Author: szfreiberger

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

szfreiberger Biography, Uncategorized, World War II Leave a comment
Winnie And Dwight

(Churchill and Eisenhower)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Sir Anthony Eden)

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

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

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

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

Image: Dwight D. Eisenhower and Winston Churchill, 1946

(Churchill and Eisenhower)

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

szfreiberger Uncategorized Leave a comment
Nazi German flag being raised over Acropolis, 1941.

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

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

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

Donovan, William J.

. (William J. Donovan).

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

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

This well-known photograph of Rodney Young at Gordion shows him in his excavation “uniform” of jodhpurs and high leather boots, 1953. UPM image #101533.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doundoulakis in 2012

(Helias Doundoulakis in 2012)

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

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

Greek soldiers descend a slope during the war with Italy

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

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

szfreiberger baseball Leave a comment
View of Comiskey Park, former home of the Chicago White Sox

(Comiskey Park, Chicago, IL)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lou Gehrig and Babe Ruth team up for final championship together.

(Lou Gehrig and Babe Ruth)

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

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

Connie Mack-John McGraw 1933 All-Star Game

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

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

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

(Connie Mack and John McGraw)

(Comiskey Park, Chicago, IL)

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

szfreiberger American Political History Leave a comment
Image: Supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump gather for a rally in Washington

(January 6th attack on the US Capitol)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A man in a suit with a downward gaze.

(Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche)

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

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

Image: Donald Trump

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

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

szfreiberger American Civil War Leave a comment

(Andersonville Prison, Ga.)

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

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

r prison on Belle Isle

Ruins of the Civil War prison on Belle Isle

(Belle Island Prison, Richmond, Va.)

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

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

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

(Elmira Prison, NY)

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

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

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

Captain Henry Wirz

Captain Henry Wirz, commander of Andersonville Prison)

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

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

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

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

A black and white drawing of Andersonville Prison

(Andersonville Prison, Ga.)

REVENGE OF ODESSA by Frederick Forsyth and Tony Kent

szfreiberger Espionage, Mystery/Thrillers Leave a comment
Title: Revenge of Odessa, Author: Frederick Forsyth

In 1972 English writer Frederick Forsyth published a novel, THE ODESSA FILE which encompassed the adventures of a young German reporter attempting to discover the location of a former SS concentration-camp commander, Austrian Nazi SS-Obersturmfuhrer and Commandant of the Riga Ghetto during 1943, Eduard Roschmann who earned the nickname the “Butcher of Riga.”  In the novel, the German freelance crime reporter, Peter Miller learns that Roschmann was responsible for the death of his father and had committed acts of immense cruelty, torture, and mass murder.  Forsyth’s novel, a blend of fact and historical fiction, follows Miller’s quest and learns that Roschmann is not alone. He is part of something more ominous: Odessa.

The name ODESSA is an acronym for the German phrase “Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen”, which translates as “Organisation of Former Members of the SS”. The novel depicts ODESSA as an international Nazi organization established shortly before the defeat of Nazi Germany for the purpose of protecting former members of the SS after the war.    What was most concerning for Miller was that the organization was about to give birth to a new Reich—beginning with a nightmarish plot to regain their former power and carry out Hitler’s “Final Solution.”

Fifty years later, Forsyth, the author of worldwide bestsellers; THE DOGS OF WAR, THE FIST OF GOD, THE AFGHAN, THE KILL LIST among his thirteen novels and his co-writer, Tony Kent, a renown English writer in his own right has revisited the secrets of Odessa in their novel REVENGE OF ODESSA.  Today we find Peter Miller is a retired journalist who is devoted to raising his grandson, Georg ever since his son and daughter-in-law died in a tragic car accident.  Georg is also an accomplished writer who is investigating a series of terrorist attacks in Germany now finds himself the target of assassins and up against individuals involved with a resurgent ODESSA.

