WALTER O’MALLEY AND THE DODGERS AND BASEBALL’S WESTERN EXPANSION by Andy McCue

September 1, 2025szfreiberger Biography, Sports Leave a comment

The iconic main entry of Ebbets Field was located at the intersection of Sullivan Place and Cedar Street (later renamed McKeever Place). (Photo: SABR-Rucker Archive)

(Ebbets Field, Brooklyn, NY)

As a little boy in 1956 my father took me to Ebbets Field to see the Brooklyn Dodgers play the Cincinnati Reds. We sat behind the Reds dugout, and I carefully watched men like Vada Pinson and Frank Robinson. I looked out at the green expanse, and I saw my heroes; Duke Snider, Gil Hodges, Pee Wee Reese and was overwhelmed. I do not remember the final score of the game, but what I do remember 70 years later was how wonderful the experience was. I would never return again to Ebbets Field, not because my parents refused to take me, but because Walter O’Malley, a man who would be vilified and hated by the Flatbush faithful, would move the “beloved Dodgers” to the west coast. I have read a number of books on the move, the best being Neil Sullivan’s THE DODGERS MOVE WEST, but none zero in more on the man responsible for changing baseball from a conservative midsize business that resided on the east coast to a national, and then international game earning billions of dollars. The publication of Andy McCue’s exceptional biography of O’Malley and the history of the move, WALTER O’MALLEY AND THE DODGERS AND BASEBALL’S WESTERN EXPANSION fills that void.

McCue goes right to the heart of why O’Malley wanted to move the Dodgers to Los Angeles. After spending about a third of the book providing background material relating to the development of baseball and the Dodgers in particular. He integrates O’Malley’s upbringing, his early career, which was primarily focused on the law and business, even though he was involved with baseball, but with a special emphasis on real estate transactions. Further he does well integrating the machinations within the Dodger organization from the 1920s on as different factions vied for control of the ball club. What emerges are wonderful portraits of Branch Rickey, Buzzy Bavasi, and Leo Durocher, among others. But more importantly he drills down as to how O’Malley was able to acquire his controlling interest in the team. Once McCue reviews this material he goes right to the heart of why O’Malley wanted to move the Dodgers to Los Angeles.

Walter O’Malley’s grand baseball ballpark — Dodger Stadium — opened on April 10, 1962.

(Walter O’Malley outside of his office on the Club Level at Dodger Stadium)

In a chapter entitled “A New Stadium-Economics,” McCue outlines the state of the Dodgers in the early 1950s getting to the core of O’Malley’s concerns. One of the primary themes of the narrative is that O’Malley was a businessman foremost, and to a lesser extent, a baseball fan. By the early 1950s Brooklyn underwent a demographic and racial change especially where Ebbets Field was located. The area, known as Flatbush, was becoming less white and more diverse. Brooklyn in general experienced the same thing as between 1950 and 1957 the borough “lost 235,000 Caucasians and added 100,000 non-whites.” Brooklyn was losing population as people fled to Nassau country, Long Island, and Queens. In addition, the borough was also losing manufacturing jobs, and as a result people’s discretionary spending for baseball was drastically reduced.

At the same time Dodger attendance was on a steady decline going from 1.8 million in the late 1940s to roughly 1.1 million right before the team left for Los Angeles in 1958. This ate into the team’s profitability and O’Malley’s answer was a new ballpark. By the mid-1950s Ebbets Field was located in a neighborhood rife with vandalism, in fact New York Daily News sports reporter Dick Young stated that O’Malley had told him “the area is getting full of blacks and spics.” The ballpark itself was in bad need of refurbishing as toilets didn’t work, too many seats were behind support beams, and seating was only 32,000 compared to 70,000 at Yankee Stadium and 54,000 at the Polo Grounds. O’Malley’s solution was to build a new ballpark.

(Robert Moses)

McCue delves into the role of Robert Moses, who was Long Island State Commissioner and the head of the Triborough Bridge Authority and one of the most powerful men in New York. As O’Malley pushed for a new stadium in Brooklyn, Moses became the main roadblock to his vision as he was clear that a baseball team could not use public funds set aside for slum clearance, even if it were part of a larger project that was involved in improving the neighborhood and creating public housing – throughout negotiations over the next few years, Moses would not change his mind. It is clear from McCue’s discussion; Moses did not like O’Malley, which played a major role in their talks. O’Malley tried a number of scenarios to break the impasse but got nowhere. Moses would offer the future site of Shea Stadium in Queens, but O’Malley would not leave Brooklyn. Further impacting talks were Mayor Robert Wagner who never believed that baseball was a priority.

McCue delves into the weeds as he first recounts negotiations with New York officials and then moves on to discuss talks with Los Angeles businessmen and politicians. In both cases the main issues centered on a site for a new stadium, cost of construction, taxation, infrastructure costs, leases, and ancillary aspects including mineral rights, and recreation areas and who would be responsible for paying for these items. What emerges is personality conflict as many involved had their own agendas, but if one is looking for who to blame for the move apart from O’Malley a great deal falls on the people of Brooklyn whose attendance at Dodger games declined precipitously over the previous decade.

(Don Drysdale and Sandy Koufax)

One of the most important questions McCue raises is when O’Malley made up his mind to move the Dodgers to Los Angeles. There is no conclusive answer be it after the 1956 World Series, Spring Training 1957, or at some point in negotiations with New York officials. The answer to the question probably depends on your opinion of O’Malley and the process that resulted.

Once the decision was reached to move the team O’Malley’s biggest problem was where the Dodgers were going to play. Wrigley Field, which he purchased was too small with little parking, the Los Angeles Coliseum was too large, and its configuration was not conducive for baseball to the point the Rose Bowl in Pasadena was considered. The key to negotiations was the Los Angeles Coliseum Commission and Los Angeles City Council member, John Holland, who opposed the move and did his best to postpone any construction after a deal was struck with numerous lawsuits and slow walking approvals for construction.

(Los Angeles Coliseum)

One of the most interesting aspects of the process was how the Coliseum would be retrofitted for baseball – not an easy task as a new field needed to be created, more comfortable seats added, reduction in capacity by 10,000, and the cost of renovations. A key person in all aspects of the move was Harold Parraott who joined the Dodgers in 1943. Officially, he was traveling secretary, but his duties included much more as he was in charge of attendance receipts while on the road, needed to know baseball, the newspaper business, and had a knack for figures – Parrott met all of these qualifications.

McCue’s work is more than a biography. It is an intricate portrait of the Dodger owner, but it is also a unique description of the inner workings of the Dodger organization focusing on decision making relating to finally deciding to leave Brooklyn and the myriad problems that developed in Los Angeles including the economics and politics involved. The role of Buzzy Bavasi and Branch Rickey stand out as McCue takes the reader through the history of the Dodgers. But importantly, the author provides a history of Chavez Ravine, the final site for the new stadium, and all the roadblocks that were created to prevent its completion. Once the site was chosen O’Malley had to deal with a referendum on the contract with Los Angeles authorities which would produce a “holy alliance” between groups of various parochial interests who wanted to stop construction. C. Arnholt Smith, the owner of the Pacific Coast Leagues, San Diego Padres financed the opposition, and a fascinating political battle emerged led by John Holland on the conservative side, and Roz Wiener, a liberal on the Los Angeles City Council. The result that a stadium that was to cost around $10 million would rise to $16 million.

(Dodger Stadium, Los Angeles, CA)

In the end O’Malley becomes a towering baseball figure bringing baseball to the west coast, moving his own team but convincing New York Giants owner, Horace Stoneham to move his team to San Francisco. O’Malley’s actions fostered a new sense of unity and identity for Los Angeles which had the reputation of being “72 suburbs in search of a city.” McCue presents a nuanced account showing O’Malley as a shrewd and daring businessman who saw the future of baseball differently than other owners. The narrative fosters a well-researched and even handed account of a man who could be compassionate and generous but also mean-spirited and insensitive.

Paul Dickson’s review in the April 4, 2014, Wall Street Journal captures the essence of the man and what he accomplished: “The real insight of Mr. McCue’s book is that O’Malley was a man who embraced risk and adapted well to new situations. In the late 1960s, as the players union gained in strength under the leadership of Marvin Miller, the adversaries became friends. ‘He is the one baseball owner I respect,’ said Miller. ‘O’Malley is a hard, realistic businessman who is part of this century and who does not pretend that baseball is something it isn’t.’ While other owners saw their battles with Miller and his union as a test of their manliness, O’Malley approached the fight over player salaries more practically. His negotiations with Miller were conducted with civility and what Miller termed ‘the cut-and-thrust between two New York boys—even if many of the fans in their home city still hated at least one of them.”

The Ebbets Field grandstand is packed with fans during Game 3 of the 1941 World Series between the Brooklyn Dodgers and New York Yankees. (SABR-Rucker Archive)

(Ebbets Field, Brooklyn, NY)

THE CIA BOOK CLUB: THE SECRET MISSION TO WIN THE COLD WAR WITH FORBIDDEN LITERATURE by Charlie English

August 25, 2025August 25, 2025szfreiberger Cold War, Espionage Leave a comment

Lech Walesa

(Lech Walesa remains a hero to many Poles for having led the Solidarity movement)

At a time when book bans and censorship has gained popularity in the United States among certain elements in society it is interesting to explore a book that does the opposite. Charlie English’s new work, THE CIA BOOK CLUB: THE SECRET MISSION TO WIN THE COLD WAR WITH FORBIDDEN LITERATURE examines how the CIA used the distribution of books as an overt and covert weapon against the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War. The monograph focuses primarily on activists who sought to liberalize Polish government and lessen Soviet influence in the 1980s and the role the CIA played primarily in the background.

The purpose of a book ban is to deprive people of the opportunity to choose or read particular reading material because it does not conform to the beliefs or political agenda of certain groups. Schools, libraries, school boards mare among those that have been targeted by such groups during the last decade or so complaining about certain books as being offensive that have no place in educating children. Books like MAUS by Art Spiegelman and THE HANDMAID’S TALE by Margaret Atwood have been challenged as have been classics like TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, CATCHER IN THE RYE, and THE COLOR PURPLE have been recently placed under the microscope. It is interesting to note that book bans are a tool of authoritarian regimes to block the spread of ideas they disagree with for the general public, so it is fascinating to examine a historical example from the Cold War as the CIA employed manuscripts as a means of winning the battle for the hearts, minds, and intellect of people residing under communist rule in Eastern Europe.

(George Minden)

English’s narrative focuses on the “CIA Book Program,” a covert intelligence operation led by George Minden whose goal was to offset Soviet censorship and misinformation to provoke revolts in Eastern Europe by exposing people of that region to different visions of thought and culture. A classic example is the dissemination of George Orwell’s 1984 of which thousands of copies were made available behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War. This was one of the millions of titles that arrived illegally in Poland, which was just one country in the Soviet Bloc that received great quantities of banned publications. Books arrived by every possible means: smuggled in trucks, yachts, sent by balloon, mail, even a traveler’s luggage. Increasingly, the underground would public homegrown titles, as well as those from foreign publishers. Polish activists argue that the contribution of literature to the revolt against the Soviet Union was a key element in the eventual victory. A major contributor was the role of the CIA which sought to build up circulating libraries of illicit books, and support primarily with funds the burgeoning underground publishing industry in Poland.

There are a number of key figures that English describes throughout his narrative. Perhaps the one that stands out the most is Miroslaw Chojecki, a Polish publisher who was arrested 43 times and treated as you would expect by the Polish version of the KGB, the SB. The description of his internment is right out of Alexsanr Solzhenitsyn’s GULAG ARCHIPELAGO with beatings, isolation, forced feedings, interrogations, and hunger strikes. In September 1977 Chojecki created the Independent Publishing House “NOWa” which constituted the largest publishing house operating outside official communist censorship, becoming its leader. Initially, Chojecki wanted “NOWa” to publish historical books on topics officially forbidden or ignored by the communist authorities, but other oppositionists convinced him to also issue works of literature, including the Czeslaw Milosz and Gunter Grass. In August 1980 he organized the printing of publications of the “second circuit” (as underground press was known in Poland at the time). He was re-arrested but was released and joined Solidarity to free the Polish people from the Soviet grip. In October 1981 he went to France when the imposition of martial law by the government of General Wojciech Jaruzelski occurred. He remained in exile in Paris and published a monthly “Kontakt”, produced films on modern Polish history, and organized support for the underground in Poland, and oversaw the smuggling of books and other written items into Poland. His chief ally and mentor were Jerzy Giedroyc, a Polish writer, lawyer, and political activist who for many years worked as editor of the highly influential Paris-based periodical, “Kultura,” disseminated throughout Poland. Another important figure English delves into is Jozef Czapski who would be sent to Washington to raise funds and support from the United States and would be codename QRBERETTA by the CIA.

