascinating story as are the Los Angeles Rams move to St. Louis leaving the second largest market in the United States without a football team.  In the end there would be two teams in Los Angeles, expansion to Charlotte, Jacksonville, Nashville, and Cleveland which would bring the owners billions of dollars into a system that is socialist in nature.  Roger Goodell, who replaced Tagliabue as commissioner in 2006 navigated the franchise game and in the end justifies a salary which approaches $60 million per year.

Perhaps the most important aspect of the monograph rests on the health of the players after they retire.  The policy as with all things for the NFL was profitability.  When Mike Webster died at age fifty of Chronic Brain Encephalopathy (CTE) and Junior Seau committed suicide at age forty-three the league would have to take notice.  Benson argues that CTE was one of the rare existential threats to the league.  His deep research into settlements and attitudes is eye opening as the NFL showed its true colors offering only $765 million to compensate players for ALS, Alzheimer’s and other illnesses without a trial or an admission of guilt.  Eventually more money became available as post career disabilities other than head trauma were added.  The depth of Benson’s discussion is highlighted by a 2020 discovery by lawyers that black players who filed dementia claims were denied more often than white players.  The root cause was algorithms designed to estimate a players cognitive abilities years before they joined the NFL.  The algorithms assumed Black players were less intelligent in theory and looked less demented later in life, so they did not qualify for restitution!

Download Man Made Gillette Stadium 4k Ultra HD Wallpaper

(Gillete Stadium)

Another important issue that Benson explores, second to CTE in terms of the impact on the league’s bottom line, centered on San Francisco quarterback Colin Kapernick’s protest over social injustice resulting in players kneeling when the national anthem was played.  Benson’s chapter analyzing the motivations and machinations of the owners who grew very uncomfortable with the situation when President Trump injected himself into the controversy does not reflect well on league executives.  Trump’s interference exacerbated the situation, and the owners were mostly concerned with the impact on their bottom line.  Benson relates the important roles played by Kraft and Goodell in defusing the conflict and reaching an accommodation that resolved Kaepernick being “blacklisted” by owners who were tone deaf when it came to issues of race.  As usual the resolution of the issue centered around the owner’s, as per usual, throwing money at the problem in the hope the league and the players would move on.

The league is forever seeking new streams of revenue and after years of warning players about gambling on games (the Paul Hornung and Alex Karas cases of 1963 come to mind) they are now in bed with Caesars, Draftkings, and Fanduel – which operate in a number of league stadiums.  Since the league is based on an addiction to the game, another addiction to gambling as a threat does not seem to bother them.  Goodell’s rationalization is that “we didn’t support making it legal…but we just have to adjust to whatever the law is.”

Benson has written a marvelous expose of the NFL and the men who drive profitability.  It does more than point out the negative aspects of decisions and Benson does devote pages to charities that men like Kraft, Jones, and other owners donate to.  Despite this it seems when the league donates money for spousal abuse, CTE research, civil rights issues etc. it is doing so more as a marketing strategy rather than actually alleviating a basic problem fostered by the league.

cover image Every Day Is Sunday: How Jerry Jones, Robert Kraft, and Roger Goodell Turned the NFL into a Cultural & Economic Juggernaut

38 LONDRES STREET: ON IMPUNITY, PINOCHET IN ENGLAND AND A NAZI IN PATAGONIA by Philippe Sands

szfreiberger Biography, Chilean History Leave a comment

(The plaque outside explaining the site’s history)

In his latest book, 38 LONDRES STREET: ON IMPUNITY, PINOCHET IN ENGLAND AND A NAZI IN PATAGONIA, British-French human rights lawyer, Philippe Sands completes what he considers a type of trilogy which follows his previous works, EAST WEST STREET  and THE RATLINE. The three books are personally motivated studies of how the Nazi genocide of Jews during World War Two has shaped the world’s moral and legal understanding of justice and impunity.  As Lily Meyer asks in her review in the October 8, 2025, edition of the Washington Post; “All three books ask to what extent one country is another’s keeper.”  But this query becomes obvious in 38 LONDRES STREET which intertwines the story of Walther Rauff, the inventor of the gas extermination vans in which Hitler’s henchmen employed to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews before the extermination camp facilities were constructed, with the extradition trial of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in London in 1998, who after seizing power in 1973 oversaw the deaths and disappearance of over 3,000 people, the torture and imprisonment of over 40,000 victims, and the exiling of  hundreds of thousands of Chileans carried out by the secret police he created, the Direccion de Intelligence Nacional (DINA).

Sands organizes his monograph using alternating chapters delving into different aspects of his story that eventually fit together.  He focuses on a number of topics and situations.  Two of the most impactful are the crimes of Augusto Pinochet and the issue of immunity – does a former head of state have immunity for crimes he committed while in power in a sovereign nation.  This leads to a series of chapters highlighting the intimate details as indictments in Chile, Spain, and England favor the extradition of the former Chilean dictator to Spain to stand trial for the crimes he committed while leading Chile between 1973 and 1990.  As the narrative unravels a new element is introduced, the role of former Nazi Walther Rauff and his possible complicity in the crimes committed by the Pinochet regime.  Sands follows many leads and is very selective as to what he accepts for evidence and concludes that Rauff, in fact participated in some egregious disappearance of political prisoners and their torture.

The National Plebiscite was held on September 11 to approve the Political Constitution of the Republic of Chile, and to solidify the position of...

(Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in 1980)

Sands is a prisoner of his own detail as he was actually employed as a lawyer involved in aspects of the extradition hearings, developing relationships with a number of important characters and during his research and interviews learning many troubling aspects concerning his main subjects.  This formulates the backbone of his story as sources like; Leon Gomez, Samuel Fuenzalida; and Jorges Vergara are able to link Rauff to Pinochet’s crimes against humanity.

Pinochet was arrested on October 17, 1998, while visiting London to be extradited to Spain for crimes of genocide, torture, and disappearances during his reign in Chile.  On September 11, 1973, he played a leading role as Commander and Chief in the military coup against the Socialist government of Salvador Allende.  Pinochet was a staunch anti-communist and was supported by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger.  The title of the book 38 Londres Street was that the Socialist Party headquarters was turned into a secret interrogation and torture center.  Sands immediately describes Pinochet’s crimes focusing on the murder of Orlando Letelier and other assassinations within Chile and abroad, in addition to an abusive  prison system that encompasses the entire country highlighted by torture and beatings as more and more people kept disappearing.

Pinochet ruled Chile until he stepped down in March 1998 and became a Senator for life which gave him complete immunity as a parliamentarian, from legal proceedings in Chile.  As we will see, the immunity issue dominates the narrative but was only applied for crimes proven after 1998 not before.  By October 1998, Juan Guzman, a prosecutor in Santiago was investigating Pinochet’s personal role in allegedly authorizing the “Caravan of Death” operation where 97 people were assassinated across Chile organized by Pinochet.  The dictator was protected by the Amnesty Law he signed in 1978 for this and other crimes. 

The role of Henry Kissinger and the Nixon administration is important, and I wish Sands could have devoted more time to this aspect of the story as the then NSC head told Pinochet, “I am very sympathetic to your efforts in Chile, we wish your government well…..You did a great service to the west in overthrowing Allende.”  It appears Kissinger gave Pinochet card balance to murder Orlando Letelier.  On 21 September 1976,  the former Chilean diplomat and outspoken opponent of Pinochet, was assassinated in Washington, D.C  by a car bomb planted by agents of the Chilean secret police (DINA) as part of “Operation Condor.”   Declassified U.S. intelligence documents indicate that Pinochet personally ordered the assassination,] which was intended to eliminate a leading voice of Chilean resistance and disrupt international opposition to his regime.  Sands explores those responsible as a deal was made preventing any extraditions to the US.

President Allende's last picture was captured at about 09:45 am, at La Moneda Palace, the formal seat of the Chilean government, Santiago, Chile, September 11th, 1973. Photo by Leopoldo Victor Vargas (courtesy Contact Press Images)

(Salvatore Allende’s last speech during 1973 coup)

Once Pinochet arrived in London in 1998 he made himself a legal target.  Sands’ access to the many major players who sought Pinochet’s extradition is a key component of the book and what separates others who have mined this topic.  Sands knew Juan Garces, a Spanish lawyer who prepared the legal work for lawsuits brought by the families of Pinochet’s victims, and Carlos Castresona, the Madrid prosecutor who brought charges against Pinochet applying universal jurisdiction as the basis for his cases for international crimes committed in Argentina – terrorism, torture, and genocide.  Castresona sought to establish a legal precedent by going after Pinochet.

Interestingly, the case was personal for Sands as learned he was a cousin of Carmelo Soria, a Spanish-Chilean diplomat assassinated on July 16, 1976.   He was a member of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean in the 1970s and  was murdered by Chile’s DINA agents as a part of “Operation Condor,” as he and his wife were friends with Salvatore Allende.  Sands provides the details of the later prosecution of agents for Soria’s murder through the Madrid legal system, and it came down to England’s extradition of Pinochet to Spain which dominates the narrative throughout.  Sands had access to the participants and came in possession of a treasure trove of documents.  The case would go back and forth as English courts took over since he was in London for medical treatment.  At times, the courts ruled that he should be extradited  as he was well enough to stand trial.  The case involved parliamentary courts led by the House of Lords,  Home Secretary Jack Straw and even former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.  The ultimate result was Pinochet would walk free claiming he was too ill and enfeebled to travel to Spain.  Upon his eventual arrival in Santiago, he seemed in the “pink of health.”  The question was why he was released.  Sands’ research points to a complex deal between England, Spain, Chile, and Belgium that allowed him to return to Chile.

(Walther Rauff in 1945)

The other major component of the narrative is the role of Walther Rauff, a former Nazi who was mentored by Reinhard Heydrich who tasked him to develop vans to be used for gassing people on the eastern front.  At the end of the war Rauff would wind his way through the labyrinth set up for Nazi’s to escape Europe and would eventually arrive in Ecuador where Sands provides evidence of his acquaintance with Pinochet, and then Chile.  Rauff would be arrested in December 1962, and Sands cites evidence of his nefariousness from documentation of the Eichmann Trial going on in Israel.  He soon became a target of the Mossad and Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal, but Rauff who was working for West German intelligence (BND) assumed he would be protected.  Because of Chile’s 15 year statute of limitations Rauff could not be extradited, and the BND cut him loose.

Rauff would be put charge of a fishing cannery in Punta Arenas called Pesquera Camelo                   after the 1973 coup which thrilled the former Nazi who would develop a working relationship with DINA and provided advice on naval matters.  Sands spends a great deal of time trying to link Rauff to Pinochet and concludes he was more than a “desk murderer” who pointed out communist targets for death, though other evidence and interviews Sands conducted point to a larger role.  For Sands there is a personal link to Rauff in addition to Pinochet.  Sands would learn that his mother’s cousin Herta, was most likely one of the thousands murdered in Rauff’s vans, Herta was twelve years old.

Sands takes the reader inside Pinochet’s reign of horror for thousands including DINA’s organizational structure and tactics interviewing perpetrators and victims at Colonia Dignidad an isolated colony established in post-World War II Chile by emigrant Germans which became notorious for the internment, torture, and murder of dissidents during the reign of Pinochet in the 1970s while under the leadership of German emigrant preacher Paul Schafer.  Schafer participated in torture of political prisoners, employed slave labor, and procured weapons for Pinochet.  Another example of Pinochet’s house of horrors was Dawson Island.   After the 1973 Chilean coup, the military dictatorship of Pinochet  used the island to house political prisoners suspected of being communist activists, including government ministers and close friends of the deposed President Salvatore Allende, most notably Orlando Letelier and others.  Roughly 400 prisoners were kept there at one time or another and were used for forced labor.