(Bestselling thriller author Frederick Forsyth)

The novel begins with the death of Ohio Senator Jack Johnson and his intern Sophie Arnott in a house fire.  The authors soon turn their focus to a Stuttgart soccer stadium where a mass terrorist event takes place.  In the ensuing mayhem we are introduced to journalist and podcaster Georg Miller who was at the stadium and following his instincts goes to the hospital to report on casualties representing the Komet news magazine.  Georg fears that the right-wing shift by German politicians and newspapers will use an Islamic terror attack as a means of limiting the civil liberties of Germans and immigrants for their own political agenda.  The authors set the stage of a recurrent racism, anti-Islamism, and the rise of the Christian right represented by some of the soccer players who argue it is time to fight back.  Georg believed this was a recipe for mass unrest since the stadium shooting followed other attacks months before which was unleashing unbridled hatred.

While investigating the shooting at the hospital Georg came across an elderly man who was suffering from dementia who believed that Georg was his father, Horst Miller who had been with the Federal Police, later the Bundesnachrichfendienst (BDN), Germany’s foreign intelligence service.  Ackermann would inform Georg that he was responsible for his parent’s deaths and after conducting extensive research concluded that he was a policeman who moonlighted as an executioner for Odessa whose goal was to complete the work Hitler started.  In his investigation Georg interviewed Ackermann’s wife Elke who reaffirmed her husband’s actions and ties to Odessa.  Georg’s parents were killed when he was ten years old and raised by his elderly grandparents.

The authors are very cognizant of the contemporary shift politically worldwide and use these ideological movements to explain the resurgence of the Odessa, a more sophisticated and powerful rendition than its earlier historical phase.  For example, was Odessa ratcheting up the Islamic threat as a means of increasing German right-wing nationalism as the Nazis did with the Communist threat in 1934 culminating in the Reichstag Fire?

Tony Kent

(co-author, Tony Kent)

Georg’s grandfather, Peter, a well-known journalist in the 1960s and 70s who publicized the Odessa threat, was scared that his grandson’s investigation would make him a target.  Peter believed that the organization of ex-SS officers loyalists had never gone away and could not be killed.  When Ackermann and his wife are murdered because they disclosed the existence of Odessa, Georg is convinced he is their next target, as is his grandfather Peter.

The plot moves back and forth between Germany and the heart of Washington as the death of Senator Johnson and his replacement by Cole Grisham in the Senate and events in Germany are somehow linked.  The authors create an explosive tension that reflects the stakes that are now global.  The resurgence of Odessa as a ruthless force infiltrating politics and terror cells worldwide is chillingly plausible. At a time when far-right movements, disinformation and political polarization are only too real, this novel taps into many anxieties and fears. Revenge of Odessa challenges the accepted conclusion that the defeat of Nazi Germany was final, that justice was served, and the horrors ended forever. Instead, the novel chillingly suggests that the defeat was only temporary; ideologies may go underground, but their roots remain.

A parallel story line is developed which involves a plot to Replace President Robert John Bauer’s Vice President with Cole Grisham.  Both men are ideological soulmates creating a populist front but have the support of a fringe white supremacist movement in the United States.  Their cover is very Donald Trump like – suppposedly standing up for those who feel betrayed by traditional politicians with their own economic agenda.  The heart of the novel centers on the link between the two American politicians and Odessa.

The link is partially uncovered by the work of Vanessa Price, the only remaining staffer from deceased Senator Johnson remaining on Grisham’s staff.  Two others have already been purged by Katie Braid, Grisham’s Chief of Staff.  Vanessa soon learns that an American political action committee – America Tomorrow has been funded by a number of German corporate interests.  Further, Vanessa learns that Braid and two other members of Grisham’s staff were also staffers on America Tomorrow since 2018.  The key question was “what did a German fund have to gain from a White House administration dominated by Bauer and Grisham?

In this multi-layered historical thriller, the authors have created a number of questionable characters.  First and foremost is Ben Klein, a police friend of Georg’s father who once he was killed served as his protector.  Another is Scott Brogan, Georg’s god son and former British MI6 agent whose skills, though deplorable, uncover the depth of the Odessa resurgence.  We are also introduced to Leo Renner, who may have seen himself as the new Fuhrer or at the very least “a nationalist messiah,” as well as the Krantz brothers who formed the muscle for Odessa.  The authors effectively weave events in Stuttgart, Hamburg, and Washington alternating chapters until the various plot lines come together.