(Miroslaw Chojecki in 1981)

Other characters and the roles they played in smuggling books, printing presses, printing materials, etc. into Poland include Helena Luczywo, the editor of the “Mazovia Weekly,” her husband Mitek, Marian Kalenta and Jozef Lebenbaum, Swedish publishers who were very effective smuggling all items needed by the underground from Malmo and Stockholm until they would go a step too far. Each character is explored by English, relating their backgrounds, especially those who had escaped the Nazis, went into exile and returned to Poland. These individuals and the younger Polish generation were all part of the Polish underground movement whether living inside or outside Poland working to overthrow and undermine communism.

English nicely intersperses the history of the anti-communist movement in Poland throughout the narrative. The events of 1980 as the Warsaw regime raised food prices leading to a strike at the Gdansk Shipyard which would provide for the emergence of Solidarity and Lech Walesa as its leader. After what was seen as a victory by the workers, the Jaruzelski regime resorted to an internal coup on the night of December 12, 1981, rounding up thousands of political prisoners in what is referred to as the “Winter War” by Zomo units or Motorized Reserves of the Citizens’ Militia who were empowered by the government and were synonymous with police brutality. Martial law was declared, and the underground had to resort to increased smuggling which English describes in intimate detail as the achievements of 1980 were lost.

One might ask what was the response of the Reagan administration to these events. It moved very slowly, pushed ahead by Daniel Pipes, acting NSC head, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s former NSC head, and CIA Chief William Casey, who was sort of a “cowboy” who always favored overthrowing governments when he could. It took until September 1982 for Reagan to authorize new CIA covert action in Poland, but the remit was small involving funds, and non-lethal aid to Solidarity and other moderate opposition groups to put pressure on the Warsaw regime – it was referred to as “QRHELPFUL.” They built upon the work of George Minden who had developed a long standing book smuggling operation in Eastern Europe, and Solidarity emerged as the nerve center of the opposition. CIA Deputy Director Robert Gates used the money for printing material, communications equipment, and other supplies to fight an underground political war.

(Jerzy Giedroyc, Maison-Laffitte, 1987)

English has written dual history which converges into one. At first, he describes the role of Solidarity figures and the Polish literary underground who were intimately involved with standing up to the Soviet Union and its puppets in Warsaw. Once the Jaruzelski government succumbed to Russian pressure instituting a crackdown in December 1981 the author’s focus shifted to the Kremlin’s goal of destroying Solidarity and its leadership. As far as the CIA’s role throughout the narrative, it was designed to pay for all the clandestine activity institutes by the likes of Miroslaw Chojecki and find ways to carry prohibited equipment across the border.

English highlights many examples of where funds came from to support the Poles. His description of the Ford Foundation is fascinating as they provided funds and probably continued their 1950s role as a CIA proxy.

The author also provides an in depth discussion of the development of underground newspapers and the varied opinions it produced. It was clear that no uniform arguments as to how to proceed would be agreed to, but they all believed in the goal of ridding Poland of Soviet influence. English details how the underground was able to work around martial law, and the risks activists were subject to. Disagreement and risk are highlighted in the chapter entitled “The Regina Affair” as Marian Kaleka favored an enormous smuggling operation that would provide over $250 million worth of equipment, supplies and books. Chojecki opposed this as being too risky, and in the end he turned out to be correct as the first mission was a success, but Kaleka got “cocky” and sent an even larger mission which was broken up by the Polish SB.

English points to other aspects of the underground and key figures like Father Jerzy Popieluszko, a Catholic priest who preached against totalitarianism in his sermons. He would be killed by the Polish army and become a martyr, a grave error that reenergized the opposition to the government. The underground publication of Popieluszko’s sermons in November 1984 assisted by CIA assets was a defeat for the Polish government. The underground’s work was soon to be enhanced by technological changes emerging in the mid-1980s with the advent of computers, video, and video-related equipment, cassettes, and access to satellite communications funded by the CIA.

(Helena Luczywo)

As one reads English’s monograph one begins to question the role of the CIA for the greater part of the book. Finally, by the last third it’s role begins to emerge in a clearer fashion as the author recounts the events of 1989 which would bring Solidarity to power. The book’s title leads one to believe that the CIA was in charge of smuggling books and related material into the region, but the most important component was the resisting activists themselves. Joseph Finder is dead on in his July 13, 2025, New York Times Book Review as he writes; “Today, when “subversive” is the standard accolade for a campus poet, English’s book is a bracing reminder that, not so long ago, forbidden literature really could help tip the balance of history. He persuasively argues that the ferment in Poland, fueled in part by Minden’s cultural contraband, was a catalyst for the chain reaction that led to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the crumbling of other Eastern Bloc governments. “Soft power” wasn’t so soft.

That’s why the publication of “The CIA Book Club” feels perfectly, painfully timely. As President Trump takes a sledgehammer to U.S.A.I.D., Voice of America and Radio Free Europe — institutions of cultural diplomacy once backed by both parties — this chronicle reads like arequiem. George Minden types were convinced of the geopolitical force of ideals such as free expression and the rule of law because they actually believed in them. ‘Truth is contagious,’ Minden said. Our new stewards of statecraft, by contrast, seem to see the world in purely transactional terms, and to assume everyone else does too. English’s book is a reminder of what’s lost when a government no longer believes in the power of its own ideals.”

Solidarity protesters, Warsaw, Poland, 1997

MARK TWAIN by Ron Chernow

August 20, 2025August 20, 2025szfreiberger American cultural history, Biography Leave a comment

(Mark Twain)

The life of Mark Twain spans the growth and expansion of the United States from a rural economy to an industrial giant as the leading manufacturing country in the world. By 1910, the year of Twain’s death the United States transversed the Mexican, Civil, and Spanish-American wars leading to America’s status as a world power as World War I approached. Twain’s life’s work and commentary provide an excellent perspective and his personal impact on the period. If there was one author who can give Twain’s life justice it is Ron Chernow. Previous biographies by the Pulitzer Prize winning author include, THE WARBURGS, JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, GEORGE WASHINGTON, THE HOUSE OF MORGAN, HAMILTON, AND GRANT. All are deeply researched and are considered among the best works on their topics by historians and critics alike.

However, his latest work, MARK TWAIN does not measure up to previous books, though aspects of it reflect Chernow’s talent. The main criticism of the book centers around an approach that can be tedious, and at times boring. In the first third of the book he gets bogged down in the minutiae of Twain’s life. For example, when Twain and his family travel across Europe he describes each village and city they visit in detail. The same can be said as Twain embarks on the lecture circuit. If one were to prepare a t-shirt of Twain on tour it would list each stop on the back and would probably have earned the author and humorist extra funds to offset his prodigious spending which also leads Chernow into greater details. Later in the narrative, Chernow makes the same error as he provides so much travel detail of the Twain families nine year European exile that a reader might question continuing with the book. Further as Graeme Wood writes in New Yorker, “Chernow is not a literary scholar-he is best known for his lives of American political, military, and business figures-which may explain his relative neglect of Twain’s literary output….the biography contains no new interpretations of Twain’s novels….instead Chernow devotes a hefty portion of his 1039 pages to Twain’s personal tribulations, a depressing series of bungles and calamities starting in the author’s middle age.”

This may contain: an old black and white photo of two people standing next to each other in front of trees

(Olivia [Livy] and Mark Twain)

A useful example of excessive detail surrounds the cost of building his home in Hartford, CT, the acquisition of furnishings and decorations, and later the additions and renovations. This detail is not necessary and can be considered exasperating for the reader and would have saved the publisher many pages of the narrative. The length of the book is also an issue. If one does not possess strong hands or suffers from arthritis holding the book can be a challenge as it totals almost 1200 pages. Perhaps the book could be presented in two volumes to ease the reader’s experience. This may seem nitpicky, and once you arrive at the 40% mark in the book, two of Chernow’s best chapters emerge. The first, encompasses the writing and publication of HUCKLEBERRY FINN, especially Twain’s use of the “N” word, and the second, a chapter entitled “Pure Mugwump,” reflecting his growing political and societal radicalization. From this point on the narrative seems to flow better, and the author does not get as bogged down in as much detail until the last third of the book.

Despite these drawbacks Chernow has written an important work of history which will supersede previous biographies of the man from Hannibal, MO. Twain’s impact on American history cannot be dismissed. Chernow presents a nuanced view of his subject which should stand the test of time as the most impactful work on an incomparable man.

Chernow seeks to capture the essence of Twain (I will use the subject’s pen name throughout as opposed to his given name, Samuel Clemens) describing him as “a waspish man of decided opinions delivering hard and uncomfortable truths.” He held little that was sacred and indulged an unabashed irreverence in most of his work be it lectures, political or social commentary, or his many written articles. According to Chernow, Twain was not a contemplative writer, but a man who thrust himself on to American culture. Twain can be described as a dilettante as he engaged in many vocations; for example, a Mississippi boat pilot, printer, miner, journalist, novelist, publisher, pundit, polemicist, inventor, crusader, and most importantly, an eccentric non-conformist. Chernow delves into each avocation that Twain engaged in and provides the true sense of the man through his experiences and the people that he met.

This may contain: an old black and white photo of three children standing in front of a picnic table

(Twain with Livy and their three daughters)

Twain establishes himself as a celebrity early on after attempting a number of occupations. Once he became a writer and lecturer he stands out as “he created a literary voice that was wholly American, capturing the vernacular of western towns and small villages where a new cultural world had arisen far from the staid eastern precincts.” This can be seen in the publication of TOM SAWYER and HUCKLEBERRY FINN as he defines a new American literary style which many critics found offensive as he dealt with matters of slavery and race.

Apart from his life as an author Twain pursued many business interests. He would spend a lifetime pursuing hairbrained schemes and failed business ventures which the author reveals throughout the narrative. These business decisions would lead to poor investments which became an obsession as no matter the warning signs, i.e.; with the Paige Typesetter and the publication of THE LIBRARY OF AMERICAN LITERATURE he would continue to see things as a panacea to great wealth. He would spend a good part of his life in debt, and even when he finally emerged from his financial travails, he would try again risking his newfound financial security.

Twain was a complex individual who repeatedly reinvented himself and developed new people, for example; a northeastern liberal, a political and social radical far different from his earlier roots on the Mississippi and his Missouri upbringing. He would engage in many controversial issues, many of which centered around race and slavery. Chernow describes these activities, lectures, and writings that at the time were considered radical including; slavery, reconstruction, religion, monarchy, aristocracy, and colonialism. He also supported women’s suffrage, contested antisemitism, and waged a war against municipal corruption. When confronting Twain’s views, one must realize how far he traveled intellectually from his conservative upbringing in Hannibal to a person who educated himself with an unparalleled intellectual curiosity. Chernow is correct in stressing the duality of Twain’s belief system as it seems he cannot make up his mind if he admires the life of common people and their troubles or his personal drive to identify with and become a plutocrat.

(Clara Clemens c. 1907)

Chernow takes the reader on an intellectual journey throughout the post-Civil War period in American history. By detailing many of Twain’s writings starting with the GILDED AGE and other works we witness his intellectual growth and societal awareness and his intensity when confronting important issues. Twain was horrified how America evolved after the war between the states into a country controlled by big business, burgeoning cities, and what he termed as a “carnival of greed.” He despised the rampant materialism, and the “incredible rottenness” and “moral ulcers” he saw in America. Interestingly as his fame brought wealth, Twain would become a prisoner for his own desire to accumulate affluence and reap the benefits of his earnings which would often lead him to further poor business decisions and the loss of a great deal of money. During his “business” career Twain was stubborn and usually blamed others for his own decisions to the point where he would seek revenge against those he felt wronged him, when in fact they did not.

Chernow does an excellent job describing the courtship and relationship between Twain and his wife, Livy Langdon, the sister of a close friend. Twain remained enthralled with her throughout their marriage despite her health issues and her ability to reign him in. In fact, a good part of the time she held the reins of power within the family, and she would become his chief editor and confidant in all matters and was able to imbue him with social graces and smooth over his rougher edges and personality – in a sense she civilized him! Twain loved his family, and his three daughters would become his audiences and critique a great deal of his work.