Former victims of Pinochet dictatorship return to their captivity places, in Santiago

(A hall is pictured at Estadio Nacional memorial, a former detention and torture center of the Augusto Pinochet dictatorship, in Santiago, Chile),

According to Samuel Fuenzalida, a DINA operative, Rauff was in charge of Pesquera Arauco, a  fishery that had refrigerated vans that transported political prisoners.  Fuenzalida saw Rauff at DINA headquarters at least three times in 1974 and was convinced the former Nazi worked for and consulted for the DINA.  Sands uncovers further evidence of Rauff’s role in a meeting in November 2022 with Jorgelino Vergara, another former DINA agent who claims Rauff was at the first “Operation Condor” meeting in 1974.  He places Rauff at a number of meetings that resulted in torture of prisoners, beatings, and death.  Rauff’s fishery plays an important role as they were used by DINA to carry out its torture, disappearances, even turning detainees into fish meal.

What is clear from Sands’ unparalleled research and intimate knowledge of his subject is that there is a link between Pinochet and Rauff who likely worked together through DINA.  Further, after spending an enormous amount of time explaining the legalities of Pinochet’s “immunity” fight and extradition, the former Chilean dictator was able to walk away from prosecution of his crimes.  By the time of his death on 10 December 2006, about 300 criminal charges were still pending against him in Chile for numerous human rights violations during his 17-year rule, as well as tax evasion and embezzlement during and after his rule.    He was also accused of having corruptly amassed at least US$28 million.

Sands describes the proceedings against Pinochet as the most significant criminal case since the Nuremberg Trials as never before had a former head of state been arrested in another country for international crimes.  Jennifer Szalai’s October 3, 2025, New York Times review  “Getting Away With it,”  captures the essence of Sand’s work; “Sands is also a consummate storyteller, gently teasing out his heavy themes and the accompanying legal intricacies through the unforgettable details he unearths and the many people — Rauff’s family, former military conscripts, British legal insiders — who open up to him.

Jack Straw: Jack Straw: Life in Politics

(British Home Secretary Jack Straw)

Beyond the fact that Rauff and Pinochet were socially connected, the links between them are ghostly. “I wondered about proof,” Sands writes at one point. “I wanted evidence, not speculation, rumor or myth.” What he does find is that the two men embraced the deployment of state power to torture and murder human beings, even as each made every effort to deflect responsibility. Pinochet — who issued an amnesty law in 1978 to immunize himself and his government from prosecution — blamed the people below, insisting he could not control their “excesses”; Rauff blamed the people above, insisting that he was only following orders.

There is a measure of hope in this book, but Sands shows that even in the face of overwhelming evidence, justice is never a foregone conclusion, especially when it comes to holding the powerful to account. In the epilogue, a Pinochet confidant tells Sands that the Pinochet Foundation received a check for nearly 980,000 pounds from the British government, made out to Pinochet personally, to reimburse his expenses while he was in London. Pinochet’s critics were aghast, but his lawyer was unapologetic. “That’s the system,” he said.

Photo of Philippe Sands

Lily Meyer sums up well stating that Sands “relays the court battles with precision and restraint, interviewing representatives of both sides and providing an account intellectual enough to nearly seem neutral, though his detailed, careful descriptions of Pinochet’s crimes serve as reminders of both the trial’s stakes and Sands’s own values. The government of Chile, which was democratic and socialist, opposed Pinochet’s extradition on the grounds that “it was for Chile, not Spanish judges or British courts, to deal with Pinochet’s crimes.” Central to Sands’s work, and to “38 Londres Street,” is the conviction that this claim isn’t true. The book convincingly argues that “torture, disappearance and other international crimes [can] never be treated as official acts,” and that international immunity for them dishonors their victims and undermines the very idea of human rights.”

QUEEN ESTHER by John Irving

szfreiberger Literature, Uncategorized Leave a comment
Introducing the Head of School Search Committee

My journey with John Irving began my freshman year in college when I read SETTING FREE THE BEARS.  I have enjoyed his quirky sense of humor, his support for those ostracized by elements in society, and the incredible scenes he has created.  Perhaps my favorite scene comes from the novel, THE FOURTH HAND, where the main character, a journalist’s ex-wife, employs a lacrosse stick as a pooper scooper for her dog.   This unusual tool in a memorable, somewhat bizarre scene, highlights Irving’s style of blending the absurd with profound themes that have carried forth through some of my favorite Irving novels that include THE WORLD ACCORDING TO GARP, THE HOTEL NEW HAMPSHIRE, A PRAYER FOR OWEN MEANY, THE CIDER HOUSE RULES, and TRYING TO SAVE PEGGY SNEED.  My journey is very personal as I have taught at a university in New Hampshire, in addition to an elitist boarding school in New England.  Further my son played lacrosse at the boarding school and Harvard.  In addition, my daughter, son-in-law and two grandchildren are Mainers.  So, you can see why I have the affinity for the types of novelistic themes and characters that Irving has created.  Now that I am a senior citizen it seems that my adulthood is bookended with Irving’s writings and just when I needed an absurdist fix to deal with the reality of living in a Trumpist world he has produced his latest, QUEEN ESTHER, a book which is wonderful at times, and then disappointing at times.

In QUEEN ESTHER, Irving brings back Dr. Wilbur Larch from CIDER HOUSE RULES after four decades managing adoptions at St. Clouds Orphanage where he is the physician and Director.  Larch performs abortions for women who have no alternatives and is as cantankerous as ever.  The novel starts out in the early 20th century and revolves around Esther Nacht who was born in Vienna in 1905, the only Jewish orphan raised at St. Clouds.  On her voyage from Bremerhaven to Portland, ME her father died of pneumonia aboard ship.  Later, her mother will be murdered by anti-Semites in Portland.  Dr. Larch realizes that the abandoned child is not only aware that she is Jewish, but also she is familiar with the biblical Queen Esther after whom she was named.  Dr. Larch realizes it will not be easy to find a Jewish family to adopt her, soon he is aware that he will never find any family to adopt her.

At the outset, the novel focuses on the Winslow family who date to 1620 arriving on the Mayflower.  The Winslow’s reside in Pennacook, New Hampshire, a town which is the home of Pennacook Academy, an independent boarding school for boys founded in 1781.  One of its students was James Winslow, a faculty brat and the grandson of the most revered member of the school’s English Department, Thomas Winslow.  Since Jimmy’s mother, Esther was an orphan he could not be considered a “blue blood.”  The townspeople had difficulties with his mother’s adoption and as Irving develops the novel they were correct as Esther was the caretaker for Thomas and his wife Constance Winslow’s fourth daughter, Honor.  Jimmy’s birth was the result of the “pact” between Esther and Honor; Esther would become pregnant and give the child to Honor who detested the idea of birthing a child.  So begins a novel that is typical Irving; layered, funny, heartbreaking, and full of the strange humanity he always captures.

Irving in 2010

(John Irving in 2010)

The adoption of Esther by Thomas and Constance is important because it allows Irving to delve into societal issues related to abortion.  When the Winslow’s set out to adopt a caretaker for their daughter they were clear that they did not want to adopt someone from an orphanage run by nuns or linked to the Christian faith – they could not bear any religious affiliation.  After considering a French-Canadian orphanage as too religious they settled on St. Cloud’s where they found Esther, a Jewish child of fifteen who was born in Vienna.  As the Winslow’s searched for what turned out to be Esther, Irving presents his pro-abortion views focusing on people who opposed abortion but did not consider the child who would wind up in an orphanage, as it seemed they just wanted to punish the mother.  As in all examples of societal issues Irving will present a brief history of the topic and the fact that abortion was not considered illegal from 1620 to the mid-19th century.  Irving argues it became illegal as Doctor’s resented midwives who performed them making money at their expense.  

Since Esther was Jewish the issue of anti-Semitism soon became the focus of Irving’s characters and thereby his views.  He subtly integrates the issue as he believes that New Englanders are covertly anti-Semitic as witnessed by the reaction to Thomas’ lectures on abortion and the adoption of Esther.  It is clear that it would be difficult to find parents for Esther because she was Jewish, but since the Winslow’s were a philanthropic, non-Jewish eccentrically non-believing New Hampshire couple, they would be the type open to adopting a teenager like Esther.

The novel spans the 20th century from 1905 to 1981 and at the outset you get the feeling it is about Esther, but in reality it is mostly about Jimmy Winslow, the son who was the center of the “pact.”  Esther herself considered her “Jewishness” as the mainstay of her identity, but was not religious, though she could read Hebrew she did not believe in God.  Her main goal eventually was to move to Israel as she was consumed by the exile of the Jews from the land of Israel and the diaspora of the Jewish people.  Her outlook on life could be summed up from a quote from JANE EYRE which in true Irving fashion was tattooed between her breasts.  She traveled to Europe in 1934 with the goal of getting pregnant to honor the “pact” where she would meet Moshe Kleinberg, a Greco-Roman wrestler in the lightweight class who even had a picture taken with General Paul von Hindenburg when he was President of Germany!   Moshe, whose nickname was “the little mountain” would become Jimmy’s father but would never meet him which creates another path for Irving to expound upon as Jimmy has many identity issues because of his background.

Queen Ester by John Irving

As Jimmy matured his grandfather exposed him to literary figures, particularly Charles Dickens that factored into his decision to become a writer.  Jimmy believed in his intrinsic foreignness and was determined to see himself as an orphan, no matter how his grandparents tried to raise him.  In 1963 we find Jimmy in Vienna seeking his roots and a desire to learn German.  Esther will find him a German Jewish tutor who of course he falls in love with.  Jimmy’s other issue is the Vietnam War and the draft in the United States.  His mother, Honor, sent him to Vienna to meet someone, get them pregnant, keep the baby and in this way he would be draft exempt.  If that couldn’t take place she wanted him to wrestle with the hope of damaging his leg also making him draft exempt.  In the background everyone wonders about Esther who has gone to Palestine – is she a member of the Haganah, a Jewish defense force or something similar to defend Jews and facilitate their immigration to Palestine.  Another plot line that is an undercurrent for Jimmy is his goal of being a novelist, and of course the name of the book is THE DICKENS MAN.

In all subjects that Irving integrates into the novel he has excellent command of the history of the topic.  Apart from abortion and anti-Semitism Irving expounds on Jewish history, GREAT EXPECTATIONS by Charles Dickens, films like “From Here to Eternity,” a history of circumcision, the rise of the Nazis, the Holocaust, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the Cold War era in general, and Israeli politics and society.  It is clear Irving has conducted meticulous research for his novel and should be commended as he immerses himself in his subjects until every detail feels authentic even if it meant visiting wrestling gyms, hospitals or tattoo parlors.  Further as he constructs his background history he does it in a concise and meaningful manner where the subject matter just blends seamlessly into the story.

Though the novel seems to focus mostly on Jimmy, the progression of Esther in the background until she emerges at the end of the book is powerful, especially in light of what Israel seems to have become and the arguments put forth by Palestinians and Israelis alike.  The reviews for QUEEN ESTHER have been mixed and as usual in interviews Irving does not seem to care what is said about his work.  Some have panned the novel but his sarcasm, sense of the absurd, character development, and ability to provide scenes that no one else could create make the book a worthwhile read, and of course along with his unique style of writing.