(Jean Clemens)

In addition to his celebrity status, Twain wanted to be known as a “thinker,” not just a humorist commenting on American society. He also wanted to be in control of his own writing as he never trusted his publishers and Chernow delves into his difficulties with editors and certain publishing companies. This would lead him to take over the publication and distribution of his works beginning with LIFE ON THE MISSISSIPPI in 1882 and begin his own publishing company, Charles L. Webster and Company in 1884 once HUCKLEBERRY FINN was completed. The company had an auspicious beginning with his own works and the publication of Ulysses S. Grant’s Memoirs, but Twain pushed to publish other Civil War generals works, a step too far and it cost great profits. The silver lining was Twain’s friendship with the former president. Eventually his decision making in terms of what to publish and how to market those items would prove disastrous.

During his long career Twain would undergo a series of intellectual shifts. A useful example despite his desire to join the plutocracy is his realization, reflecting the dichotomy of his thinking that the flame of radicalism burned deep inside him. He even referred to himself as “a Sans-culotte” resulting in the publication of A CONNECTICUT YANKEE IN KING AUTHUR’S COURT. Despite heretical thoughts concerning American society, Twain saw himself as a true patriot who frowned upon European aristocrats as he remarked that “we Americans worship the almighty dollar! Well, it is a worthier god than hereditary privilege.”

(Olivia Susan Clemens)

Chernow delves into all members of the Twain family in minute detail. One of the major themes that percolates through the biography is Twain and Livy’s deep devotion and support for each other. The section that deals with her ultimate death later in the book, and the pages spent describing her ailments and Twain’s search for doctors who could cure her are fascinating, particularly how his “revenge” would fall on those who promised to cure her but failed. Twain and Livey’s three daughters garner a great deal of attention. Chernow looks at each through the eyes of their father, and each individual daughter. Susy, his favorite who was involved with another woman much to the disgruntlement of her parents, was quite ill and when she died at twenty-four Twain was devastated as he was stuck in Europe and unable to return to America in time for the funeral. This would provoke extreme guilt which would stay with him for the remainder of his life. The middle daughter, Jean, a talented young lady would suffer from epilepsy and along with her mother was one of the causes of the families meandering throughout Europe seeking cures. The eldest daughter, Clara, a talented singer and writer who suffered from depression was tied to the family against her wishes to care for her mother and sister. She would grow bitter and Chernow describes a certain happiness when her mother dies, freeing her to a large extent to live her life as she saw fit. Later in the narrative the author spends a great deal of time on the extreme behavioral aspects of Jean’s illness, and her father’s inability to cope with her. Another major character is Isabel Lyons, arguably the woman who would replace Livy’s role following her death. Chernow traces Lyon’s rise and fall as someone who was indispensable to “the king” as she called him and in the end would be hated for her actions against his daughters and her obsession with Twain.

A key figure in Twain’s life was Henry Huttleston Rogers, an American industrialist and financier who made his fortune in the oil refining business, becoming a leader at Standard Oil, a great admirer of the author and humorist. Rogers would repeatedly save Twain from financial ruin, and they would become good friends for the remainder of Twain’s life continuously saving him financially from himself.

Later in the narrative Chernow revisits the evolution of Twain’s thinking; support for women’s rights, funding former slaves, his progression from a southerner to a northerner, developing a pro-plutocracy attitude from a radical supporter of labor and a close friendship with Henry H. Rogers. His intellectual journey will continue later in life, particularly after he returned from Europe and settled in New York as he still could not afford to live in his mansion he and Livy built in Hartford, CT. He would lecture and write against American imperialism after the Spanish-American War and supported Emilio Aguinaldo, the Philippine rebel leader; railed against southern lynchings; spoke in favor of the Boxer Rebellion in China and against Christian missionaries; backed Seth Low the progressive mayor of New York City, among his many causes. This came about after Livy’s death as she was no longer the bulwark against his radical beliefs. As Chernow explains; “no longer content wrap his views in fables and fictions, he resorted to direct, biting prose. He went after things – religion, politics, and patriotism – where citizens felt virtuous and didn’t care to hear contrary perspectives.” He did not regret losing supporters, and in fact he would pick up many new ones as he went after the Romanovs after the St. Petersburg Massacre that led to the 1905 Revolution in Russia, and his diatribes against Leopold II and Belgium’s massacre of the Congolese natives.

Isabel Lyon About Isabel Lyon Twain39s Social Secretary and more

(Isabel Lyons)

If there is an aspect of the book that Chernow should have left out is his attempt to a psych historical analysis of a number of characters. The chapter that focuses on Twain’s dreams applying pseudo Freudian principles shows he is out of his depth. The theme can also be applied to what Chernow describes as “Angelfish,” a euphemism for Twain fascination with young girls as the author writes, his obsession was “for a bitter and lonely old man, the Angelfish represented a brighter world.

After reading Chernow’s work I feel like an interlocutor observing the Twain family and learning so many intimate details. There are aspects that could have been treated with greater care particularly Livy’s slow deterioration resulting in her death on June 5, 1904, Twain’s guilt over the death of Susy, and details of Jean’s frequent bouts with epilepsy, Clara’s dissatisfaction with her position within the family, and Twain’s repeated illnesses and health conditions. Chernow does sum it up well by stating; “because of bankruptcy and Livy’s illness, the Clemens family had gone from a happy life firmly rooted in Hartford, to many years of exile.”

A question that must be raised was Twain “fundamentally a dupe or a genius” based on Chernow’s presentation. From my perspective it is a little of both based on my reading of the narrative which is as long as Leo Tolstoy’s WAR AND PEACE. Chernow doesn’t seem to overlook any aspect of Twain’s life, and his error of judgement rests on what he chooses to emphasize . Our image of Twain is of an ungainly, easy going storyteller, but in reality it was a carefully thought out stage persona which does not come across enough in the biography. At the outset Twain’s life reflects a Horatio Alger success tale, but once Twain’s publishing company and typesetting machine go bust his life changes as he must go into European exile as a means of paying off his many creditors, in addition to the deterioration of the health of family members.

Whatever the flaws in Twain’s make-up one cannot question his impact on the period in which he lived and the people he interacted with. As with his subject, Chernow’s work has flaws, but overall if you have the hand strength and perseverance reading the book is an education in itself and worthwhile. Mark Dirdra’s conclusion in his Washington Post review of the book sums it up well; “All of which said, Chernow’s “Mark Twain” does underscore how dangerous biography can be: While knowledge of Twain’s life can enhance our understanding of his writing, the man himself turns out to have been self-centered, loving but neglectful of his daughters, foolishly gullible, something of a money-hungry arriviste and vindictive to a Trumpian degree. Of course, he was also a genius — at least in a small handful of books, perhaps only one really. Was it not for “Huckleberry Finn,” would we really think of Mark Twain as one of America’s greatest writers? I wonder.”

(Mark Twain)

ORIGINAL SIN: PRESIDENT BIDEN’S DECLINE, ITS COVERUP, AND HIS DISASTROUS DECISION TO RUN AGAIN by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson

July 13, 2025szfreiberger American Political History Leave a comment

(Biden family photos sat behind President Joe Biden as he delivered his address to the nation)

Ever since the Anita Hill hearings in October 1991 I have had little respect for Joseph Biden. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was responsible for her receiving a fair and respectful hearing – a task that then Senator Biden failed at miserably. The hearings took place during Clarence Thomas’ confirmation hearing for a seat of the Supreme Court, and one would expect that the chairman of the committee could assure that Ms. Hill’s complaints concerning Thomas’ sexual harassment would have been received with an open mind, but this was not the case. The hearing was contentious, and I would categorize certain aspects particularly before the “Me Too” movement existed as somewhat misogynistic. Biden’s refusal or inability to reign in the commentary of certain committee members reflect his membership in the “Senatorial Men’s Club” which downplayed any questioning and support for women who raised the kinds of complaints that Ms. Hill did against Thomas. Fast forward decades and it is partially Biden’s fault that this partisan corrupt judge has a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court and feels no obligation to conform to the expected behavior of a justice as he has accepted millions in benefits from his political cronies.

The second issue that concerns me involves Mr. Biden’s decision to run for re-election in 2024. This is further borne out by CNN anchor Jake Tapper and Axios reporter Alex Thompson’s new book ORIGINAL SIN: PRESIDENT BIDEN’S DECLINE, ITS COVERUP, AND HIS DISASTROUS DECISION TO RUN AGAIN where the authors encapsulate Biden’s error, which in large part was driven by personal ego. The end result was that when he finally showed how unfit he was during a June presidential debate he was forced to withdraw his presidential candidacy leaving Vice President Harris 107 days to run against the MAGA machine which had been preparing for the election for four years. I am not saying Harris, or any Democrat could have defeated the current occupant of the White House, but at least they would have been given a more level playing field. The end result is an autocratic presidency where masked men and the US military round up legal immigrants, US citizens, in the guise of deporting innumerable criminal migrants, which has been shown to be statistically false. We now have the passage of the “Big Beautiful Bill” that will impact the poor in the name of rewarding the rich – thank you former President Biden.

MIke Donilon stands behind Joe Biden, alongside Liz Sherwood-Randall

(Mike Donilon (center) stands behind Biden, next to homeland security aviser Liz Sherwood-Randall in August 2024.)

The title of the first chapter says it all – “He Totally Fucked Us.” The theme laid out by the authors is clear and is supported by over 200 interviews, many of which were key players on the inside of the Biden administration, congresspersons, senators, journalists, major players in the Democratic Party, and activists. Despite reassurances that Biden could pull off his reelection, by 2023 it was clear he should have withdrawn any possible presidential candidacy and allowed a robust competition for the Democratic Party nomination. His frailty, reduced cognitive function were attested to by many on the inside according to the authors and it was obvious he could not engage in an arduous campaign and for the matter serve effectively for another four years. The authors point to the disinformation put out concerning Biden’s protectors – family, a close coterie of advisors, campaign staff and others led to a false sense that he could win reelection, despite this fantasy, there were a number of people who believed if reelected he would not live out his second term.

The authors argue correctly that Donald Trump won the election by 2.2 million votes. However, his electoral college victory was based on about 200,000 votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Therefore, it was in the realm of possibility another democrat, be it Vice President Harris or someone else given the opportunity of a complete campaign might have won.

The book centers on the facts the authors uncovered pertaining to “Biden’s health and abilities; the silence of witnesses; the complicity of enablers; and the scheming of those who endeavored to hide it from others and from the public.” Biden was in decline since 2022, and the authors set out to prove a conspiracy to hide his deficiencies all out of fear that Trump could return to the White House.

Joe Biden meets with Steve Ricchetti and Louisa Terrell (cropped)

(President Biden meets with campaign advisor Steve Ricchetti)

It is common knowledge that the Biden family has suffered more than its share of loss and tragedies over the years. But the mindset of not facing reality on their part on a number of occasions clouded Biden’s judgement as well as those around him. There are two terms that the authors use that help explain what occurred. The first was “Bideness,” which refers to Biden’s decline in mental acuity to the point of a perceived effort by Biden’s inner circle to conceal his struggles from the public and maintain an image of a sharp and capable leader, even resorting to methods like highly scripting events and limiting access to the president. The authors describe a president who exhibited signs of cognitive impairment behind the scenes, such as failing to recognize longtime political allies, losing his train of thought in important conversations, and forgetting important dates. The second term employed by the authors is the “Politburo” made up of a very insularized inner circle that surrounded and protected Biden made up of seasoned political veterans like Mike Donilon, Steve Ricchetti, Ron Klain, and Bruce Reed. An outer layer consisted of Ann Dunn, and Bob Bauer. Cabinet members and other policy advisors were excluded as the insularized group protected their influence. One person described it as “Five people were running the country, and Joe Biden was the senior member of the board.”

I am not suggesting that the Biden administration achievement was not masterful. The handling of the Covid 19, the Infrastructure Bill, Climate legislation, economic growth, Inflation Reduction Act, investment into semiconductor manufacturing and research, revitalizing America’s relations with its allies and strengthening NATO etc. Some of this was even achieved with bi-partisan support, but the credit goes to Biden who was the head of his administration, but there are numerous others who deserve most of the credit. The question must be asked: did Covid 19 provide the impetus and cover for much of the success and was it possible that a second term with a cognitively reduced president could achieve other important legislation.

Outgoing White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain delivers remarks during an event where U.S. President Joe Biden (L) welcomed his new Chief of Staff Jeffrey Zients (R) in the East Room of the White House on February 01, 2023 in Washington, DC. The event also gave Biden an opportunity to thank Klain, the longest-serving first chief of staff for any Democratic president. Zients most recently served as the White House coronavirus response coordinator. Klain also served as chief of staff for Vice President Al Gore and later for President Barack Obama.

(President Biden and Chief of Staff Ron Klain)

The overriding guide for Biden’s aides and officials that surrounded him was to defeat Donald Trump in 2024, seemingly at the cost of hiding the president’s loss of acuity and physical infirmities. Most believed that Vice President Harris could not defeat Trump and many disliked her and her approach to politics. The mantra was clear, no one could defeat the former president but Biden. The result, according to the authors supported by people “who were in the room where it happened” (from the musical “Hamilton!”) was that Biden had difficulty focusing, forgot names and didn’t recognize people, exhibited a complete loss of energy, and had difficulty absorbing information. The resulting speechwriters had to adapt to his diminishing capabilities; an increased reliance on note cards and teleprompters, and scripted meetings and interviews. A case in point was Biden’s performance at the Normandy D Day commemoration in June 2022. Biden appeared stiff and according to the authors a number of Normandy survivors had more energy than the president.

One must realize in Biden’s defense that he was under extreme stress since the death of his son Beau in 2015. As the years passed, he grew further attached to his surviving son, Hunter, whose personal issues including drug addiction, using the president’s contacts and family name to acquire wealth, tax evasion, and illegal weapons purchase resulted in a trial all weighing on the president’s mind. Once a special prosecutor was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland and resulted at first in a plea deal related to Hunter’s purchase of a gun while addicted to cocaine was overturned and resulted in his conviction in a Delaware court, it knocked the wind out of the president as did his tax evasion trial in California. Biden would say he only had one son left, and he would enable him the most. Biden would blame himself for many of Hunter’s problems because if he hadn’t run for president, the Justice Department spurred on by Republicans would never have gone after his son.

Biden’s limitations are catalogued by Tapper and Horowitz by numerous examples supported by individuals who were present in National Security Council meetings, speech preparation, cabinet meetings, fundraising events, etc. Aides used personal blinders to convince themselves Biden would overcome his shortcomings as they referred to his excellent State of the Union Speech in 2024, however within hours it was the same old infirm president. This was compounded by the investigation into Biden’s possession of classified documents from his vice presidential years and the conclusion by special prosecutor that the case was not winnable because a jury would not convict an infirm man, with memory issues, well into his eighties. The “Politburo” grew angrier and angrier at Garland who refused to back down. They would freeze the Attorney General out of the administration as more and more Democratic stalwarts wanted Biden to drop out of the presidential race.

(Biden campaign advisor Bruce Reed)

The June 2024 debate debacle which the authors relate in minute detail was the final straw. Tapper and Thompson lay bare a sense of betrayal as Biden; his family and closest advisors dwelt in a world of alternative facts. As Jennifer Szalai’s New York Times May 13, 2025, book review states; “Trump’s debate performance was of a piece with his rallies, a jumble of nonsensical digressions and wild claims. But for many Americans, the extent of Biden’s frailty came as a shock. Most of the president’s appearances had, by then, become tightly controlled affairs. For at least a year and a half, Biden’s aides had been scrambling to accommodate an octogenarian president who was becoming increasingly exhausted and confused. According to ORIGINAL SIN which makes pointed use of the word “cover-up” in the subtitle, alarmed donors and pols who sought the lowdown on Biden’s cognitive state were kept in the dark. Others had daily evidence of Biden’s decline but didn’t want to believe it.” This created a firestorm within the Democratic Party that ultimately led to the nomination of Kamala Harris and her ultimate defeat.

(Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden)

The book may come across as a polemic against Biden and those around him, however if their arguments and sourcing are correct then a grave injustice was perpetrated against the American people. In a sense the best way to describe the book is a story centered around willful ignorance that rose to the level of a conspiracy – the authors prove their case!

In closing, according to Jennifer Szalai; “Earlier this month, in what looks like an attempt to get ahead of the book’s publication, Biden went on “The View” to say that he accepts some responsibility for Trump’s victory: “I was in charge.” But he was dismissive about reports of any cognitive decline. In ORIGINAL SIN, Tapper and Thompson describe him waking up the morning after the 2024 election thinking that if only he had stayed in the race, he would have won. “That’s what the polls suggested, he would say again and again,” the authors write. There was just one problem with his reasoning: “His pollsters told us that no such polls existed.”

(President Joe Biden with family members nearby as he delivers remarks during an address from the Oval Office of the White House)

LOCKED IN by Jussi Adler-Olsen

July 8, 2025szfreiberger Mystery/Thrillers Leave a comment

(Vestre Prison, Copenhagen, Denmark)

A number of years ago I was browsing in a bookstore in Copenhagen, Denmark when the store manager suggested a Department Q novel written by Jussi Adler-Olsen. When my wife and I travel I love to buy crime novels written about foreign destinations by local authors. Adler-Olsen fit the bill and I have read all Department Q novels ever since. I purchased his latest LOCKED IN when it was published and haphazardly misplaced it. After watching Matthew Goode’s performance as DCI Carl Morck in Netflix’s new Department Q series I immediately conducted a search of my study and located the novel. Once read I can honestly state Adler-Olsen has not lost his touch.

Adler-Olsen’s latest takes place during the Covid-19 epidemic as Morck is charged with drug trafficking and murder which threatens to ruin his life and career. Imprisoned and surviving a number of attacks inside the incarceration facility, Morck’s colleagues at the Copenhagen Police Department, especially Marcus Jacobsen, the Chief of Homicide refuse to provide any assistance, and in fact they make his situation worse. The only support he receives is from his compatriots in Department Q, Rose Knudsen, Hafez El- Assad, and Gordon Taylor who imperil their own careers to assist him.

Adler-Olsen develops his plot slowly as a drug laden suitcase is found in Morck’s attack. Its contents were unknown to the Copenhagen detective, and it leads to a thirteen year old convoluted case whereby two of his team partners can offer no help. One, Anker Hoyer, a corrupt cop who died in 2007 and another, Hardy Henningsen, had been paralyzed by a bullet from the same drug case. Morck was unaware that Anker, a social climber, was working with a drug cartel which led to suspicions concerning Morck. The author creates a unique way that the Dutch/Danish drug cartel permanently removes those who were not loyal – using a nail gun to their skulls, hence the name “nail gun cases” that Morck is implicated with.

(Slagelse Remand Center, Copenhagen, Denmark)

Once arrested and taken to Vestre prison, Morck and his wife Mona are shocked to learn as a police officer he was not placed in protective custody, particularly because over the years Morck was responsible for placing a number of Vestre inmates in cells. Adler-Olsen has created a complex story involving police corruption and the attendant failure of human nature when it comes to earning a “little extra money.” A key character is Eddie Jansen, a Rotterdam police detective who was on the take for years and now his “bosses” want him to arrange Morck’s murder inside the prison. Once he fails to accomplish his task, Eddie is on the run with his family because the drug cartel “does not suffer fools gladly.”

Adler-Olsen excels at introducing his characters in detail, highlighting their motivations and actions. One such character is Malthe Bogegard, a drug enforcer who is imprisoned with Morck. He has a brother who is facing death from a rare disease. No doctor in Holland can save him, however there is an experimental operation that can be performed in a German hospital which might save him. The catch is money. When a large fee is offered by the drug cartel to kill Morck, Malthe believes his problem is solved. Another is Merete Lynggard who years earlier, Morck rescued her from imminent death after she was kidnapped. To repay her savior, she turns up visiting Morck’s wife Mona and offers her assistance. She is fully recovered from her ordeal and owns a security company with many inside contacts and resources. Lastly, Detective Bente Hansen who created her own drug business as a side hustle within her department.

(Matthew Goode as DCI Carl Morck in ‘Dept. Q’)

The author does an excellent job describing prison life – which prisoners ruled, the corrupt guards and administrators, and the outside criminals that can dictate events inside the prison. Adler-Olsen delves into the debilitating effect imprisonment has on an individual. In Morck’s case he begins to question his successful career, the impact on his wife and daughter since he was sure he was innocent. After a while he began to feel like a prisoner and felt sorry for himself. The novel shows how a person can be falsely accused and sent adrift by former colleagues allowing for the accused to acquire a reputation for duplicity, evil, and God knows what else in the eyes of the public. It also reflects on how people turn against a person of good reputations and an effective law enforcement officer.

Another interesting area of exploration is that of the “rag sheets” that present themselves as legitimate newspapers. In this case it is The Gossip, whose lead reporter is a rather sleazy type named, Pelle Hyttested who has carried a grudge against Morck for years, and his editor, Torben Victor, who at first decided to cooperate and help uncover the truth that Morck was being framed and rehabilitate his reputation with the public. However, Torben changes his mind under pressure from the Police Department and decides to hang Morck out to dry.

The author is a master creating plot lines that are unusual. The first to grab my attention was how Eddie Jansen decides to infect his own family with Covid 19 by taking infected tissues from a hospital waste area and have his family use it as a means of convincing his wife Femke to leave their home and go into seclusion as he could not tell her that a drug cartel was trying to kill him. Another, is the arrival of Hardy Henningsen who has spent years in physical rehabilitation from his injuries in the “nail gun case” visiting Morck in prison housed in a plastic suite with electronics that allow him a degree of mobility while offering to uncover the truth and free Morck.

(Author, Jussi Adler-Olsen)

The cold case investigation uncovers a series of murders, including Morck’s first lawyer, Adam Bang; Import-Export Company front DKNL Transport owner Hannes Theis, and Rasmus Bruhn, a major drug courier who was tortured and killed in Rotterdam in 2014, among others. As Department Q digs deeper and deeper they try to uncover who the assassins paymaster is; why do they want Morck dead; and which higher ups in the Police Department are complicit in the old drug case.

It will take Adler-Olsen about half the story to present a clearer picture of what happened in 2007 when he introduces Wayne Peters who he describes as discovering the joys of lying at the age of four. The reader is provided a brief discussion of Peters’ personality and how he developed a career that led to a drug empire and the murder of anyone who crossed him. Peters, who remains in the background with little exposure is the lynch pin of the drug cartel and his penetration of certain police departments is telling.

As Department Q defies police higher-ups it is clear that the final volume of the series is well worth reading. The one piece of advice I would offer is to catch up on prior novels in the series as a number of important figures from the department’s past make reappearances. LOCKED IN is a satisfying ending to Adler-Olsen’s Scandinavian noir series that has done a wonderful job of entertaining readers for over a decade, especially Caroline Waight’s translations.

Gange med celler i Vestre Fængsel i København, fredag den 19. november 2021.

(Vestre Prison, Copenhagen, Denmark)

MAGPIE MURDERS by Anthony Horowitz

June 23, 2025June 23, 2025szfreiberger Mystery/Thrillers Leave a comment

This may contain: an old stone building with many windows on the front and side of it, surrounded by green grass

(1950s English Manor House)

Truth be told, I became familiar with Anthony Horowitz’s novel MAGPIE MURDERS by watching PBS Passport’s Masterpiece Mysteries. I was familiar with Mr. Horowitz’s work through his screenplays of “Foyles’ War” and “Collision.” After watching his impressive writing for television, I became a fan and began watching the “Magpie Murders” series on Masterpiece. In the past I had purchased a number of Horowitz’s mysteries and decided it was about time I read MAGPIE MURDERS while I was binging the series with my wife on television, particularly when Horowitz stated the novel was about a “whodunnit writer who is murdered while he is writing his latest whodunnit.”

At the outset we are introduced to Susan Reyland, the editor for mystery writer Alan Conway. She has just received his last novel in his Atticus Pund detective series and as she read on she found herself reading a novel within a novel. Horowitz’s approach in MAGPIE MURDERS is unique as Conway’s work is presented in detail centered around the death of Mary Blakiston, the maid/house cleaner for Sir Magnus Pye. Soon, Pye will also be murdered, and the number of possible murderers is long – including Robert Blakiston, Mary’s son who stated in public that he wished she was dead; Johnny Whitehead, a career burglar who ran an antique shop with his wife, Gemma who felt Mary’s commentary was slandering him; Joy Sanderling, a nurse for Dr. Emelia Redwing whose marriage to Robert was blocked by Mary. There are also a number of suspects for the Pye killing – Magnus’ wife, Francis despised her husband and was locked in a loveless marriage and was having an affair with Jack Dartford, her financial advisor in London; Clarissa Pye, Magnus’ sister who he treated horribly and robbed her of wealth; and Neville Brent, the Gardner at the Pye residence who was fired by Magnus.