SURVIVING KATYN: STALIN’S POLISH MASSACRE AND THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH by Jane Rogoyska

szfreiberger Russian History, World War II Leave a comment

(Mass grave of Polish officers in Katyn Forest, exhumed by Germany in 1943)

The Katyn forest massacre committed by the Soviet Union occurred between April and May 1940.  Though killings took place in Kalinin and Kharkiv prisons operated by the NKVD and elsewhere, the massacre is named after the Katyn forest where mass graves were first discovered by the Nazis in  April1943.  Roughly 22,000 Polish military, police officers, border guards, intellectual prisoners of war were executed by the Soviet Secret Police, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin issued the orders.  Once the Nazis announced their findings Stalin severed diplomatic relations with the London based Polish government in exile because they asked for an investigation by the International Committee of the Red Cross.  Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbles realized the publicity value of the find he immediately contacted the Polish Red Cross to investigate but the Kremlin denied culpability and blamed the Germans.  The British and their allies, dependent upon Soviet participation to defeat the Nazis, went along with the falsehood.   The Kremlin continued to deny responsibility for the massacre until 1990, when it finally accepted accountability for  NKVD’s actions and the concealment of the truth by the Soviet government.

At that time Russian president Boris Yerltsin released top-secret documents pertaining to the investigation and forwarded them to Lech Walesa, Poland’s new President.  Among the documents was a plan written by Lavrentiev Beria, the head of the NKVD until 1953 dated March 5, 1940, calling for the execution of 25,700 Poles from the Kozelsk, Ostashkov, and Starobelsk prisoner of war camps, and from prisons in Ukraine and Belarus.  After the fall of the Soviet Union the prosecutors general of the Russian Federation admitted Soviet responsibility for the massacres but refused to admit to a war crime or an act of mass murder. 

(Aerial view of the Katyn massacre grave)

The historical record acknowledges that Stalin was behind the genocidal atrocity and it was part of his larger plan to remove anyone who might conceivably pose a threat to the imposition of future Soviet rule in Poland – “a decapitation of Polish society strikingly similar to Nazi policy in occupied Poland at the same time.”  He wanted to eliminate large elements of the Polish elite to remove any potential obstacle to the later imposition of communist rule.  For Stalin, Poland was an artificial creation of the 1919 Versailles Treaty that undid the 1772, 1793 and 1795 partitions of Poland between Russia, Prussia, and the Austrian Empire.  Because of the Nazi-Soviet Pact of August 26, 1939, Poland would be divided a fourth time between Germany and the Soviet Union.  Stalin could retake Russia’s Polish holdings, Western Ukraine and Belorussia without worrying about German opposition.  A second line of reasoning for Stalin centers around the Soviet dictator’s knowledge of Adolf Hitler’s intentions.  Stalin had read MEIN KAMPF and was fully cognizant of Hitler’s endgame- Lebensraum or “living space” in the east, and how Russia was to be Germany’s “breadbasket.”  By invading Poland on September 16, 1939, completing the fourth partition of Poland he would create a buffer zone for the eventual German invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941.  For Stalin it was a defensive measure.

The mystery clouding responsibility over the massacre is the subject of historian and biographer Jane Rogoyska’s book, SURVIVING KATYN: STALIN’S POLISH MASSACRE AND THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH which chronicles how the NKVD worked to reshape the facts pertaining to the massacre blaming it on the Nazis.  Planting documents on dead bodies to pursuing a truck full of evidence across Europe, destroying records, to staging incidents in European capitals the Stalinist government left no stone unturned in quashing the truth.  Only 395 men survived the massacre who were unwitting witnesses to a crime that theoretically never officially happened.  In a striking narrative, Rogoyska brings the victims out of the shadows, telling their stories as well as those of the people who desperately searched for them.  In a work of moral clarity and precision, the author does not just supply statistics about another World War II atrocity, but how individuals were sacrificed for no reason and whose memory was lost, a sideshow in the battle between two psychotic and demented dictators.

Map of the sites related to the Katyn massacre

(Map of the sites related to the Katyn massacre)

At the outset Rogoyska introduces the reader to the prisoners of war and their overseers.  She lays out the incarceration process, the paranoia of the NKVD, and the incompetence of the bureaucracy of those in charge.  Recounting the interrogation process, attempts to propagandize the Poles, and presenting intimate pictures of the prisoners, the author employs interviews, memoirs, and whatever documentation was available in order to the provide the most complete picture of the personalities and events pertaining to the massacre since Allen Paul’s KATYN: STALIN’S MASSACRE AND THE TRIUMPH OF TRUTH.

Initially the prisoners were taken to three camps, Starobelsk, Kozelsk, and Ostashkov.  Rogoyska discusses life in all three camps and focuses mostly on Starobelsk as she follows the lives of Bronislav Mlynarski, Jozef Czapski, and Zygmunt Kwarcinke.  They would be among the last group that left Starobelsk and were sent to a transit camp at Pavlishchev Bor in a group of 395 out of 14,800 from all three prison camps.  On June 14, 1940, they were taken to the Griazovets camp located halfway between Moscow and the Arctic port of Arkhangelsk.

While in Griazovets, Beria, with Stalin’s support, worked to create a Polish Division within the Red Army, a topic that Rogoyska spends a great deal of time discussing.  Beria and his henchmen tried to recruit Polish officers to lead it, most refused, but a few from a pro-Soviet group from Starobelsk known as the “Red Corner” agreed.  The NKVD was concerned about the officer’s attitudes toward the exiled Polish government in London.  While questioning other officers who remained POWs who wanted information about the whereabouts and availability of their compatriots, Beria responded “no, we made a big mistake.”  From this phrase the author develops Beria’s guilt in the death of thousands.  It would take until May of 1943 for the creation of the Polish 1st Tadeusz Kosciuszko infantry division within the Red Army led by General Zigmunt Berling, an NKVD collaborator.  This would satisfy Beria’s goal of a division with a “Polish Face” within the Soviet military.

Lavrenty Beria

( Director of the Soviet secret police-NKVD Lavrenty Beria)

During training at Griazovets, the NKVD invested a great deal of time trying to gain the loyalty of the Poles.  They created a cultural school employing film, lectures, music, better treatment, etc. to no avail.  The NKVD attempt to re-educate these men was an abject failure.

Finally on June 22, 1941, Stalin’s greatest fear came to fruition when the Nazis invaded Russia.  The invasion impacted the prisoners in a number of ways.  First, conditions at Griazovets worsened as rations were cut 50%, clothing became unavailable, and freedoms were lessened.  Secondly, the Polish POWs feared as the Russians collapsed they would be seized and imprisoned by the Germans.  Thirdly, a large influx of new prisoners created chaos.  Lastly, the London Poles came to an agreement with the Kremlin, known as the Sikorski-Maisky Agreement, restored diplomatic relations between Poland and Russia, instituted an amnesty for all prisoners in Russia, including thousands of women and children.  It was decided that General Wladyslaw Andres would command the Polish army after his release from prison on August 4, 1941.  The Poles, no longer prisoners, wondered the fate of their comrades – they had no idea that 14,500 of them from the three camps had been massacred.

From this point on Rogoyska explores who was responsible for the deaths of thousands of POWs, who was responsible for their deaths, and how the truth was covered up.  Despite the amnesty for prisoners during their arrests they were sent deeper into Russia.  These deportations took place between 1940 and 1941 numbered between 1.25 and 1.6 million, though the NKVD argues it “was only” 400,000.  The death toll was about 30%.

( Jozef Czapski in uniform, January 1943)

Rogoyska focuses on the major players in her investigation.  Generals Anders and Zygmunt Bohusz-Szysk met with Marshal Georgy Zuhkov and General Ivan Pantilov asking for a list of Polish soldiers taken by the Soviet Union.  They met six times and meetings were pleasant until the fate of the prisoners were brought up and Zhukov would change the subject and remarked they would eventually be found.  Professor Stanislaw Kot, a Polish academic was placed in charge of the prisoner issue by Andres, but he also was stonewalled and got nowhere.  His meetings with Andrey Vyshinsky (Stalin’s purge prosecutor in the 1930s) and Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov who offered to assist but claimed the NKVD did not maintain detailed records on the missing officers.  Kot knew it was a lie, and the author details the meticulous records the NKVD kept.  Rogoyska integrates transcripts of their meetings and Kot grows increasingly angry and frustrated with Vyshinsky’s responses.  Molotov wrote General Sikorski in December 1941 that “all Polish citizens detained as POWs had now been released and that Soviet authorities had given them all necessary assistance.”


The author addresses the silence surrounding the missing men that gave rise to theories as to their fate.  The most plausible thing was that they had been sent to one of the Soviet Union’s remote regions and had not yet been able to make their way south.  Another theory rests on the claim that Polish prisoners were working in the mines and construction of military facilities in the Gulag region of Kolyma in the far east of Russia.  Andres put former prisoner Jozef Czapski in charge of investigating the plight of these men and basically took over from Professor Kot.  After meeting with Major Lenoid Raikhman, who was in charge of the Polish section at the notorious Lubyanka prison in Moscow who plead ignorance about the fate of the 14,500 officers, Czapski concluded they were probably sent to the remotest parts of the country and very few returned, and even those who made it back could not provide any useful information.  Czapski was limited because he was appointed by the exiled Polish government in London and since the British were dependent on their Soviet allies in defeating Hitler they did not want to create waves.

Another key figure in the investigation was Lt. Stanislaw Swianiewicz, a former prisoner in the Kozelek camp and a distinguished professor of economics.  The NKVD was interested in him because he had authored a book explaining how the Germans had rearmed.  His story is right out of a movie set as the Russians interrogated him, released him, and tried to rearrest him but he escaped.  Rogoyska’s chapters on his escapades provide a glimpse into Soviet thinking, the diplomatic game that was taking place between the Polish government in exile, the allies, and the Soviet Union, and Russian duplicity throughout.  Swianiewicz was important to the Stalin because he was a witness to Soviet war crimes. 

(Andrey Vyshinsky in 1940)

The Soviet smokescreen began in the fall of 1943 after the Red Army retook the Smolensk area.  Before the Soviets arrived, the Germans allowed a group of Allied journalists to watch an autopsy prepared by Professor Gerhard Buhtz, the head of Germany’s Army Group Medical Services who pointed out that the bodies were all shot through the back of the head.  Not to be out done, the Soviet Union conducted its own investigation headed by Lt. General of the Medical Corps and one time doctor to Stalin, brain specialist Nikolai Burdenko.  NKVD operational workers arrived at Katyn in September 1943 under the direction of BG Major Leonid Raikhman whose men proceeded to rearrange the site, swaying witnesses, planting documents on dead bodies to support the charge that the massacre did not occur in 1940, but in August 1941 during the Nazi occupation.  After allowing a group of journalists to visit the site, Alexander Werth, British journalist concluded that the evidence was very thin, and the site had a “prefabricated appearance.”   He agreed with others that Moscow had committed the massacre.  To her credit, the author delves into minute detail of the investigations and the personalities involved who could only conclude based on their findings it was not Germany that was responsible, but the Stalinist regime.  She also includes primary source material like the Burdenko Commission report and others that were issued after careful investigations of the site and the exhumed bodies.

(Formal portrait, 1932 Josef Stalin)

The British and the Poles were convinced the NKVD was responsible, but it did not matter as the Soviet Union was needed to defeat Germany, so the allies swallowed their concerns.  After the war, the communist government in Warsaw pursued anyone who tried to alter occurrences that would contradict the Soviet rendering of events.

Since the topic of the massacre has fostered a great deal of scholarship it is not surprising that the author does not contain any new revelations.  But to her credit her account is lucid and powerful as she recreates the lives of the officers who were artists, scientists, engineers, poets, lawyers, as well as career military men.  She chose to examine her topic through the lens of the investigation rather than describing it as it happened which may have been more thought provoking for the reader.