Actor Tim McMullan as Atticus Pünd in Magpie Murders on PBS MASTERPIECE

( Atticus Pünd is the beguiling and clever 1950s detective featured in Alan Conway’s fictional novels. He’s a compassionate gentleman; a German refugee of Greek-Jewish descent who survived the concentration camps)

Horowitz creates a number of subplots to go along with his main focus. For example, Mary’s death; the development of Dingle Dell, a large tract of land part the Pye estate was being sold off to developers angering the locals who loved its beauty and did not want “citified” people from London into their village. Further, the relationship between Magnus and his sister where Magnus lorded over his wealth to his sibling, when in fact they were twins and she emerged from the womb first, but Dr. Edgar Rennard, on his deathbed announced he had switched the twins at birth assuring the male child would be the heir to the Pye family holdings.

The other major story involves the death of Alan Conway. A cantankerous and nasty man, who could be friendly when it was called for, was engaged in writing his last Atticus Pund detective novel when he learned he was dying of cancer. He submitted his last manuscript and when Susan Reyland, his editor read it she learned the last chapter was missing. This allows Susan to don the cap of a detective as she hunts for the missing chapter which holds the key to many aspects of the novel. In addition, she is obsessed with investigating the death of Conway. In effect, after years of editing Conway’s mysteries, Susan found herself in the middle of one. The police ruled that Conway had committed suicide, but Susan was convinced he was murdered.

Actor Conleth Hill as Alan Conway in Magpie Murders on PBS MASTERPIECE

( AlanConway is the author of popular mystery novels featuring private eye Atticus Pünd. The writer is a prickly fellow who’s not above turning people from his real life into caricatures of themselves in his stories.)

As was the case with Mart Blakiston and Magnus Pye’s deaths, Conway’s possible suicide/murder offers many suspects. For example, James Taylor, Conway’s young lover who was removed from Conway’s will; John White, Conway’s hedge fund neighbor who engaged in multiple disputes; Conway’s ex-wife Melissa; Donald Leigh, a waiter and mystery author who believed that Conway stole his ideas for a previous book; Jeffery Weaver, who did odd jobs for Conway, Claire Jenkins, Conway’s sister who was treated poorly by her brother; Vicar Robin Osborne and his spouse both naturalists, and any number of people who were angry over the sale of Dingle Dell to developers. Apart from these suspects there are other important characters, chief among them is Charles Clover, the CEO of Clover books which published the Atticus Pund series, and Andreas Patakis, Susan Ryeland’s boyfriend, a Greek classics teacher.

Horowitz structures the novel carefully. The first ten pages introduce us to Conway and Reyland, then he shifts the focus to the plot in MAGPIE MYSTERIES focusing on the investigative work of Atticus Pund. A little over halfway through the novel, Horowitz zeroes in on the death of Alan Conway and Susan Reland’s investigation with the appearance of Atticus Pund periodically. As mentioned previously, this is a unique approach and to his credit Horowitz, who has created a complex whodunit with multiple characters offers the reader assistance as it is clear many will become confused. Periodically, as the novel flows Horowitz reviews aspects of the crimes and the role of important characters which refocuses the reader and makes the crime scenario easier to follow especially when characters from the Atticus Pund novel are similar to those in Susan Reyland’s investigation.

Actor Lesley Manville as Susan Ryeland in Magpie Murders on PBS MASTERPIECE

( Magpie Murders revolves around Manville’s character Susan Ryeland, a book editor who reluctantly takes on the role of amateur sleuth. Ryeland is unconventional, a free spirit who makes her own rules about living life.)

There are many shifts in each investigation as different suspects emerge and recede. One gets the feeling that you are reading an Agatha Christie novel as Horowitz uses Conway’s talent to capture the “Golden Age” of British whodunits by including the country manor as a setting for a complicated murder, a cast of eccentric characters, and a detective who arrives as an outsider. Horowitz writes with a deft hand and has created a tightly plotted murder mystery(s) with clever asides as it is clear the author is poking fun at the whodunit genre. Despite some meandering on the author’s part, the reader will be entertained, and it will be worth the time invested in engaging the novel. P.S. The Masterpiece Mystery is as good as the novel!

Ston Easton Park, A Palladian English Manor House Near Bath

(Bath, England Manor House)

Photos of characters are from the Masterpiece Mysteries series)

RED SCARE: BLACKLISTS, McCARTHYISM, AND THE MAKING OF MODERN AMERICA by Clay Risen

June 9, 2025szfreiberger American cultural history, American Political History, American Social History, Cold War Leave a comment

(U.S. Sen. Joseph McCarthy (center) during an investigation into alleged communist infiltration of the government, 1954 with Roy Cohn on the right).

George Santayana’s most famous quote regarding history is: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This quote emphasizes the importance of learning from past mistakes to avoid making them again. I guess when one looks at our contemporary political, social, and economic landscape we as a society have not followed the Spanish-American philosopher, essayist, poet and novelist’s advice. We live in a partisan world where things seem to be defined by which tribe we belong to. It appears that our country is split almost down the middle in terms of our loyalties and belief systems. Currently, the administration that occupies the White House is led by a cult leader whose primary goal is power and enrichment for himself and his family. To achieve this, he has manufactured a world identified as “Make America Great Again” or MAGA and through executive orders and partisan legislation seeks to implement what has been identified as “Project 2025” which will devastate certain governmental components, social programs for the poor, the international trading system, the federal budget, our immigration system, and god knows what else that is written in the weeds of that document.

In examining American history, I can think of three periods where contemporary events have their role model. One is the Gilded Age of the late 19^th century, when tariffs, crony capitalism, and hard-and-fast hierarchies were the stuff of American politics. Secondly we turn to the 1920s with its version of anti-communism, an economic system that was overloaded with debt, highlighted by Wall Street, racism manifesting itself in anti-immigrant legislation, and a strict reshaping of American politics. Lastly, is the post-World War II period highlighted by the Red Scare, when the federal government was weaponized against the American left. This last example sounds familiar as we are bombarded on a daily basis by public commentary and social media posts by our president who has weaponized the Justice Department seeking revenge against his perceived enemies be it individual politicians, educational institutions, businessmen or lawyers who do not conform to his demands, a feckless Congress and Supreme Court, all with the goal of seeking total fealty to the beliefs of one man.

People Metal Print featuring the photograph Dalton Trumbo At House Hearings by Bettmann

(Screenwriter Dalton Trumbo before HUAC)

In Clay Risen’s latest historical monograph, RED SCARE: BLACKLISTS, McCARTHYISM, AND THE MAKING OF MODERN AMERICA the author examines a period that is close to being the precursor of our contemporary world. President Trump vows to root out “radical left wing lunatics” and “Marxist equity” from the bowels of the state. One of Trump’s minions, former DOGE overlord Elon Musk has proclaimed that U.S.A.I.D. designed as a soft power vehicle to enhance American popularity in poor countries particularly by improving their health care is “a viper’s nest of radical-left Marxists” and deserved to be destroyed. This commentary which pervades actors in the current administration sounds like Senator Joseph McCarthy, legal counsel Roy Cohn, Senator and later Vice President Richard Nixon, and even Robert F. Kennedy, and many others. In fact, McCarthy garnered a range of support, including from fellow Republicans, some ordinary Americans, and even some Democrats. His supporters often believed in the necessity of identifying and suppressing perceived communist influence, justifying the denial of civil liberties to those deemed subversive. Conversely, many Americans and political figures strongly opposed McCarthy’s tactics, highlighting the divisive nature of the movement as he lied over and over about the dangers of the “Red Menace.” Risen’s book shows that the Red Scare burst forth from a convergence of Cold War fears and a long festering battle between social conservatives and New Deal progressives. Risen begins at the outset of the Cold War concluding with McCarthy’s death in 1957 providing a fuller understanding of what the American people experienced at a time of moral questioning and perceived threats, and what people are capable of doing to each other under the right circumstances.

Risen has an interesting metaphor in approaching his topic by discussing how a bacillus, in this case, cultural and political can, lie dormant for decades and reappear years later. The bacillus of the 1950s Red Scare receded but did not totally disappear in the decades that followed, but its lineage has reemerged in the last decade or so with the American hard right. To understand contemporary culture and politics which is occurring before our eyes today we must understand it and its roots in the Red Scare. This is not to say that Trumpism and the MAGA movement is the same as McCarthyism and the John Birch Society, but there is a line linking them. Risen’s goal is to demonstrate that at a moment in the late 1940s, and in a certain political and cultural context, that knowing where we are today requires an understanding of where we were then.

Risen quickly turns to the origins, personalities, and actions of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), especially toward its witnesses and the people they were trying to destroy and disseminating its right wing agenda. The Committee would become the spear driving a decade long campaign of intolerance and political oppression. Risen clearly develops the case that the emergence of a strong anti-government agenda which used the fear of communism as a foil against its opponents had its origin in hatred for the New Deal and Franklin Roosevelt (much like Trump’s abhorrence of any achievement wrought by Barack Obama or Joe Biden). The anti-communist movement morphed into an anti-civil rights movement represented by HUAC and other congressional committee investigations highlighted by its war against Hollywood, epitomized by the investigation of Dalton Trumbo and the Hollywood Ten. For HUAC members and others the New Deal was a “stalking horse” for Soviet collectivization, which today we refer to as the deep state. The conundrum as Risen argues is that there were two visions of America; “one built on an expansive vision of government as the guarantor of the rights and welfare of all its citizens, the other built on a retrograde nostalgia for an America built on privilege and exclusion.”

(Elizabeth Bentley testifying before the House Committee)

The author integrates the major figures of the period nicely. Whether presenting the careers and beliefs of Presidents Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower, Secretary of State Dean Acheson, J. Parnell Thomas, Dalton Trumbo, J. Edgar Hoover, Roy Cohn, Richard M. Nixon, Elizabeth Bentley, Judith Coplon, Harry Bridges, Owen Lattimore, Alger Hiss, Whitiker Chambers, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, and a host of others, Risen analyzes their role in the Red Scare and their impact on post-war American history.

The 1948 election plays a key role in Risen’s analysis as Truman was able to defeat New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey. After losing the 1946 congressional elections to Republicans Truman realized he needed to shore up support with those who felt he was weak on communism. This would lead to the Federal Loyalty Program and a rhetorical war within the Democratic party represented by former Vice President and Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace. During the 1948 campaign Dewey, to his credit did not get down and dirty with other Republicans who went after Truman as being “soft on communism.” With their defeat, Republicans learned their lesson and in future elections they had no compunction about using politics of the gutter.

(Whittaker Chambers)

It takes Risen almost halfway through the narrative to introduce Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy. According to Risen McCarthy had a “unique ability to braid the two strands of the Red Scare – the culture war and the politics of Cold War security – into a single cord.” McCarthy was a Senate “nobody” until he forced his way on the scene in January 1950 accusing the State Department of harboring 205 communists in its midst. McCarthy’s story has been told before in excellent biographies by David Oshinsky, A CONSPIRACY SO IMMENSE: THE WORLD OF JOE McCARTHY and Larry Tye’s more recent work, DEMAGOGUE: THE LIFE AND LONG SHADOW OF SENATOR McCARTHY. However, Risen presents an astute analysis reviewing the McCarthy hearings and his obfuscations, outright lies, and the careers he destroyed, as he turns to the role of an individual’s sexuality during the Red Scare.

Focusing on Carmel Offie, a U.S. State Department and later a Central Intelligence Agency official, who served as an indispensable assistant to a series of senior officials while combining his official duties with an ability to skirt regulations for his and others’ personal benefit. Offie’s career is important because he was gay and becomes the center of Risen’s discussion of how McCarthy and his Republican allies believed that sexual perverts had infiltrated the government and “were perhaps as dangerous as the actual Communists.” McCarthy and his allies helped push the politics of homophobia at a time of animosity toward Washington, particularly the State Department which was blamed for the loss of China a few months before McCarthy gave his damning speech in Wheeling, West Virginia. The name given to the move to dismiss and prosecute gay people was the “Lavender Scare.” Thousands would lose their jobs and careers due to their machinations as they now had another tool to fight their culture and political wars against the Truman administration and their supporters.

(Alger Hiss testifying in 1948)

It is clear from Risen’s account that McCarthy was able to rouse support because of the earlier work of the House Un-Activities Committee, the Chambers-Hiss imbroglio, and the actions of Richard M. Nixon. McCarthy would take advantage of the fall of China to the Communists and the outbreak of the Korean War. Further, certain personalities gravitated to the Wisconsin senator, and they would develop a relationship based on the need for power, ideology, and the ability to use each other. Two of those individuals were Alfred Kohlberg, a millionaire ideologue who made his money taking advantage of cheap Chinese labor and McCarthy would become his megaphone concerning the loss of China and the role of the State Department. The second individual was Roy Cohn, who in his later career became Donald Trump’s mentor. In his earlier career he would join McCarthy’s staff and mirror his viciousness, vindictiveness, and willingness to lie. Risen describes him as “the chief executive of McCarthyism, Inc., determining the senator’s targets, writing his talking points, and pushing him further than even he might have chosen to go.”

The fall of China to Mao Zedong and his forces greatly impacted American politics and paranoia. This was fostered by what is referred to as “the China Lobby,” a term often used for groups favoring the Republic of China on Taiwan under the leadership of Kuomintang head, Chiang Kai-Shek, an American ally during World War II. The China Lobby’s collective influence, fostered by Alfred Kohlberg and others, shaped policy and politics throughout the 1940s and 50s boosting and destroying careers as they enlisted McCarthy to their cause.

If we would set up an opposition to the China Lobby it would be called the “China hands,” career State Department diplomats and officials who had grown critical of Chiang Kai-Shek’s forces during the Chinese Civil War. They believed the US could not turn back to imperialism and the Chinese people had the right to determine their own future. Risen lays out the China lobby’s victory through McCarthy as many Asia experts in the State Department had their careers destroyed as well as Asia scholars at Harvard. Interestingly, the purge of the State Department deprived policy makers with experts on Asian countries and movements. It would be interesting to ponder what would have occurred in Korea and Vietnam if these individuals had been in place to offer their expertise. Perhaps the many errors surrounding the eventual “domino theory” could have been avoided.

Whether it was Hollywood, HUAC, or McCarthy, all of whom Risen explores in marvelous detail, the anti-communist hysteria of the early 1950s drew much of its energy from the ongoing war in Korea, exacerbated by the entrance of Chinese Communists troops into the war. Interestingly, General Douglas MacArthur’s headquarters in Tokyo became a satellite headquarters for the China lobby and the hard-core anti-communist right. Once MacArthur was fired by Truman it provided the hard core right with further ammunition against the president, Secretary of State Dean Acheson, and General George C. Marshall, and others who were critical of Chiang Kai-Shek and the Kuomintang.

Richard Nixon-[C]════ ⋆★⋆ ════

[C]“ 𝕋𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕤𝕒𝕚𝕕 ‘𝕊𝕠𝕟, 𝕕𝕠𝕟’𝕥 𝕔𝕙𝕒𝕟𝕘𝕖’
[C]𝔸𝕟𝕕 𝕀 𝕜𝕖𝕖𝕡 𝕙𝕠𝕡𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕨𝕠𝕟’𝕥 𝕤𝕖𝕖 𝕙𝕠𝕨 𝕞𝕦𝕔𝕙 𝕀 𝕙𝕒𝕧𝕖 ”

[C

(Richard M. Nixon)

The atmospherics of the time period are expertly recreated by the author. Risen’s descriptions of committee hearings, including the demeanor of witnesses, the response to questions, and the overall climate of this phase of American history allow the reader to feel as if they are in the committee rooms, the oval office, experiencing the political debates, and getting to know the major and minor players of the period.

A criticism of Risen is offered in Kevin Peraino’s New York Times book review entitled “Scarlet Fever: Culture in the United States is still driven by the political paranoia of the 1950s,” published on April 6, 2025. Peraino correctly writes; “Risen, a reporter at The New York Times who has written a history of Theodore Roosevelt and the Rough Riders, among other books, coyly insists that he is “not concerned with drawing parallels between the past and the present” and desires to “leave it up to the reader to find those as they will.” But this is disingenuous. In his 400-some pages Risen touches on anti-fascism, white supremacy, campus activism, anti-elitism, cancel culture, virtue signaling, doxxing, book bans, election interference, anti-immigrant racism, F.B.I. overreach, conspiracy thinking, antisemitism, the surveillance state, anti-colonialism, the Koch family and America First-style ultranationalism. To suggest all this amounts simply to a Rorschach test for his readers stretches credulity.”

In her recent New Yorker article, entitled; “Fear Factor: How the Red Scare reshaped American politics,” historian Beverly Gage concludes; “What can we learn about our current moment from all of this? Risen hopes that readers will decide for themselves. “This is a work of history, and as such it is not concerned with drawing parallels between the past and the present,” he writes. “I leave it up to the reader to find those as they will.” So, as a reader, let me offer a few thoughts.

The unfortunate truth is that most mechanisms of the Red Scare, including congressional hearings and loyalty investigations, would not be especially hard to revive. Indeed, recent developments have indicated that they might be deployed with genuine glee. Already, the Trump Administration has started asking for lists—of federal workers who attended D.E.I. training, of F.B.I. agents who investigated January 6th cases, of scientists engaged in now suspect areas of work. Trump himself has openly announced his intention to deploy the Justice Department and the F.B.I. against his personal, political, and ideological enemies.

Black and white image of Dwight Eisenhower sitting at a desk

(President Dwight D. Eisenhower in the Oval Office)

The history of the Red Scare suggests that it won’t take many firings, federal inquiries, or acts of public humiliation to frighten a whole lot of people. But it also offers some reason to think that such intimidation methods may not be quite as effective this time around. For starters, there is much less agreement about the Trump Administration’s agenda than there was about Communism in its heyday. The Red Scare gained momentum because nearly everyone in American political life shared the same basic assumption: Communism is bad and poses an existential threat to the American way of life. It’s hard to come up with any contemporary issue that would generate the same powerful consensus.

Generally speaking, we also have better protections for political speech and assembly than Americans had in the fifties. Indeed, some of those protections are legacies of the Red Scare. In 1957, as the anti-Communist furor was winding down, the Supreme Court issued a series of decisions limiting some of the most sweeping methods deployed against political dissenters, including parts of the Smith Act.

But to say that Trump won’t necessarily succeed in setting off a new Red Scare is not to say that he won’t try. And, in this sort of politics, the trying is part of the game. As long as the nation’s “cultural Marxists” feel vulnerable to random accusations or secret investigations, they’ll likely be more careful about what they do and say. As Roy Cohn once instructed a young Donald Trump, much can be accomplished by attacking first and dealing with the consequences later.” Today, with trade wars, immigration, DOGE’s dismantling key aspects of the federal government, cutting foreign aid etc. we are now experiencing Cohn’s advice to Trump, and I wonder a few years down the road how bad the impact will be, and how long it might take to undo what he has done.

Senator Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin during the Army-McCarthy hearings, with committee counsel Roy Cohn next to McCarthy and Republican Senator Ralph Flanders of Vermont standing at the center. Flanders, who was taking the lead in an effort to depose McCarthy, had just delivered a letter to McCarthy informing him that he intended to introduce a resolution to censure McCarthy. Here McCarthy responds saying that Flanders should take the witness stand if he has any information about the "Army-McCarthy row other than the 'usual smears... from the smear sheets.'" Flanders' original motion called for McCarthy to be stripped of his committee post. A revised motion eventually led to McCarthy's condemnation by the Senate.

(Army-McCarthy hearings, 1954)

A CALCULATED RESTRAINT: WHAT ALLIED LEADERS SAID ABOUT THE HOLOCAUST by Richard Breitman

May 31, 2025szfreiberger American Diplomatic History, British History, European History, German History, Holocaust, Nazi Germany, Russian History, United States Foreign Policy, World War II Leave a comment

(Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Joseph Stalin at Yalta 2/1945)

The most frequent question concerning the Holocaust centers on what allied leaders knew about the genocide against the Jews and what they spoke about it in public and private. In previous monographs, FDR AND THE JEWS and OFFICIAL SECRETS: WHAT THE NAZIS PLANNED AND WHAT THE BRITISH AND AMERICAN KNEW Holocaust historian Richard Breitman addresses when these men knew what was occurring in the death camps. In his latest work, A CALCULATED RESTRAINT: WHAT ALLIED LEADERS SAID ABOUT THE HOLOCAUST Breitman shifts his focus as it took until December 1942 for allied leaders to issue a joint statement concerning Nazi Germany’s policy of eradicating Jews from Europe. It would take President Franklin D. Roosevelt until March 1944 to publicly comment on what was occurring in the extermination camps. In his new book, Breitman asks why these leaders did not speak up earlier. Further he explores the character of each leader and concludes that the Holocaust must be understood in light of the political and military conditions exhibited during the war that drove their decision-making and commentary.

Breitman begins his account by introducing Miles Taylor, a Steel magnate turned diplomat representing Franklin Roosevelt in a September 22, 1942, meeting with the Pope. Taylor described the Nazi genocide against the Jews and plans to exterminate millions. He pressured the Pontiff to employ his moral responsibility and authority against Hitler and his minions. In the weeks that followed Taylor conveyed further evidence of Nazi plans to the White House.

(Anthony Eden, British Foreign Secretary) in 1942

The Papacy’s response was much less than could be hoped for. Monsignor Dell’Acqua warned the Pope that any negative commentary concerning Nazi actions could be quite detrimental to the church, ultimately producing a Papal reaction that it was impossible to confirm Nazi actions, and the Vatican had no “practical suggestions to make,” apparently believing that only military action, not moral condemnation could end Nazi atrocities. It would take until 2020 for the Vatican to open records of Pius XII’s tenure to outside researchers.

Breitman states his goal in preparing his monograph was to discern what “Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin knew about the Holocaust to what they said about it in their most important statements on the subject.” The author’s approach rests on two key avenues of research and analysis. First, the extent to which allied leaders sought to create and mobilize the international community based on a common morality. Second, how allied leaders understood the relationship between the Holocaust and the war itself during different stages of the conflict. Breitman’s account relies on thorough research based on years of archival work, in addition to correspondence among allied leaders, numerous biographies and secondary works on the subject.

Despite the release of most allied documents pertaining to the war, except for Russia which has become more forthcoming since the fall of the Soviet Union there is a paucity of material relating to allied leaders. Further, there is little, if any record of allied leaders themselves addressing the Holocaust in any of their private conversations, though Stalin’s public commentary does allude to Nazi atrocities more so than Roosevelt and Churchill.

It is clear from Breitman’s account that with Hitler’s January 30, 1939, speech to the Reichstag that the Fuhrer was bent on the total annihilation of the Jews, not just pressuring them to leave Germany and immigrate elsewhere. It is also clear that Churchill and Roosevelt were fully aware of the threat Hitler posed to the international order, but were limited in their public reaction to the sensitive issue that a war against Germany to save Jews was not politically acceptable, particularly as it related to communism at a time when anti-Semitism was pervasive worldwide. Fearing Nazi propaganda responses, allied leaders generalized the threat of Nazi atrocities, thereby subsuming Nazi policies to exterminate Jews among a broader range of barbaric behaviors, thereby limiting explicit attacks on the growing Holocaust.

Breckinridge Long (1881–1958). Long was an Assistant Secretary in the US State Department during World War II, from 1940-1944.

(Breckinridge Long, anti-Semitic State Department official did his best to block Jewish immigration to the United States during the Holocaust)

The author is correct in arguing that had allied leaders spoken out and confronted Nazi behavior earlier it might have galvanized more Jews to flee and go into hiding and perhaps encourage gentiles to take serious steps to assist Jews. No matter what the result it would have confirmed the rumors and stories concerning Nazi “resettlement in the east,” and possibly encouraged neutral governments to speak out and do more.

Breitman’s overall thesis is correct pertaining to why allied leaders did not speak out publicly about the Holocaust, though they did comment on the barbarity of the Nazis. The reasons have been presented by many historians that Roosevelt was very concerned about providing the Nazis a propaganda tool because any comments would be used to reinforce the view that the Roosevelt administration was controlled by Jews and it would anger anti-Semites, particularly those in his own State Department, and isolationists in Congress. FDR reasoned the best way to approach the Holocaust was not to single out Jews and concentrate on the larger issue of winning the war. The faster victory could be achieved, the more Jews that could be saved. This opinion was similar to Winston Churchill’s beliefs.