A mass grave, with multiple corpses visible

(A mass grave at Katyn, 1943)

DEMOCRATS VS. AUTOCRATS: CHINA, RUSSIA, AMERICA AND THE NEW GLOBAL ORDER by Michael McFaul

szfreiberger American Diplomatic History, Chinese History, Cold War, Russian History Leave a comment
Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Beijing. Pic: Sergei Bobylev, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP

(Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Beijing)

The other day President Trump gave Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinsky an ultimatum, accept his proposed peace plan by Thanksgiving or else.  The next day Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the United States was still in negotiations with Kyiv to find a solution for its ongoing war with Russia, and the deadline was cancelled.  Another day went by when we learned that Special Enjoy Steve Wycoff had spoken with a top Russian negotiator and provided him with information as to how to maneuver Trump to obtain his approval for Kremlin demands.  It appears that the original twenty-eight step proposal ultimatum from Trump was a recasting of Putin’s maximalist position which has not changed despite the recent Alaska Summit.

It seems to me the only way to get Putin to seriously negotiate is to provide Ukraine with long range missiles, ammunition, and other military equipment to place the war on a more even footing.  Further the Trump administration should introduce more secondary sanctions on Moscow and others whose purchase of Russian fossil fuels fund Putin’s war, which would create a more level playing field for Ukraine, however the president will not do so no matter how often he hints that he will.  Another important aspect is that Trump refused to provide any direct American aid to Ukraine.  He will allow the European allies to purchase American equipment and ship it for use by the Ukrainian army.  The problem is that it is not quick resupply and the allies have had difficulty agreeing amongst themselves. 

As the war progresses Putin has tried to showcase his burgeoning friendship with President Xi Jinping of China.  China has purchased millions of gallons of Russian oil, as has India which states it will now find alternative sources, which has bankrolled Moscow in paying for its war against Ukraine.  These two autocratic countries are solidifying their relationship after decades of disagreements.  It would be important for American national security not to drive a wedge in Chinese-American relations, however, Trump’s obsession with reworking the world economy through his tariff policy seems to be his only concern.  Increasing tariffs, threatening trading partners, disrupting trade just angers China and does not allow American businesses to plan based on a supply line that is at the whim of Trump’s next TACO or change of mind!

Trump meets Xi Jinping

(President Donald Trump spent his first term pursuing a grand new bargain with China but he only got to phase one)

In this diplomatic environment Michael McFaul, a professor of Political Science at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, in addition to being a former U.S. ambassador to the Russian Federation (2012-2014) latest book, DEMOCRATS VS. AUTOCRATS: CHINA, RUSSIA, AMERICA AND THE NEW GLOBAL ORDER is rather timely.  In his monograph McFaul concludes, the old world order has ended, and we have entered a new Cold War era which is quite different from the one we experienced with the Soviet Union.  The new era has witnessed many disconcerting changes; a new alliance emerging between China and Russia, Chinese economic growth has been substantial, and it has allowed them to fund their overwhelming military growth, the far right has grown exponentially in the United States and Europe, and the disturbing shift of the Trump administration toward isolationism, except in the case of Venezuela and the Southern Hemisphere.  As a result, we are facing a new world which offers new threats without precedent in the 20th century, and we seem incapable of dealing with them.

McFaul meticulously takes the reader on a journey encompassing the last 300 years as he argues that today’s new power alignments and problems require a fresh approach, unencumbered by our Cold War past or MAGA’s insular nationalist dreams.  McFaul’s incisive and analytical approach provides a manifesto that argues against America’s retreat from the world.  The author develops three important themes throughout the book.  First, Russia’s disruptive ambitions should not be underestimated.  Second, China’s capabilities should not be overestimated.  Lastly, Trump’s move toward isolationism and autocracy will only weaken America’s place in the world balance of power.  These themes are cogent, well researched, and supported by numerous historical examples that McFaul weaves throughout this lengthy work which should be read by all policymakers, members of congress, and the general public.

There is so much to unpack in McFaul’s monograph.  He does an excellent job of synthesis in tracing the causes of great power competition today reviewing the history of US-Russia and US-China relations over the last 300 years and explains how we arrived at the tensions that define the global order today.  He correctly argues that power, regime types, and individuals have interacted to produce changing cycles of cooperation and conflict between the United States, China, and Russia over the last three centuries.  It is clear that over the past few decades these factors have created more conflict after the hopes of democratization that existed in the 1990s.

McFaul argues that there are some parallels between the Cold War with the Soviet Union and the present competition with China and Russia, but we should not go overboard because it distorts what is really happening.  Similarities with the Cold War include a bipolar power structure this time between the US and China; there is an ideological component resting on the competition between democracy and autocracy; and all three nations have different conceptions of what the global order should look like.  However, we must be careful as we have overestimated Chinese power and exaggerated her threat to our existence for too long.  Containing China must be our prime goal but China is not an existential threat to the United States and the free world.  China does not threaten the very existence of the United States and our democratic allies.  President Xi of China has witnessed the decline of American power particularly after it caused the 2008 financial crash and no longer believes he has to defer to the United States and has taken advantage of American errors over the last twenty years to pose a competitive threat to Washington.  Xi is not trying to export Marxist-Leninism, he is employing China’s  financial and technological strengths to support autocracies around the world and expand Chinese power in the South China Sea,  the developing world, especially in Africa – once again taking advantage of American errors.

Image: U.S. President Trump And Russian President Putin Meet On War In Ukraine At U.S. Air Base In Alaska

(President Donald Trump greets Russian President Vladimir Putin as he arrives at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson)

Along these same lines we have underestimated Russian power in recent years as under Putin it has the capacity to threaten US security interests, including those of our European allies.  Though Russia is not an economic threat she is a formidable adversary because Putin is a risk taker and is more willing to deploy Russian power aggressively than previous Russian leaders.  Secondly, its invasion of Ukraine provides military experience and lessons that can only improve their performance on the battlefield. Thirdly, unlike during the Cold War, Russia is closely aligned with China.  Putin’s aggressive foreign policy has an ideological component and has sought to propagate his illiberal orthodox values for decades.  Unlike his predecessors Putin is willing to intervene in the domestic affairs of other countries, i.e., kept Bashir Assad in power in Syria for a decade, interfered in American presidential elections and elections throughout Europe, invaded Georgia, Chechnya, Ukraine, etc.  Putin sees the collapse of the Soviet Union as the greatest disaster for Russia of the 20th century and wants to restore the territorial parameters of the Soviet Empire in his vision of Russian autocracy.  As he exports this ideology we can see successes in a number of European countries and certain right wing elements in the United States.

One of his most important chapters recounts the decline of American hegemony since the end of the Cold War.  It has been a slow downturn  and has resulted in the end of the unipolar world where the US dominated.  The Gulf War of 1991 witnessed the United States at its peak power.  Following the war the United States decided to reduce its military since the Soviet Union was collapsing.  However, after 9/11 US military spending expanded.  Under Donald Trump the US spends 1% of GDP on the Pentagon allowing Russia and China to close the gap.  Today we correctly condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but from 1991-2020 the use of hard power in Kuwait to remove Iraq, the overthrow of Manuel Noriega in Panama, the bombing of Serbia in 1998, interfering in the Somali Civil War in 1992, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the overthrow of Gaddafi in 2011 created power vacuums for terrorist rebels to fill including ISIS in Iraq and Syria.  In addition, it cost the United States trillions of dollars to finance.   According to economist Joseph Stiglitz the war in Iraq alone cost three trillion dollars, and the trillions lost in Afghanistan money that could have been put to better use domestically and globally to enhance Washington’s reputation worldwide, along with thousands of American casualties resulting in death and life-long injuries.  In this environment it is no wonder that the Chinese have expanded their power externally and strengthened their autocracy internally, and Putin feels American opposition is rather hypocritical.

A satellite overview of Fiery Cross Reef in the South China Sea as seen on 1 April 2022(A satellite overview of Fiery Cross Reef in the South China Sea as seen on 1 April 2022)

If this use of hard power was not enough along comes Donald Trump to accelerate the decline in US power by turning to disengagement and isolationism as he withdrew from the Transpacific Partnership, the Paris Climate Accords, the Iran nuclear deal, the INF (Intermediate range nuclear forces) treaty, the World Health Organization and severely criticizes the World Trade Organization, NATO, the European Union, and imposed new and higher tariffs on China, and our allies.  The Trump administration has done little to promote democracy and weakened the United States’ ability to compete ideologically with China whose reputation and inroads in the developing world have made a difference in their global image at the same time the Trump administration has severely cut foreign aid.  His actions have led to little in the area of supporting democracy as an ideological cause as he has curtailed or stopped funding for USAID, NED, Voice of America, Radio Free Europe among many programs, in addition to picking fights with allies, and threatening to withdraw from NATO.  If this is not enough, the COVID 19 virus showed how dependent the United States was on Chinese firms for drug production and critical medical supplies.

Domestically, Trump’s immigration policy is becoming a disaster for the American economy as there is a shortfall in certain areas of the labor market, particularly food production and distribution.  The policy could be a disaster in the long run as university enrollment of foreign students has declined markedly and if one examines the contributions of immigrants historically in the fields of medical and other types of scientific research this is a loss that eventually we may not be able to sustain.  As Trump attacks the independent media and truth, politicizes the American justice system, and uses the presidency for personal gain he appears more and more like an autocratic wannabe, and it is corrosive to American democracy and our image in the world.  These are all unforced errors, and China and Russia have taken advantage dramatically, altering the global balance of power and America’s role in it.

McFaul provides an impressive analysis of the relative economic power vis a vie the United States and Russia, and the United States and China.  The entanglement of the US and Chinese economies must be considered when their relationship has difficulties.  China is both a competitor and a trading partner for the United States.  American companies and investors engage profitably with Beijing, i.e., Boeing, Apple, Nvidia, and American farmers have earned enormous profits and supported thousands of jobs.  American consumers have benefited from lower-priced products imported from China.  Chinese companies trade with and invest in American companies, Chinese scholars conduct collaborative research at American universities, and Chinese financial institutions buy American bonds and go a long way to finance American debt.  Their entanglement presents both challenges and opportunities, but the fundamental challenge for the American foreign policy toward China is figuring out the delicate balance between economic engagement and containment.

In turning to difficulties with Russia, the United States does not have the meaningful economic relationship it has with China.  In fact, as McFaul correctly points out our issues rest outside the economic realm to the ideological – Putinisim.  The Russian autocrat “champions a virulent variant of illiberal, orthodox, and nationalistic ideas emphasizing identity, culture, and tradition.”  Putin wants to export his conservative values and attack western values, by supporting a strong state, enhancing autocracy by promoting Russian sovereignty, basically by creating a false image of Russia.  China spreads its ideology to the developing world.  Russia tries to spread Putinism to the developed world, especially Europe as he tries to foment social polarization in democracies to weaken them.  The rhetoric out of Moscow does not bode well for the future and any change in their approach will have to wait until Putin leaves the scene.

Another very important issue for the American consumer and politicians is Chinese-American trade.  Those who are against an interdependent economy increasingly call for a decoupling of the economic relationship with China because of the damage it does to Americans.  McFaul drills down to show that this is not the case and more importantly how difficult it would be to decouple.  The argument that the US does not benefit from this relationship is a red herring as China holds $784 billion in American debt, and Chinese manufacturing production is imperative for the global supply chain.  Companies like Apple, pharmaceutical companies, and the robotics industry are entities deeply intertwined between the US and China creating economic growth in both countries.  It also must be kept in mind that Chinese growth had a positive effect on the American economy as goods made in China make them cheaper for the US consumer, in fact during the period of increasing US-China trade and investment, the American economy grew more rapidly than any other developed economy.  McFaul warns that the US has to learn how to further benefit from the US-Chinese relationship or at least manage economic entanglement better because it is not going away for decades.

Michael McFaul Profile Photo

(Author, Michael McFaul)

If there is a flaw in McFaul’s monograph it is one of repetition.  The structure of the book makes it difficult to avoid this shortcoming.  Whether the author is discussing Chinese and Russian approaches to confronting the liberal economic world, interfering in other countries, or the philosophies and actions of Putin, Xi or Trump at times the narrative becomes tedious.  The constant reminder that the Chinese threat is much more dire than the Soviet threat was during the Cold War is made over and over as is the constant reminder that our fears of the Chinese are overblown, our attitude toward Russia is not taken seriously enough, and the threat represented by Trump’s devotion to isolationism.  To McFaul’s credit he seems aware of the problem as he constantly reminds us he is repeating the same argument or that he will elaborate on the same points later in the book.  My question is, if you are aware of a problem why keep repeating it?

McFaul spends the last third of the book warning that the United States cannot repeat their Cold War errors as there are fewer resources today to prevent mistakes.  He calls for containing Russia and China, and avoiding what Richard Haass calls “wars of choice,” as took place in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan.  After critiquing errors like overestimating Soviet military and economic power, in addition to exaggerating the appeal of communism, along with underestimating China’s economic and military rise and the faulty belief that the Chinese communist party would democratize, he offers solutions.

All through the narrative McFaul sprinkles suggestions of what the United States should do to compete and contain China and Russia.  Be it encouraging parameters for Ukrainian security, rejoining the Trans-Pacific Partnership, negotiating comprehensive trade agreements with the European Union, the restoration of USAID and other forms of soft power, maintaining and increasing funding for our research institutions, and most importantly lessen the polarization in American politics so China and Russia cannot take advantage.  In considering these policy decisions and many others which would restore America’s reputation and position in the world – the major roadblock is the Trump administration who will never act upon them.  According to McFaul we must ride out the next three years and hope that the damage that has been caused and will continue can be overcome in the next decade.  McFaul is hopeful, but I am less sanguine.

(Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin)

WHILE ISRAEL SLEPT: HOW HAMAS SURPRISED THE MOST POWERFUL MILITARY IN THE MIDDLE EAST by Yaakov Katz and Amir Bohbot

szfreiberger Arab-Israeli Conflict, Middle Eastern History Leave a comment
Aftermath of a deadly infiltration by Hamas gunmen in Kibbutz Beeri

(Children’s toys and personal items lie on the bloodstained floor of a child’s bedroom, following a deadly infiltration by Hamas gunmen, in Kibbutz Beeri in southern Israel, October 17)

By now I can’t imagine that anyone living in our media dominated world has not heard of Hamas’ brutal attack against Israel on October 7, 2023.  The Israeli reaction to the attack has resulted in the destruction of  large parts of the Gaza Strip and the death of tens of thousands of Palestinians according to the Gazan Health Ministry and accusations of genocide.  This barbaric attack carried out by Hamas and other affiliated terrorist groups, took the lives of at least 1,219 people and led to the taking of 251 hostages, most of them Israeli civilians.

 As of today, the remaining hostages who are alive and the bodies of those who perished have finally been returned.  Even though the Trump administration has brokered a ten step peace plan and America’s Arab allies have promised to help fund the rebuilding of Gaza, based on past history, Hamas’ continued slaughter of anyone who opposes them, and the intransigence of right wing politicians in Israel the odds of a major settlement are from my perspective almost nil. 

The current skepticism surrounding a meaningful settlement rests on a number of factors which center around Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu whose political career is on the line.  Many have argued that Netanyahu continued the war even as Israeli generals argued that there were no more meaningful targets.  Netanyahu who remains under indictment in Israel may have kept the war going to postpone further legal action against himself even as he tried to alter the Israeli judicial system to offset any further prosecution.

Israel-Hamas War In Seventh Week

(Wall dividing Israel and the Gaza Strip)

The other aspect of Netanyahu’s culpability rests on his government’s prewar policies, particularly his actions toward Hamas.  Critics, including former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, argue that Netanyahu’s long-standing policy of allowing the transfer of Qatari funds to Gaza in order to prop up Hamas’s rule and “buy” quiet ultimately backfired, allowing the group to strengthen and eventually launch the October 7th attack.  Further, multiple Israeli security officials, including the heads of the IDF and Shin Bet have admitted their failure to prevent the attack, with Netanyahu being criticized for initially deflecting personal responsibility onto the intelligence services. Warnings from within the military and intelligence apparatus were reportedly disregarded or not acted upon by Netanyahu’s government.   However, the larger question is how did we get here, as opposed to where we are today.

Israeli soldiers carry the body of a victim of an attack by militants from Gaza at Kibbutz Kfar Aza, in southern Israel

(Israeli soldiers carry the body of a victim of an attack by militants from Gaza at Kibbutz Kfar Aza, in southern Israel, October 10)

A number of partial answers to this puzzle have been tackled by Yaakov Katz, a former editor and chief of the Jerusalem Post and Amir Bohbot, a journalist and lecturer at Ben-Gurion University in their provocative new book, WHILE ISRAEL SLEPT: HOW HAMAS SURPRISED THE MOST POWERFUL MILITARY IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

The word “partial” is used because there is no definitive answer provided in the book as to why Israel was caught so unaware on October 7, 2023.  The best the authors can offer is that there was a failure at all levels of command and leadership as they responded to situations filled with chaos.  In trying to ascertain why the attack occurred when it did and why Israeli leadership responded the way it did the authors looked at the mindset of decision makers as 2023 they evolved.  The basic problem is that Israel believed it was invincible and that Hamas was incapable of launching such a massive assault.  Israeli policy was one of containing Hamas, but by October 2023 that was no longer possible. 

The policy of containment dates to Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2006 under the government of Ariel Sharon.  From that time Israel, according to the authors responded to the attacks, be they rocket or terror attacks in Israel proper with incursions into Gaza, refusing to commit to an all-out invasion for fear of too many Israeli military and Palestinian casualties. This would send a message to Hamas that Israel was afraid to launch a major operation against Gaza.   Another factor that developed was the appearance and growth of Hezbollah as a major fighting force in possession of thousands of rockets on the Lebanese border which was a proxy of Iran.  Israel’s attention was also diverted to the Iranian nuclear program.  Despite intelligence to the contrary the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) was caught in a dangerous complacency, believing that Hamas was more interested in a long-term truce and economic stability rather than war.  These arguments are well developed based on Israeli documents, interviews with Israeli national security and military officials, and their own reporting over the years.

It is clear that there was enough intelligence that Israeli officials should have been more proactive before the attack took place.  The authors begin their account describing the story of seven female soldiers who were part of an IDF unit called “tatzpitaniyot,” Hebrew for observers.  These young women, ages nineteen and twenty, were stationed at the Nachal Oz base, a few hundred yards from the Gaza Strip border.  These soldiers were tasked to monitor every inch of the Israel-Gaza border.  They employed the available technology and their own intuition that something was wrong.  They reported their findings to their superiors and were not listened to – they would be killed in the Hamas attack.  The authors conclude there was no operational plan for a full-scale offensive in Gaza, and no detailed strategy in the event of war.

Israeli police stand near the bodies of two men who were killed following a deadly mass-infiltration by gunmen from the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, in Sderot

(Israeli police stand near the bodies of two men who were killed following a deadly mass-infiltration by gunmen from the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, in Sderot, southern Israel October 7, 2023)

The authors ask many pertinent questions, one of which is why did the attack occur when it did.  With the Abraham Accords brokered by the first Trump administration normalizing Israeli relations with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco in 2020, Hamas did not want Saudi Arabia to join in the normalization process as it seemed they were about to do so by the end of 2023.  Since Egypt and Jordan had already abandoned Hamas this may have contributed to the decision  to act.  Further, Israeli domestic politics may have played a key role.  Hamas always wanted to make the Israeli people less resilient which Netanyahu’s plan to overhaul the Israeli judicial system to protect himself as he was under indictment was sure to do.  Netanyahu’s action provoked the Israeli left seeing the Prime Minister’s actions as a threat to democracy resulting in massive protests throughout Israel and threats by Israeli reserve Air force pilots not to fly missions and by military personnel to do the same.  The split in Israeli society certainly contributed to Hamas’ calculations.  Hamas’ decision  was developed over a long period of time, but its mindset was clear that eventually they would launch a massive attack, an attack they had been preparing for at least a decade.

According to the authors the crisis began on October 6 when the IDF’s premier signal collection unit that monitored activity in Gaza had crashed.  Possibly a cyber-attack to blind Israeli surveillance.  Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security agency received troubling alerts on their system but did little in response even as Shin Bet Chief Ronen Bar was told, “there is an unclear preparation by Hamas for something” as its leadership was moving toward its bunkers in tunnels.  Analysts concluded it was just a “military exercise” not a full scale attack. 

West Bank Separation Wall

(Wall dividing Israel and Gaza)

The authors effectively lays out an almost hour by hour description of the information garnered by AMAN, the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate and how they reacted.  The problem for any Israeli response was it needed to be done  without Hamas being aware of it – they didn’t want to burn intelligence assets or push Hamas to attack if it was only a training exercise as they had done in the past.  In addition, Israel did not have one human asset among thousands of Hamas operatives waiting to attack.  

Despite intense communication among Israel’s national security apparatus on October 6, the government was caught between the idea Hamas was engaged in a military exercise or was about to launch a low level attack against Israel.  This inability to discern what Hamas was up to would have dire consequences as under the cover of 1300 rockets, over 3000 terrorists crossed into Israel at 60 locations.

The authors devote a considerable amount of time laying out and analyzing what Hamas’ leadership was planning and how sophisticated there approach was in developing their plans.  Over a decade Hamas operatives, including Gazans who were allowed to work in Israel developed exacting intelligence including maps of kibbutzim, IDF bases, offices of senior commanders, weapons depots etc.  Further, carrying out the ideas of Yahya Sinwar they had evaluated the state of the Israeli psyche and developed a plan in a sense to enter into the minds of the Israeli public and make them fear Hamas and force get them to turn against their government as terror attacks increased over the years, and culminating it with a massive assault which came to be October 7.

Israeli soldiers operate in northern Gaza amid the ongoing ground operation against Palestinian Islamist group Hamas.

(Israeli soldiers walk through what Israel’s military says is an iron-girded tunnel designed by Hamas to disgorge carloads of Palestinian fighters for a surprise storming of the border, amid the Israeli army’s ongoing ground operation against Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, close to Erez crossing in the northern Gaza Strip, December 15, 2023)

The chapter that explores the biography, thought process, and hatred toward Israel of Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas in Gaza is perceptive and provides the reader with insights into a terrorist’s mind and how he would carry out his beliefs.  The authors trace his ideological development, particularly as it relates to Israel and its people.  His imprisonment for decades allowed him to study Israel, learning Hebrew and developing the ability to think like an Israeli.  His release from prison with 1026 other terrorists in return for Galid Shalit, a captured Israeli soldier allowed him to eventually make his way to Gaza, work his way up the Hamas chain of command, and become their ideological leader and convince his compatriots to go along with his goals of revenge and destruction of Israel.