The author spends the first third of the book focusing on the “Big Three,” and their early views as to what policies the Nazis were implementing in Eastern Europe. Breitman will focus on four examples of public commentary which he analyzes in detail. On August 24, 1941, Winston Churchill made a speech denouncing Nazi executions in the east. He singled out what the Germans were doing to the Russians on Soviet soil, with no mention of the Jews as victims. However, his last sentence read; “we are in the presence of a crime without a name.” Was Churchill referring to the Holocaust? Was he trying to satisfy Stalin? It is difficult to discern, but British intelligence released in the 1990s and early 2000s provide an important picture of what the SS and police units were doing behind battle lines in the Soviet Union in July and August 1941 – mass executions of Jews, Bolsheviks, and other civilian targets. Churchill’s rationale for maintaining public silence regarding the Holocaust was his fear that the Luftwaffe’s Enigma codes that had been broken by cartographers at Bletchley Park would be compromised should he make statements based on British intelligence. It is interesting according to Breitman that after August 1941, Churchill no longer favored receiving “execution numbers” from MI6, fearing that the information could become public. Churchill’s overriding goal was to strengthen ties with the US and USSR and would worry about moral questions later.

In Stalin’s case he made a speech on November 6, 1941, the anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 at the Mayakovsky Metro Station. According to Alexander Werth, a British journalist who was present it was “a strange mixture of black gloom and complete confidence.” Aware of Nazi mass murder of Jews, Stalin mentioned the subject directly only once, saying the Germans were carrying out medieval pogroms just as eagerly as the Tsarist regime had done. In a follow up speech the next day, Stalin said nothing about the killing of Jews. Stalin generalized the threat of extermination so all Soviet people would feel the threat facing their country, but at least he mentioned it signaling that subject could now be openly discussed, but Stalin’s overriding concern was to focus on the Nazi threat to the state and people of the USSR and believed that references to the Nazi war against the Jews could only distract from that. After his November remarks he made no further public comments about the killing of Jews for the rest of the war.

(Jan Karski (born Jan Kozielewski, 24 June 1914^[a] – 13 July 2000) was a Polish soldier, resistance-fighter, and diplomat during World War II. He is known for having acted as a courier in 1940–1943 to the Polish government-in-exile and to Poland’s Western Allies about the situation in German-occupied Poland. He reported about the state of Poland, its many competing resistance factions, and also about Germany’s destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto and its operation of extermination camps on Polish soil that were murdering Jews, Poles, and others)

FDR’s approach was to prepare for war and his comments were designed to do so and not say anything that could rile up anti-New Dealers who opposed war preparation. At press conferences on July 31 and February 1, 1941, FDR did not raise the subject of Hitler’s threat to annihilate the Jews of Europe and was not questioned about it. Roosevelt feared any publicity surrounding saving Jews would create greater opposition to aiding the democracies of Europe to fight the Nazis. It took Roosevelt until August 21, 1942, for the president to denounce barbaric crimes against innocent civilians in Europe and Asia and threatened those responsible with trials after the war. He would reaffirm these comments in a statement on October 7, 1942, but in both instances he was unwilling to denounce the Nazi war against the Jews. However, if we fast forward to FDR’s March 24, 1944, press conference, shortly after the Nazis occupied Hungary, the president called attention to Hungarian Jews as part of the Nazi campaign to destroy the Jews of Europe, accusing the Nazis of the “wholesale systematic murder of the Jews in Europe.” Articles written by the White House press corps and government broadcasts were disseminated to a large audience in the United States and abroad.

Nazi camps in occupied Poland, 1939-1945 [LCID: pol72110]

Breitman dissects a fourth speech given on January 30, 1939, where Adolf Hitler lays out his plans in front of the Reichstag. The speech recounted the usual Nazi accusations against the west, praise for Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, virulent comments and threat against the Jews, and fear of the Bolshevik menace. He was careful not to attack Roosevelt as he wanted to limit American aid. According to Chief AP correspondent Louis Lochner who was present at the speech Hitler reserved his most poisonous verbiage for the Jews as he would welcome the complete annihilation of European Jewry.

The title of the book, A CALCULATED RESTRAINT is somewhat misleading as Breitman focuses a great deal on events and personalities that may tendentiously conform to the title, but do not zero in exactly on that subject matter. The author details the negotiations leading up to the Nazi-Soviet Pact and its implications for Poland and Eastern Europe in General. Further, he comments on the American and British about faces in dealing with communism. Breitman focuses on the “Palestine question” and its role in Nazi strategy and how the British sought to protect its Arab “possessions,” – oil! Operation Torch, as a substitute for a second in Europe is discussed; the battle of El Alamein and the role of General Erwin Rommel. Other prominent individuals are covered including Reinhard Heydrich who chaired the Wannsee Conference outlining the Holocaust and the Lidice massacre after he was assassinated. Breitman does deal with the Holocaust, not commentary by the “Big Three” as he introduces Gerhart M. Riegner, a representative of the World Jewish Congress and Polish diplomat Jan Karski, who met with Roosevelt, and Peter Bergson who did his best to publicize the Holocaust and convince the leaders to focus more on containing it through his Emergency Committee to Save the Jewish People of Europe. Another important American official that Breitman spends a great deal of time on is Oscar Cox, general counsel of the Foreign Economic Administration, which included the Lend-Lease Administration who tried to enlist others in the battle against anti-Semites, like Breckinridge Long inside the State Department. Both men played an integral role in making the Holocaust public and trying to convince Churchill and Roosevelt to be more forthcoming about educating the public about the annihilation of the Jews. This would lead to the Bermuda Conference and the War Refugee Board in the United States, neither of which greatly impacted the plight of the Jews. Breitman also includes a well thought out and incisive analysis of the murder of hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews at Auschwitz toward the end of the war.

SS chief Heinrich Himmler (right) during a visit to the Auschwitz camp. [LCID: 50742]

(SS chief Heinrich Himmler (right) during a visit to the Auschwitz camp. Poland, July 18, 1942)

Perhaps, Breitman’s best chapter is entitled, “The Allied Declaration” in which he points out that by the second half of 1942 there was enough credible information that reached allied governments and media that affirmed the genocide of the Jews. However, as Breitman argues, the atmosphere surrounding this period and the risks of going public were too much for allied leaders.

It is clear the book overly focuses on the course of the war, rather than on its stated title. The non-Holocaust material has mostly been mined by other historians, and in many cases Breitman reviews material he has presented in his previous books. Much of the sourcing is based on secondary materials, but a wide variety of documentary evidence is consulted. In a sense if one follows the end notes it provides an excellent bibliography, but the stated purpose of the book does not receive the coverage that is warranted.

In summary, Breitman’s book is a concise and incisive look at his subject and sheds some new light on the topic. We must accept the conclusion that the allied leader’s responses and why they chose what to say about the Holocaust must be understood in light of the political and military demands that existed in the war and drove their decision making. I agree with historian Richard Overy that Breitman spends much more time discussing what was known about the murder of Jews, how it was communicated and its effect on lower-level officials and ministers, rather than discussing the response of the Allied big three, which again reveals a generally ambivalent, even skeptical response to the claims of people who presented evidence as to what was occurring.

(Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill at the Tehran Conference, November, 1943)

THE YEAR OF THE LOCUST by Terry Hayes

May 25, 2025szfreiberger Espionage Leave a comment

Natural gas production and processing in Russia

(Russian industrial complex in Siberia)

Ten years ago, I was fortunate to come across Terry Hayes’ first novel I AM PILGRIM. The novel was riddled with suspense with constant shifting plot lines, well developed characters, exceptional background information and exquisite detail developed with tremendous depth. It was a spy thriller that was almost addictive as Hayes led you from one scene to another keeping you on the edge of your seat. Once I completed the novel I soon learned there would be a follow up effort in a year or two. Much to my chagrin it took almost a decade for Hayes to complete his next novel, THE YEAR OF THE LOCUST. Hayes is a movie producer with a flair for constructing prose for thrilling spy novels. He is an expert in developing cliff hangers that seem to repeat after each of his short chapters. His latest effort replicates the strengths of his first novel, and I must say it was worth the wait, though I would request if there were a third novel on the horizon we did not have to wait another ten years for it to appear.

The star and narrator of THE YEAR OF THE LOCUST is a CIA operative with nom de guerre of Kane, though his real name is Ridley Walker. Hayes immediately draws the reader into his web of suspense as he describes the public execution of ten people, a few of which were CIA operatives embedded in Iran who were victims of a public hanging. It appears a US agent turned out to be a Russian spy who outed these individuals to the Tehran regime.

After searching for the double agent identified as Magus and failing to locate him, CIA Director, Richard Rourke, code named Falcon turned the mission to locate Magus to Kane. Kane had a special skill set, the most important being a specialist in entering what are called “Denied Access Areas” places under hostile control such as Russia, Syria, North Korea, Iran, and the tribal zones of Pakistan. Magus was an expert in disappearing and hiding, but so was Kane, and his target was kind enough to teach him a new technique which would eventually save his life.

This may contain: there is a map of the world with countries

Hayes’ approach is to keep the action moving as it seems as if Kane goes from one treacherous situation to the next, not allowing the reader to catch his breath. Kane’s next secret mission is to rendezvous with an informer within one of the world’s most dangerous groups, the Army of the Pure a fundamentalist, anti-western, and violent organization – another reincarnation of ISIS. The meeting was to take place in the Denied Access Area – where the borders of Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan meet with the informer who had information concerning a major event that would emulate its darkest predecessors. The informer was a courier, who was also an air conditioning repair man and technician.

The courier provided a photo of Abu Muslim al-Tundra, a military commander of the Army of the Pure who was supposedly killed by an American bomb. He had been head of al-Qaeda in Iraq, a founder of ISIS, and on his back was a tattoo of a locust. Hayes’ excels at developing the background for each character and their role in the plot, with al-Tundra is being no exception as the author explains his road to being a master terrorist. In addition, Hayes is very attuned to integrating historical events into his story. Historical references are accurate and important. For example, American distrust for the Pakistani intelligence service and overall direction of the government in Islamabad. Other references include; how Pol Pot might have never become a genocidal killer, Union Carbide’s Bhopal disaster, oil discoveries in Baku, Azerbaijan, and many others.

Hayes is a master at describing the technology behind Kane’s spy craft. Weapons and equipment are laid out for the reader including their development and use. The CIA’s attempt to kill al-Tundra with hell fire missiles fired from across the Iranian border into Iran and deceive its Russian air-defense system is a case in point. Further, his knowledge of submarines, stealth warfare, and weaponry is impressive, and reflects a tremendous amount of research that went into authoring the novel.

As in his first book, Hayes develops a series of interesting characters. First, and most important is Ridley Kane, but others play an important role including Dr. Rebecca McMaster, an ER doctor who lives with Kane. Laleh, an Afghan woman who Kane saved from execution, who later would reciprocate by doing the same for him. Richard Roarke, CIA head, an old school operator. Lucas Corrigan, CIA Head of Human Resources who was “the man with eyes as green and cold as river rocks,” a Ph. D and Psy.D whose father was CIA Station Chief in Saigon during the 1975 evacuation. Madeline O’Neill, a CIA analyst who tracks terrorists and is an expert at creating back stories for Kane’s missions. Clayton Powell, the CIA Archivist. Bill “Buster” Glover, a CIA Assistant Director. Baxter Woodward, a physicist who met Kane on “a submarine that didn’t exist, a craft that had been designed to disappear, was ready to set sail for waters unknown.” Yosef Faheez, the third richest man in Pakistan and bankroller of terrorist operations. Clifford Montgomery, President of the United States. Ghorbani and Bahman, two Blackwater operatives embedded in Iran. Aslan Kadyrov, known as “the Rifle,” is in charge of Russia’s large earth mining complex in Siberia called the Baikonur Cosmodrome. Lastly, Roman Kazinsky, the real name of al-Tundra who turned out to be Russian and former Spetsnaz in addition to being a devout Muslim.

(Terry Hayes, author)

As the reader you must pay careful attention to Hayes’ construction of the novel. He switches from scene to scene and mission to mission very artfully, but quickly. He creates a number of scenarios for Kane to confront and resolve. From searching for a traitor who divulged the agents embedded in Iran resulting in their execution, the search for the world’s most dangerous terrorist, being aboard the USS Leviathan, a stealth submarine which experiences disaster below the Indian Ocean. Lastly about two-thirds into the novel Hayes surprisingly pivots morphing his story into a Covid like apocalyptic salvation story which results from Kazinsky’s plan to use Russia’s mining operation in Kazakhstan at the Baikonur plant to spread siber spores that would transform the world as an instrument for his vengeance.