Once Sinwar was released other events allowed Hamas to expand its military preparedness.  The arrival of the Arab spring in January 2011 brought to power Mohammed Morsi, a member of the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt which opened up the Egyptian-Gazan tunnel complex allowing Hamas to import massive amounts of material, weapons, and building equipment allowing them to expand their tunnel network, military industrial production, and in effect enhance a tunnel complex which was 40-70 meters under Gaza and 300 miles in length.  In 2014 Israel responded to an increase in terror attacks and rockets with Operation Protective Edge.  By focusing close to the Israel-Gaza border and not launching an invasion, the Israeli government sent the wrong message.  Sinwar and his cohorts were convinced that Israel would not hit Hamas hard for fear of casualties.  In addition, Sinwar was able to convince Israel that he was committed to improving Palestinian economic conditions, needed to continue to collect subsidies for Qatar, to the point Israel believed Hamas was “deterred,” a term that appears repeatedly among Israeli officials.  According to Charles Lane in his Wall Street Journal book review of September 16, 2025;  “The Israeli government persuaded itself instead that improving economic conditions, or “facilitating proper civilian life in the Gaza strip,” as one intelligence official put it, would give Gazans a material stake in peace and, by extension, induce pragmatism in Hamas. Israel allowed the transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars from Qatar to Gaza—much of which the terror group diverted into tunnel building and salaries for its militants.”

Image of an Israeli soldier secures a tunnel underneath Al Shifa Hospital in Gaza City.

(An Israeli soldier secures a tunnel underneath Al Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, November 22, 2023)

There are other important chapters that provide interesting and surprising aspects of Hamas’ development.  The chapter that describes the tunnel network that Hamas created is eye opening.  They built an entire world underground with tunnels at different levels depending on their purpose.  The thoroughness, sophistication, ingenuity, and efficiency of the various types of tunnels amazes, i.e., administrative, attack, logistical tunnels, something that was unimaginable.  They integrated their tunnel network as a key component of their military strategy.  This was all accomplished under Israel’s nose.  Soldiers and civilians heard or felt something was happening below, but officials did little to oppose it. 

The Israelis had to develop a new concept of warfare to offset the approach that Hamas employed.  Fighting underground was something Israel had never encountered, especially as the tunnels were under homes, apartment buildings, hospitals, mosques, and schools which allowed Hamas fighters to hide and then jump out and attack IDF soldiers.  In fact, Hamas’s leadership tunnel bunker was under the al-Shifa hospital.  Israel was able to develop Artificial Intelligence (AI) to create a digital map that included all the tunnels which became invaluable.  The author’s description is fascinating.

Getty Images Yahya Sinwar speaks during Ramadan in Gaza City, Gaza in 2022(Israel had hunted Gaza for more than a year to find Yahya Sinwar)

The Netanyahu government and the Prime Minister in particular believed Hamas was happy with their monthly transfer of financial assistance from Qatar which was provided with the government’s blessing and were not interested in escalation.  The Netanyahu government and intelligence services may have thought it knew its enemy’s intentions. But it was effectively deceived and found out the opposite of its beliefs was true.  There were deep flaws in the way Aman thought it understood Hamas.  Aman failed to grasp Hamas’ intentions and mistakenly believed that the organization’s leadership wanted a truce rather than war.  On the operational level, Israeli intelligence grossly underestimated the scale of Hamas’ plan, even though they had in their possession the “Jericho Plan” that provided clues as to what Hamas might implement.  Lastly, on a tactical level, the IDF’s belief that its border defenses would prevent an attack was inadequate.  The so-called “iron wall” erected along the border at the cost of over $1 billion was believed to be impenetrable.  The authors conclude everything and everyone were wrong – the idea that a fanatical Islamist terror group could be contained and Hamas had been deterred and wanted quiet is tough to accept with hindsight.

I agree with Charles Lane’s conclusions in September 16, 2025, review that “Pondering his dream of an Islamist state erected on the ruins of the Jewish one, Hamas chief Yahya Sinwar observed all of this from Gaza. He sensed that Israel was distracted and divided, its strategists in the grip of an errant conceptzia. He brilliantly fed those illusions through disinformation and deception, while pursuing his phenomenally detailed long-term plan. As Messrs. Katz and Bohbot imply the bloody assault on Israel was an intelligence failure by Israel as well as an intelligence triumph for Hamas.

File:Benjamin Netanyahu, February 2023.jpg

(Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu)

It was an ironic outcome for a nation helmed by Mr. Netanyahu. He had correctly told the United Nations General Assembly in 2009 to beware “the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them.” He quoted Winston Churchill on the “want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong.”

Messrs. Katz and Bohbot conclude their book with well-taken recommendations to help Israel’s political, military and intelligence institutions prevent another such debacle. But there’s no organizational cure for human nature, with its tendencies toward groupthink and confirmation bias. “The unfortunate habit” is a stubborn one. Even the most vigilant nations struggle to break it.”

An aerial view shows damage caused following a mass infiltration by Hamas gunmen from the Gaza Strip, in Kibbutz Beeri in southern Israel

(An aerial view shows damage caused following a mass infiltration by Hamas gunmen from the Gaza Strip, in Kibbutz Beeri in southern Israel, October 11)

ZBIG: THE LIFE OF ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, AMERICA’S GREAT POWER PROFIT by Edward Luce

szfreiberger American Diplomatic History, Biography, Cold War Leave a comment

(Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1987. He had considerable influence in global affairs, both before and long after his official tour of duty in the White House.Credit)

When I was a graduate student in the early 1970s I was enrolled in a 20th century diplomatic history course.  The professor, a Holocaust survivor from Eastern Europe with a wicked sense of sarcasm presented deeply analytical lectures and a challenging reading list.  Perhaps the most important book on the list was Zbigniew Brzezinski’s THE SOVIET BLOC: UNITY AND CONFLICT.  Brzezinski’s work presented a comprehensive analysis of the relations between communist states through the late 1960s.  The author focused on the process by which Eastern European countries were turned into satellites by the Soviet Union, the first signs of trouble following Stalin’s death, and the uproar unleashed by Khrushchev’s efforts to come to terms with Russia’s Stalinist legacy.  In the second edition of the book, he goes on to explore the growth of “polycentrism” in Eastern Europe, particularly with the emergence of the Sino-Soviet split.

As I recall Brzezinski’s analysis it is clear he was developing the precursor to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 and would be proven correct as he identified the flaws in the Soviet system.  After reading Brzezinski’s later works over the years and following his career his impact on American foreign policy is obvious.  There have been one major biography of President Jimmy Carter’s former National Security advisor, Justin Vaisse’s ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINKI: AMERICA’S GRAND STRATEGIST but none as well written, incisively analyzed, and researched as the Financial Times’ American correspondent, and frequent guest on MSNBC’s ”Morning Joe,” Edward Luce.  The book entitled,  ZBIG:THE LIFE OF ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, AMERICA’S GREAT POWER PROFIT.  Luce’s monograph portrays a man who predicted the fall of the Soviet Union as an academic, then set in motion the strategy that eventually ensured its collapse.  I found Luce’s book to be a fascinating study of his subject’s ideas and career, and how each influenced them in producing an important intellectual and professional biography.

Even as a young man Brzezinski had an innate sense concerning the Soviet Union.  As Moscow overran Poland after the Nazis were defeated he knew “all the Poles understand this is not a liberation but simply a change in the form of terror.”  Decades later, as a member of the Carter administration his view of Moscow had not changed.  He still fervently believed that the Soviet Union was not a monolith and resentment of Russian colonialism would bring about the demise of Moscow’s Eastern Bloc.

No photo description available.

(The Brzezinski family)

Luce immediately gets to the core of Brzezinski’s impact on the disintegration of the Soviet Union.  The Carter administration waged ideological war against Moscow, and it was Brzezinski who laid the seeds of human rights as a weapon which encouraged hopes for independence in Eastern Europe which provided an impetus for the Solidarity Movement in Poland.  Many believe that the Iron Curtain went down on November 9, 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell.  But according to Luce the beginning of the breach in the Soviet Bloc occurred on June 4, 1989, when Solidarity swept Polish elections.  Brzezinski played a key role in protecting Lech Walesa’s worker-intellectual alliance and nurturing it to victory.  Obviously, Moscow saw him as an arch enemy due to his Polish roots and his actions as NSC head, but one thing is apparent, Brzezinski’s impact on the collapse of the Soviet Union is underappreciated even today.

There is no doubt that Brzezinski was a controversial figure.  Some believed his Polish roots curtailed his objectivity and would lead to a war against the Soviet Union.  Others believed he was anti-Israel and possibly antisemitic because of his Polish heritage as he argued for a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine and was a key player in the Camp David Accords.  Democratic foreign policy doves also found him wanting as he supported the Vietnam War and opposed McGovernites.  Further his clashes with Secretary of State Cyrus Vance resulted in the Secretary of State’s resignation as he lost battles with Brzezinski over normalizing relations with China, holding Moscow to account for treatment of dissidents, arming the Afghani resistance to the Soviet Union, and modernizing America’s nuclear arsenal.  As Luce develops his narrative it is clear that his subject was his own man and never could be described as an ideologue as he did not fit any category, did not coddle up to the media like Henry Kissinger, and he was unwilling to play the Washington game which took a toll on his influence.

President Jimmy Carter shakes hands with his national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski as he presents Brzezinski with the Medal of Freedom at a White House ceremony on Jan. 17, 1981.

(President Jimmy Carter shakes hands with his national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski as he presents Brzezinski with the Medal of Freedom at a White House ceremony on Jan. 17, 1981)

Luce develops Brzezinski’s intellectual development throughout his narrative.  Beginning with his subject’s teen years, we can see that his subject is very concerned with Eastern Europe as he writes in his diary each day.  Luce does not scrimp in discussing Brzezinski’s personal development but zeroes in on his thoughts.  Key aspects include how his father, Tadeuz, a career diplomat imbued in him the concept of the Polish nation that was inclusive.  He stressed the role of Joseph Pilsudski who envisioned a Promethean League with Poland playing the major role as the largest player in a multinational group of smaller East European countries that together would be strong enough to resist the squeeze of Russia and Germany.  Brzezinski’s World War II diaries reflect this concern and his obsession with Eastern Europe.   

Brzezinski’s master’s thesis written while at McGill University at Montreal continues this fixation as his analysis points to his belief that the Soviet Union would come to an end at some point and he laid out a roadmap for defeating the Stalinist regime.  He correctly argues that Soviet ideology should not be mistaken for internationalism, as it was a variant of Russian chauvinism disguised as being a champion of the proletariat.  He argues further that Moscow inherited the Czarist map which included numerous ethnic groups and nationalities, he predicted that the loyalty of allies would wither away as they would see that worldwide communism only pretended to foster equality.  Russia was made up of 50% non-Russians and Stalin could not dispense with his nationality problem, particularly Ukrainians which led to mass deportations.  As Russo-Soviet imperialism spread throughout Eastern Europe it would be seen as worse than European colonialism.  For Brzezinski, the west’s blueprint to defeat Moscow was the need to repudiate the idea that Russia had the right to a legitimate “spheres of influence” as the developing Tito-Stalin split highlighted, and the idea that Russia as a civilizing influence in the region belied the actions of Beria and his KGB.

Brzezinski’s Ph. D dissertation which eventually would be published in book form as THE PERMANENT PURGE: POLITICS IN SOVIET AUTHORITARIANISM continues his worldview that purges were endemic to Bolshevik rule and the normal tool of totalitarian states.  In the absence of counterbalancing constitutional checks, purges became a substitute for politics under Stalin and the immediate years after his death.  Lastly, the Soviet system was doomed because it could not reform itself even as Khruschev tried after his DeStalinization speech in February 1956, and later under Mikhail Gorbachev which set events in motion that gave us Vladimir Putin.  Brzezinski would visit Russia in 1956, and he concluded “in addition to the nationalities, authoritarian sterility – not Stalinist terror – was the USSR’s long term, problem.”  This view was supported by the Hungarian Revolution in November 1956 as Soviet tanks rolled into Budapest, a fate Poland was able to avoid at the last minute.  This provoked Brzezinski’s rage at the President Eisenhower and Secretary of State John F. Dulles who preached “roll back” of Soviet communism but were feckless in response to Russian aggression.

(Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski)

The Kissinger-Brzezinski dynamic is an important aspect of Luce’s narrative.  The author spends a great deal of time highlighting their relationship discussing their similarities and differences as their careers cross paths.  In a sense it began with John F. Kennedy’s presidential campaign.  The Massachusetts senator liked to portray himself as an intellectual and advocated bringing intellectuals into government.  Brzezinski became one of Kennedy’s foreign policy advisors and wrote a number of campaign speeches and the candidate would mirror his call for greater economic engagement, cultural ties, and scientific exchanges with Eastern Bloc countries as it shifted its entire focus away from Moscow as saber rattling would only drive the Soviet Bloc closer together.

With Kennedy’s assassination Brzezinski lost a leader who had nominally adopted his Cold War strategy.  His attitude toward Lyndon Johnson was not as positive as he believed his obsession with Vietnam created a missed opportunity as the Soviet grip over its satellites was looser than most believed, particularly the Sino-Soviet split, along with his belief that China, not Russia was the main sponsor of global revolution.  Luce is correct pointing out that Hanoi was paranoid of China, again a missed opportunity.

Once Johnson withdrew from running for reelection in March 1968 he signed on to coordinate Hubert Humphrey’s bid for the White House.  Vietnam would be his albatross and Brzezinski’s visit to Saigon reinforced his view that the war was not winnable even if the United States doubled its commitment to 1,000,000 men and any further escalation of the bombing would exacerbate the situation.  Brzezinski, who liked Humphrey as a moral person, did not think he would be a good president and advised him to recalculate  what victory in Vietnam would look like.  He wanted to keep arming South Vietnam to prevent a communist takeover and saw the war as only benefiting Moscow.  Brzezinski grew frustrated with Humphrey throughout the campaign as he dithered in his decision making and he saw little daylight with Johnson’s approach.  Brzezinski’s disappointment with  Humphrey and Johnson increased due to their lack of response to the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia during the campaign – for him it was a replay of Hungary 1956.  Luce reviews the accepted analysis of Humphrey’s inability to stand up to Johnson during the campaign especially over a bombing halt until it was too late to win the election, and the Nixon campaign’s role in interfering with negotiations in Paris which Johnson was aware of but did nothing about because of his doubts concerning his Vice-President.

(Original Caption) 12/16/1976- Serious new Carter appointees Charles Schultz (l) and Zbigniew Brzezinski walk along with their boss to his home after President-elect made announcement of their new jobs 12/16. Schultz takes the post of Chairman of Council of Economic Advisors and Brzezinski, National Security Affairs Advisor. credit Getty Images

(Zbigniew Brzezinski, right, with Charles Schultz and Jimmy Carter in December 1976)

Vietnam underscored the differences between Kissinger and Brzezinski.  For most historians Kissinger was a master manipulator who always seemed to play on both sides.  During the 1968 presidential campaign Kissinger was a consultant to the State Department and funneled information concerning the Paris Peace Conference to the Nixon campaign at the same time he was advising Nelson Rockeffeler’s attempt to rest the Republican nomination from Nixon.  According to Luce this was the first time the two were on opposite sides, Brzezinski favoring a bombing halt, and Kissinger working to prevent it.

The two men once colleagues at Harvard maintained a somewhat friendly-aversive relationship.  As the years melted away the veneer of professionalism fades between the two.  Once Kissinger became Secretary of State and National Security Advisor in the Nixon administration, Brzezinski’s criticisms of Nixon-Kissinger realpolitik  increased.  The issue aside from Vietnam that drove their disagreements centered on “Détente.”  Kissinger attacked Brzezinski for abandoning his long-held belief in peaceful engagement and called his latest approach “a right-wing critique.”  Kissinger offered a rebuttal to Brzezinski’s criticisms over SALT, preferential trade credits, failure to talk to allies, and Middle East talks.  Brzezinski believed Kissinger was an amoral opportunist, and that the Soviets were exploiting Détente for ideological mischief-making.  He would support Détente, but not in a one-sided way.  Though their interchange was civil and bordering on friendly in private Kissinger was apoplectic and referred  to his former colleague as a “whore.”   In public they remained sociable, but behind the scenes as the later declassified documents show Kissinger grew angrier and angrier.  Indeed, given Kissinger’s backstabbing and Brzezinski’s distaste for social niceties, it is amazing that Brzezinski managed to get as far as he did and have such a deep impact on American foreign policy.  Luce argues that his success was due to his intellect, tenacity and sense of mission which he attributes to his “wounded Polishness” and overwhelming distrust of the Soviet Union.

The most important development in Brzezinski’s career was his association with Jimmy Carter.  First, he became Carter’s foreign policy advisor during the 1976 presidential campaign and worked on developing the candidate’s policy “chops.”  He would focus on Kissinger’s “lone ranger” approach to diplomacy and soon Ford’s Secretary of State became a campaign liability.  Further, Kissinger was described as a “false pessimist” based on his forecast that the Soviet Union would probably overtake the United States as a global force in the 1980s.  Carter’s speeches reflected Brzezinski’s tutoring as he described a new approach to Détente which would be “reciprocal and comprehensive.”

June 18, 1979: U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance at background, center, looks on as U.S. President Jimmy Carter, left, and General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Leonid Brezhnev, right, sign the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) II Treaty in Vienna, Austria. [AP/Wide World Photo]

(June 18, 1979: U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance at background, center, looks on as U.S. President Jimmy Carter, left, and General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Leonid Brezhnev, right, sign the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) II Treaty in Vienna, Austria. [AP/Wide World Photo])

The competition between Kissinger and Brzezinski continued during debate preparation as Carter revived the “Kissinger issue,” and he and his tutor trapped Ford into one of greatest gaffes in presidential debate history when Ford stated and then reiterated that “there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there will never be under a Ford administration.”  This error would cost Ford his reelection since the election result was so close.

There was no doubt in Carter’s mind that he wanted Brzezinski as his National Security advisor despite the opposition of Democratic Party elites like Averill Harriman, Clark Clifford, and Richard Holbrook.  When Luce describes the new NSC head as having sharp elbows and not caring what others thought of him as long as he was true to his beliefs he is dead on.  Carter and Brzezinski would develop a fascinating relationship.  It began with Brzezinski as teacher and Carter as pupil and would evolve into a strong partnership.  Brzezenski, though at times was frustrated by Carter’s indecisiveness, but admired his character as the President would do what he believed was right for the country no matter the negative political implications for his own popularity.  Be it handing back the Panama Canal, aggravating the Jewish lobby over his view of the Palestinians, the need for an energy policy, or appointing Paul Volker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve knowing full well his policies would exacerbate inflation in the short run, Carter did what he believed was best for the country.

Brzezinski finally had his opportunity to be the architect of American Foreign policy.  His commitment to human rights and working closely with Karol Wojtyla who would be elected as Pope Paul II in 1978 was brilliant and it sent a message to Moscow as upon assuming the presidency Carter immediately stressed human rights and a new SALT II treaty.  In fact, the KGB argued that it was Brzezinski who had fixed the Papal election!  Meeting with Soviet dissidents like Andrei Shakarov and Vladimir Bukofsky (in comparison to Ford who refused to meet with Alexander Sohlsenitsyn) angered Leonid Brezhnev who threatened that there would be no SALT treaty unless the US backed off from emphasizing human rights.  Brzezinski was unconcerned, stressing the Russians needed a SALT treaty because their economy was in such poor condition.

Photo of U.S. president Jimmy Carter, Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, and Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin shaking hands.

(U.S. president Jimmy Carter, Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, and Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin shake hands after signing the Camp David Accords)

The other relationship that Luce delves into in detail is that of Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and Brzezinski.  Vance, who was part of Harriman’s brain trust and the last of the Democratic elites, was against stressing human rights, believing that a new SALT treaty was imperative.  Luce points to a long list of disagreement between Vance and Brzezinski that included policy disputes over allowing the Shah of Iran to enter the United States for medical treatment after American hostages were seized in 1979; prioritizing Détente instead of a more aggressive approach to Moscow;  careful not to antagonize Russia by moving to close to China;  and asserting a more aggressive military posture in the world.  Their differing worldviews led to a climate of public diplomatic discord which at times left the impression that the administration’s  foreign policy lacked coherence.   Ultimately, Brzezinski’s more hawkish approach often gained prominence during critical moments, contributing to the eventual resignation of Vance in April 1980 after the failed hostage rescue mission in Iran. Luce sums up their relationship perfectly, Vance had Carter’s heart, Brzezinski had his brain!

Despite this bureaucratic infighting Carter achieved a number of diplomatic successes.  The Camp David Agreements between Israel and Egypt, the bleeding of Russia by arming the mujahideen in Afghanistan, normalizing relations with China, and the return of the Panama Canal.  Luce’s deep dive into these issues is particularly gripping and an important aspect of his book as he provides fascinating commentary.  For example, Israeli Prime Minister Begin’s relationship with Brzezinski as both were Polish, despised Russia, and their knowledge of Jewish History.  Another instance is the relationship between Deng Xiaoping and Brzezinski which translated into the turning point for the Carter administration as the President sided with his NSC advisor over Vance to normalize relations with China.  Further, Luce stresses that the Russian invasion of Afghanistan was vindication for Brzezinski over the State Department which had argued repeatedly that the Soviet Union was a status quo power.

Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski aboard Air Force One circa December 29th 1977

(Brzezinski and President Carter)

Despite these successes the Iranian situation overshadows all of them.  Luce lays out the familiar history of the emergence of Ayatollah Khomeini as the leader in Tehran and the ongoing hostage situation.  The Carter national security team was blinded on two fronts.  First, they misread the potency of the mullahs and did not take Khomeini’s words seriously.  Further, Brzezinski could not accept the concept of a theocratic revolution.  Another error was the state of the Shah’s health.  Brzezinski repeatedly called for a military crackdown and/or coup, but the Shah was in no condition to effectively deal with the security situation in his country.  Luce is correct that the Carter administration’s approach to the Iranian crisis was one of complete chaos highlighted by the inability of the State Department and National Security Council to get along and the fact that there were so many leaks of information to the public.  Carter could not make up his mind until it was too late.

I agree with Jonathan Tepperman’s review in the July 10, 2025, edition of the Washington Post concerning any shortfalls to Luce’s biography.  “If I were to quibble, I’d have liked more of a window into Brzezinski’s private, deeper self, especially given that Luce had access to all his diaries, correspondence and other papers. But perhaps that was impossible; as Luce repeatedly points out, Brzezinski spent strikingly little time on introspection. He may not have had an inner life worth plumbing.”

In the end according to Tevi Troy in his May 13, 2025, review in the Wall Street Journal that “it was neither the Soviets nor the State Department but an inability to deal with the Iranian hostage crisis that brought about the end of the Carter administration and, apart from some consulting roles, the end of Brzezinski’s time in government. Brzezinski continued to opine on foreign policy. As Mr. Luce points out, however, he did so without being closely affiliated with either political party. Mr. Luce speculates that this independent approach is both why he never returned to government and why he never received “his full due.”