Aspects of the novel may seem a bit far-fetched, but Haye’s credibility as an amazing storyteller allows the reader to carry on. A number of Hayes’ characters are sarcastic, and this allows the author to inject a good amount of humor into dark situations that keep the reader entertained. The book has all of Hayes’ amusing elements: astuteness, clear-cut and intelligent writing; believable characters even if their missions are hard to digest; a complicated plot; lessons in history, geography, cultures and politics; and an incisive look, professionally and personally, into the mind of a spy. Further, in THE YEAR OF THE LOCUST things occur that pull the storyline together. It’s one thing to buy into the great research and detail behind creating a spy’s so-called “legend,” his claimed background supported by documents and memorized details. It’s another to come upon individuals in the most unlikely places as a convenient way to integrate disparate elements of the story. In closing I would request that the author does not wait another ten years to publish his next spy thriller.

(Russian industrial complex in Siberia)

BEING JEWISH AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF GAZA by Peter Beinart

May 17, 2025szfreiberger Middle Eastern History Leave a comment

Map showing the aid entry points and the military zone bifurcating north and south Gaza.

A few months ago, I had a conversation with an old friend from my Yeshiva days in Brooklyn. At Yeshiva and in high school we were very close, and it is the case with many people we drifted apart over the years but intermittently we kept in touch. Holiday greetings, a periodic email, or phone call were our communication over the decades, and I still have fond memories of our relationship. It was during that conversation and his reaction to a number of my book reviews which I posted on my web site that I realized that a wall might be developing between us. The foundation of our disagreement involved our reactions to events in Gaza that followed Hamas’ brutal attack of October 7, 2023, when over 1200 Israelis were slaughtered and 250 hostages were seized by the Palestinian terrorist group. In our last conversation we “agreed to disagree” as he said so we could continue our friendly catch up conversation. The crux of our disagreement rested on Israel’s reaction to the October 7^th massacre which led to the destruction in Gaza making large parts of the territory almost inhabitable.

(Evgenia Simanovich runs to the reinforced concrete shelter of her family’s home, moments after rocket sirens sounded in Ashkelon, Israel, on October 7. “In Ashkelon, residents have just seconds to seek shelter before a rocket launched from Gaza could strike,” photographer Tamir Kalifa told CNN. “Evgenia yelled for me to follow her, and I pressed my camera’s shutter as we sprinted to her home a few meters away.” )

I went to the Gaza Strip in the spring of 1984 when I had a Fulbright Fellowship at Hebrew University. It was a time of war after Israel invaded Lebanon to root out Palestinian terrorists who were making life miserable for Israelis living near their northern border. When I visited Gaza I witnessed many of the living conditions that made refugee camps that were run down and squalid. At the same time, I was amazed at the beauty of the Mediterranean coast that bordered the Palestinian enclave. As a Ph. D in history who focused and published on Arab Israeli relations I am keenly aware of the positions of both sides, Arab and Jew when it came to the riots of the 1930s, the Holocaust, and events surrounding the 1948 War that led to the bifurcation of the region between differing viewpoints. I have always held the belief that peace between the two sides was almost impossible based on ideology, the emotional attachment to the land by all parties, the leadership in the region, and the role of major powers.

Palestinians walk past the rubble of buildings destroyed during the Israeli offensive in Rafah

(Palestinians walk past the rubble of buildings destroyed during the Israeli offensive, amid a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip).

With my mindset I was fortunate to come across Peter Beinart’s latest work; BEING JEWISH AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF GAZA where the author lays out the issues for people who have undying loyalty to the Israeli state, born of the Holocaust, seeing it always morally and ethically correct because of the neighborhood in which it resides, and those who find that the Netanyahu government, dominated by right wing nationalists had gone too far in trying to completely destroy Hamas. No one can defend the abhorrent behavior of Hamas, but at what point do we draw the line when contemplating the destruction of an entire society through collective punishment.

It seems that every Jewish person has had the conversation with friends, relatives, and acquaintances over whether as Jews we can still support a government that engages in war crimes. I realize “war crimes” is a difficult term to apply, but I must ask how else can you describe the discriminatory bombing and food deprivation of civilians who are being held hostage by Hamas that has led to the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. It is difficult to hold these discussions with people who firmly believe that Jewish goodness and integrity translates into Israeli virtue and exempts the Netanyahu government from the normal laws of humanity. As Beinart writes, “we are not hard wired to forever endure evil but never commit it. That false innocence, which pervades contemporary Jewish life, camouflages domination as self-defense,” which is at the core of the debate.

Over the years the author has been a stalwart supporter of Palestinian rights, even as he attends shul arguing that Jews are fallible human beings. His goal as Benjamin Moser writes in the May 4, 2025, New York Times is “to wrestle with the knottiness and ambiguity in our sacred texts and correct for the omissions in the mythology of purity that so many of us were taught as children and that many continue to subscribe to as adults.”

(Palestinians walk past the rubble of houses and buildings destroyed during the war, following a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip, January 20, 2024).

Beinart relies on Jewish texts and draws lessons from South Africa, where his family is from, to confront Zionism and what he sees as complicity from the American Jewish establishment in Palestinian oppression. He argues for a Jewish tradition that has no use for Jewish supremacy and treats human equality as a core value. In his book, he appeals to his fellow Jews to grapple with the morality of their defense of Israel. Beinart has a history of changing his opinions be it his support for the Iraq War or tolerating workplace sexual harassment. Beinart’s plea is for the Jewish community to reexamine their views that would require a painful about face concerning views they have held for most of their lives.

Beinart called on American Jews “to defend the dream of a democratic Jewish state before it is too late,” especially in light of the policies perpetrated by a government whose leader is under indictment who clings to power by accommodating the right wing minority in his cabinet. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seems to prosecute the war on Gaza as a vehicle to remain in power which would avoid a trial and his possible imprisonment. Whether you agree or disagree with the author he should be commended for his courage for standing up to what he believes is correct and accepting the consequences of the loss of friendships, anger from family members, and constant criticism and ostracization by his many critics.

One of Beinart’s major themes revolves around the argument that victimhood often feels like the natural state for Jews throughout history. But this mentality covers up the fact that Jews can be “Pharoah’s too.” This selective vision permeates Jewish life. Jews employ the bible to refute the claim that Israel is a settler-colonial state. Anything that contradicts this contemporary narrative is not accepted. Interestingly the author weaves the ideas of Vladimir Jabotinsky, an important historical figure for right wing Israelis into the narrative, i.e.; the ideology of virtuous colonization, which today has been replaced by virtuous victimhood to support his views.

(Palestinians wait to buy bread in Gaza City, February 3, 2024)

To Beinart’s credit he recounts the brutal Hamas attack of October 7 in detail. He delves into the impact on Israeli families and society and accurately concludes the entire country was a victim on that horrendous day of murder, rape, and kidnappings, not just those who experienced the immediate impact. He even points out how Israeli progressives and leftists in the United States and Europe, ones, political partners reacted with indifference to the attack and many justified Hamas’s actions. The message that was conveyed is that the killing of Jews was nothing new, it’s just the way it has always been.

Many Jews have compared October 7 to the Holocaust, but Beinart concludes there is a fundamental difference . “To preserve Israel’s innocence, it has transforms Palestinians from a subjugated people into the reincarnation of the monsters of the Jewish past, the latest manifestation of the eternal, pathological, genocidal hatred that to the Passover Haggadah, in every generation rises up to destroy us.”

A fighter from Izz al-Din al-Qassam stands in front of a...

(Hamas fighter outside the myriad of tunnels under Gaza)

Beinart tries to understand Hamas’s actions; in doing so he tries to explain the Palestinian mindset as they see themselves as victims of colonialism. They, like other victims in the past, have no army, so they do not follow the rules of warfare and commit barbaric acts characteristic of colonial revolt. However, countries like China and Russia have armies and they do not follow the rules of law in Ukraine, Georgia, Crimea, Chechnya, and in China’s case the victims are the Uyghur population and other mostly Muslim ethnic groups who can be considered genocide victims.

In trying to understand, it is clear “that violent dispossession and violent resistance are intertwined.” In the end Israeli oppression is not the only course of Palestinian violence. It is Palestinians, like all people who are responsible for their actions. However, Israeli oppression makes Palestinian violence more likely. It comes down to despair for the Palestinian people as it is clear there is no way the Netanyahu government will accept a two-state solution.

(Israeli soldiers carry the casket of reservist Elkana Yehuda Sfez, who was killed in combat in Gaza, during his funeral at the Mount Herzl military cemetery in Jerusalem, on Jan. 23, 2024).

In analyzing death figures put out by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and the Gaza Health Ministry it is clear that over 50,000 people have died and 20% are probably children. Beinart relies on many sources to verify these numbers, but Israeli leaders minimize the toll and shift blame onto Hamas arguing that Hamas uses human shields, seizes food and supplies targeted for Palestinian civilians, and murders any opposition. However, Beinart’s argument that Hamas’s actions are typical of other insurgent movements is no excuse and to absolve them of one iota of legitimacy is wrong and their actions are considerably heinous when compared to other insurgent movements. But Israel’s strategy to deliver as much destruction as possible in order to shock the Palestinians and get them to turn against Hamas has not been effective. Blaming the Palestinians for Hamas’s 2006 victory at the polls is not valid since the Palestinian people had little choice. Another Israeli argument that they must destroy Hamas to be safe, but it is an impossible task because the alternative Israel must offer, the ability to vote, a high degree of autonomy, and a future state will not be forthcoming so why should Palestinians opt for peace? They need a viable alternative for Hamas which is not forthcoming. In reality, as long as Israel tries to destroy each insurgent group, their actions foster the next generation of insurgents. As Palestinians believe they are not safe, they will do their best to make sure Israelis are not safe also.

In reading Beinart’s work I wondered if there is such a thing as “Jewish exceptionalism” that makes Israel unaccountable for the type of warfare they are waging. Historically I do not see it as other nations/groups have engaged in atrocities and war against civilians have been condemned with sanctions etc.

(Israeli protesters attempt to block the road as aid trucks cross into the Gaza Strip, as Israeli border police watch over them, at the Kerem Shalom border crossing, southern Israel, Jan. 29, 2024)

Another major issue that Beinart raises is that of the “new anti-Semitism.” Israel has equated any criticism of its actions as anti-Semitic as a vehicle of deflecting criticism of what they are doing in Gaza. In doing so they turn the conversation about the war into a conversation about the motives of people who oppose their actions. What is clear is that when Israel kills Palestinians, what is perceived to be anti-Semitism increases, but the Israeli government conflates anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism in order to depict Palestinians and their supporters as bigots, therefore turning a conversation about the oppression of Palestinians into a conversation about the oppression of Jews. In the end Judaism and Israel are separate and Jews, the world over should not be blamed for the actions of the Israeli government.

A great deal of Beinart’s discussion revolves around the actions of American Jews who support Israel’s policies. It seems as progressives in the United States turn against Israel they are forcing Jews to choose; defend exclusion in Israel or inclusion in the United States and some of America’s leading institutions are choosing the former.

(Israeli soldiers practice evacuating wounded people with a helicopter during a military drill in northern Israel, in preparation for a potential escalation in the conflict between Israel and the Hezbollah militant group in Lebanon, on Feb. 20, 2025)

Beinart offers a comparison of historical situations that are somewhat similar to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He delves into apartheid in South Africa and the fears of white Afrikaners; he discusses the hatred and fears that existed in Northern Ireland until a settlement was reached overcoming Protestant fears of the IRA; the Reconstruction period in the late 19^th century in the United States is explored as southern whites feared the newly freed black population and fueled by northern liberals. In these situations, the key to avoiding as much violence as possible was to give the aggrieved party the vote and a voice to express their concerns because inclusion yields greater, not total safety.

I do not believe that Beinart is naive enough to support the idea that if a settlement ever arrives between Israel and the Palestinians that peace will break out in the Middle East. In a region where Iran, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and numerous other terrorist groups abound violence will lessen, but the author’s emotional and heart felt appeal for reconciliation is really the only hope for the future no matter how impossible that appears today. I admire Beinart’s beliefs and the professional risks he has taken to engage the public in a proper debate – that should be allowed in a free society and the back and forth between those who disagree should be civil, not based on fear.

Doc's Books

A window into Doc Freiberger's library