Whatever Brzezinski’s shortcomings were as a foreign policy expert, no one could challenge his intellect, his commitment to his craft and doing what he felt was best for his adopted country.  In comparison to the conduct of foreign policy today with a hollowed out State Department and diplomatic core and strategies designed to assist the president in acquiring wealth and bullying allies, I long for the type of diplomacy narrated by Mr. Luce, which described a man who laid the groundwork to understand what Vladimir Putin’s goals are today.

Zbigniew Brzezinski in 2007. He warned that the US was destined to be not only the first but also the ‘last truly global superpower’.

(Zbigniew Brzezinski in 2007)

THE WOUNDED GENERATION: COMING HOME AFTER WORLD WAR II by David Nasaw

szfreiberger American Social History, World War II Leave a comment
wwii veterans in uniform

(GIs returning after WWII)

During his presidential campaigns Donald Trump has described American veterans as “suckers and losers.”  He “strongly” wonders why veterans went off to fight when it was clear there was nothing in it for them.  President Trump’s attitude toward men like John McCain and millions of others is both despicable and ungrateful.  These men and women are heroes who defended our country and in most cases selflessly.  Those who have survived war zones returned home with numerous ailments from the physical to the psychological.  Today, the mental issues have been labeled post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD) with veterans suffering from recurring nightmares and flashbacks, uncontrollable rages, social isolation, fears of places and events that evoked memories of the war, resulting in behaviors that they did not have before they shipped out.  The label has been mostly applied to Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan war veterans, but symptoms were clearly evident for those who fought in and survived World War I and II.

In his latest book, award winning author David Nasaw, who has written such excellent works including; THE LAST MILLION which traces the plight of displaced persons after World War II, THE PATRIARCH a biography of Joseph P. Kennedy, THE CHIEF a biography of William Randolph Hearst, and ANDREW CARNEGIE, has just released a marvelous monograph entitled, THE WOUNDED GENERATION: COMING HOME AFTER WORLD WAR II.  Nasaw’s focus in the book is not on the heroism of World War II veterans, but how they adapted to civilian life upon their return from the war, how their wartime experiences impacted familial and other personal relations, and how the country they returned to treated them.  Nasaw’s most salient points revolve around the idea that these men and women were not the same people emotionally and physically as they were before the war, and the country which they returned to was quite different than the one they returned to.  How they adjusted to their issues and their surroundings are the key to the narrative.

(American Sgt. George Black addressing the crowd of homesick GI’s as they staged a demonstration outside the US Embassy in the French capital in January, 1946. They protested the slowdown in their redeployment from Europe to the US)

As the author writes in his introduction, “if we are to understand the pain and hardship veterans brought home with them we must acknowledge their experiences in the war and of war, their wounds, injuries, and illnesses, their realization that they were expendable, that chance alone would determine whether they lived or dies or returned home body and soul intact,”  therefore we must begin, not with their home coming but their actual experiences in the war.

Nasaw spends almost half the book discussing what soldiers experienced in combat, and at the same time how carefully the government informed the public of their plight with an eye on the issues they perceived would emerge once they were discharged.  From the outset Nasaw focuses on the issue of “neuropsychiatric disorders” as the term PTSD was not known.  It is clear that about 40% or about one million soldiers who were discharged or disabled during the first two years of the war fell into the category of “neuropsychiatric disorders.”  The problem for military authorities was that the army and naval medical corps were totally unprepared to deal with psychiatric disorders.  They were trained to deal with physical injuries, not mental, which were 33% of all injuries.  With the shortage of men, many of these individuals were returned to the front suffering from symptoms of anxiety and depression.  In treating these men, medical professionals were unsure if victims would ever recover.

Medics tend to wounded man.

As the narrative progresses the author makes many salient points, some obvious and others based on deeper analysis.  The American public was fully aware of what their sons and daughters were experiencing despite military censorship.  With an abundance of newspapers, magazines, books, and diaries the public was exposed to information on a delayed basis.  However, radio reports made the experience more immediate.  The government was in a bind, if it reported too many victories, particularly after the Battle of Midway authorities feared people would become complacent and the war might be close to an end.  The government knowingly believed that in “total war” the fighting could drag on for years, particularly against Japan and wanted the public to be educated to that belief.  By 1943, authorities in Washington wanted a more accurate representation of the fighting to be used as a tool against complacency in a war that had distinct racial elements to it. 

John Dower’s book, WAR WITHOUT MERCY: RACE AND POWER IN THE PACIFIC WAR develops this racial thesis, especially in Asia as the reason for the horrible conditions that soldiers faced when dealing with the enemy.  As Nasaw correctly points out, “American boys and men, once peaceful and non-violent souls, had to become merciless, pitiless killers in order to stay alive and defeat a merciless, pitiless enemy.”  The American media would caricature the “Japanese as vicious, conniving, beastly hordes of ‘monkeys’ and ‘rats,’ unstoppable, demonic torturers and killers,”  while Germans were said to be more law-abiding according to international convention ignoring the Holocaust.

American troops in a snow-filled trench during the Battle of the Bulge.

(American troops in a snow-filled trench during the Battle of the Bulge)

An interesting point that Nasaw describes deals with how soldiers spent their spare time.   We have all heard the saying “hurry up and wait” pertaining to the military and even in combat that was true.  Soldiers did not fight constantly, and outlets had to be provided for  men and women.  The creation of paperback books was boosted during the war as “pocketbooks” were created for soldiers to read as free reading material by the thousands was provided.  The most important ancillary product provided was cigarettes which was seen as a military tool that would calm nerves before and after battle, suppress hunger, and keep soldiers alert when they should have been sleeping.  During D-Day they helped to ward off sickness, reduce fear and shaking and sustain men.  They were given to soldiers at every opportunity – 63 tons worth of tobacco were delivered to the army, and tobacco farmers were deemed “essential workers during the war.  Soldiers were also seen as different if they did not smoke.  Cigarettes were provided with C rations and were available everywhere as they were a major resource for soldiers to trade.  Other activities that were employed to keep soldiers “sane” were alcohol and condoms.  As with nicotine addiction, drinking habits acquired during the war would carry over into peacetime.  Drinking served a similar purpose to smoking to calm soldiers and allow them to cope with the atrocities of combat.  In addition,  during the war over 50 million condoms were distributed by authorities who could not control the sexual drive of soldiers especially after they arrived in Italy in 1943.  Women were readily available as prostitutes as locals resorted to sex as a means to earn money, cigarettes to trade on the black market, and just to survive.

The racism that existed after the war, especially as Jim Crow was restored in the south, was a continuation of what went on in military theaters.  At first negro soldiers were given menial jobs – cleaning, cooking, waiting tables, and general labor.  Later as troop shortages continued experimentally, segregated units were created.  These units did quite well, i.e., the Tuskegee Airman, and a few combat units.  The fear on the part of southern senators was that if negroes got used to fair treatment and a better racial experience in the army it would carry over into civilian life and there would be certain expectations.  They wanted Jim Crow in the army, so negroes did not get any ideas once they were discharged.    The behavior of southern whites after the war reinforced Jim Crow as blocking voter registration, the return of brutal lynchings, and the refusal to hire negroes for other than menial jobs they had before the war, as opposed to employment which would allow them to use their military training and wartime experiences dominated race relations below the Mason-Dixon line.

(FDR signs the GI Bill)

Nasaw does an excellent job discussing problems that developed once the allies proved victorious.  The issue was demobilization.  With the end of the war in Europe soldiers wanted to be discharged, not sent to the Pacific as the Japanese were seen as fighting to the death and after Okinawa, Saipan and the rest of the island hopping strategy was implemented they knew fighting could be brutal.  European theater veterans were given 30 days leave and were then to be sent to the Pacific.  The dropping of the atomic bomb ended the war for good and domestic politics called for a rapid demobilization, however the United States needed troops for occupation duty.  Demobilization would be slow and about 1.5 million would be needed for occupation. 

The author spends the remaining 60% of the book on how the war affected American society once fighting ended.  Nasaw recounts the repatriation process and once again the racial issue arose as negroes were the last to be discharged.  By stressing the racial component to the post war period, the author relies on excellent source material, diaries, interviews of families, and other primary materials. 

Politicians in Washington did not want to deal with racial equality as the Democrats needed the support of southern senators to try and create a program which would reintegrate men and women back into civil society.  Memories of the Bonus Army of 1931 during the depression and the use of the military to crush it were still fresh in people’s minds.  The solution would evolve into the GI Bill whose rationale was not totally one of empathy but one to avoid unemployment, inflation , and retrofitting industry back to peacetime.  By providing educational funding  for tuition and books it would allow veterans to attend college and not enter the labor force which was undergoing a dramatic change as women began to lose their jobs as the men returned and wanted to reclaim their place in society.  Whatever the motivation was for the GI Bill the government implemented a “veteran’s welfare state” throughout the 1940s.

What is clear is that the federal government spent a great deal on white returning veterans.  Though Nasaw cannot settle on a figure as to how much the government spent; at times he states it is $17.3 billion, later it is $24 billion, and even later it is closer to $30 billion for the GI, bill the amount dwarfs what was spent on the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after the war.  Whatever the final figure was between 1945 and 1950 it was in the billions and went along way to implement the veterans’ welfare state of education, job training, medical care, and housing relief.  Many in Congress called for expanding this approach to all civilians, but that was not in the cards for decades, and even then it did not match what was spend on white veterans.

Nasaw is clear that the major issue was that veterans brought the war home with them – many were psychologically wounded and many carried diseases within their bodies.  Millions returned with undiagnosed untreated psychic wounds that would haunt them for years to come.  Men had to live with what they saw and experienced no matter how emotionally devastating it was.  For many, these experiences remained with them for the remainder of their lives.  Men came home with the characteristics of PTSD, though it was called “combat fatigue” or something similar.  When they returned they exhibited what psychiatrist, Robert Jay Lifton describes in his seminal work on survivors of the atomic bombings, DEATH AS IN LIFE as flashback, nightmares, violent tempers, survival guilt, psychic numbing,  all indicative of PTSD.  To make it even worse for women, children and the family unit, the military and society in general put the onus of helping their spouses recover on them.  They had to grant veterans the leeway to recover which the military stated would eventually occur over time.  Most veterans did not commit suicide and learned to live with nightmares and flashbacks they could not erase.  In addition to PTSD, many individuals suffered traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) from concussive explosions during the war from which they had not recovered.  All this made the recreation of the family unit as it was known before the war, impossible to recapture.

Pilot CommissionsTuskegee Airmen stand with an airplane and prepare to receive commissions and wings from Colonel Kimble, Commanding Officer of the Tuskegee Army Flying School, Tuskegee, Alabama, 1942. (Photo by Afro American Newspapers/Gado/Getty Images)

(Tuskegee Airmen)

Nasaw spends a great deal of time on the impact of the war on the family unit discussing the role of women who had lived independently during the war and now were faced with giving that up and allowing the husband to recapture his place as the breadwinner.  Many could not and the divorce rate would almost double.  The increase was also due to the fact that many men and women could not accept the infidelity of their spouses, women lonely at home, and men lonely overseas seeking comfort.

Nasaw seems to cover every aspect of how service in World War II impacted a myriad of issues following the fighting.  His coverage is comprehensive, but he also provides a wonderful touch illustrating his monograph with Bill Mauldin cartoons which were rather provocative for the time period.  Tom Brokaw has labeled those who were victorious in World War II as the “greatest generation.”  After reading Nasaw’s excellent book I would change that label to the “long suffering generation.”

(Doctors returning to the United States in the Mediterranean or Atlantic circa October 1945, The National WWII Museum)