REVENGE OF ODESSA is a historical thriller that challenges the accepted conclusion that the defeat of Nazi Germany brought about the destruction of the Third Reich.   Instead, the novel chillingly suggests that the defeat was only temporary; ideologies may dissipate, but their ideological core remains.   Forsyth and Kent deliver a warning that evil does not always disappear.  It asks how many resolved conflicts remain dormant and how many defeated ideologies remain underground to reemerge later.  With that being said, the conclusion of the novel is predictable and though it lays the basis for a sequel it does not measure up to the original ODESSA FILE.

Revenge of Odessa

THE SURGEON by Tess Gerritsen

szfreiberger Crime Leave a comment

Recently my wife and I discovered the Rizzoli and Isles television series that was broadcast on TNT between 2010 and 2016.  We were immediately taken by the Boston detective series and have been binging it for the last few weeks.  We were impressed by the plots, the interaction between the characters, the acting, especially Angie Harmon and Sasha Alexander, and the use of science to determine outcomes.  After a little research we learned that the series was based on author Tess Gerritsen’s thirteen crime novels on which the program was based.  Immediately I purchased a copy of the first novel in the series, THE SURGEON, which had a different approach to some of the characters but was well worth reading.

The novel begins with the murder of two women.  First, Diana Sterling, who was employed at the Kendall and Lord Travel Agency in Boston, second, a year later Elena Ortiz who was employed at Celebration Florists, also in Boston.  When detectives arrived on the scene, they found Ortiz’s body immobilized by duct tape with incisions in the abdomen.  They immediately realized that the two cases were similar though they took place a year apart.

The detectives involved were Jane Rizzoli, who recently had transferred from Vice and Narcotics to the Homicide Division, and Thomas Moore, the senior detective in the group.  The personalities of the two form a key theme in the story.  Rizzoli came across as a prickly woman who was very protective about her “turf” after years of dealing with the misogyny of the Boston Police Department and had grown tired of men getting the credit for all her hard work.  Moore, on the other hand, was very tolerant and a warm individual who played by the rule book and had earned the nickname, “Sir Thomas Moore,” even Rizzoli admired him.

After Medical Examiner Ashford Tierney examined Ortiz’s body, he observed the preciseness of the cut wounds suggesting that the murderer was a medical professional. Tierney noticed that the uterus had been surgically removed which supported his thesis.

Similar to the television series Gerritsen’s novel creates a story line that immediately draws in the reader and what follows is a carefully constructed thriller centered around a series of murders focusing on Emergency Room Doctor, Catherine Cordell who had survived a similar attack while working in a Savannah, Georgia hospital two years earlier.  Cordell was able to escape her assailant, a medical colleague, Dr. Andrew Capra and in the end, she was able to reach for her gun and kill him.  Cordell would move to Boston to try and escape her demons.  A third victim would emerge who was coincidentally brought to Cordell’s ER which would set off her own PTSD.  She was an excellent general and vascular surgeon, but her private life was filled with memories and fears brought on by her attack two years earlier.

Rizzoli would make the connection between Cordell’s arrival in Boston and the series of murders.  This would create a series of dialogues that Gerritsen excels at between detectives.  One of which is Darren Crowe, a wise ass who demeaned women who Rizzoli could not tolerate; Moore who was willing to work with Rizzoli but made the mistake of becoming emotionally involved with Cordell; and Lt. Marquette who oversaw the investigation.

Gerritsen creates a number of characters that reflect the Boston Police Departments approach to the investigation. Dr. Lawrence Zucker, a criminal psychologist, provides insights into the criminal they are dealing with. Alex Polochelk, a forensic hypnotist who will work with Cordell as she tries to remember what happened to her two years earlier once detective realized that she was being stalked by someone similar to Andrew Capra, but he was dead,  This forms the crux of the investigation – was Cordell the murderer or the victim?  Gerritsen’s novel creates a superb plot – two killers, one dead and one alive, but what bonded them together?  Was it Dr. Cordell?

A major theme that the author develops centers around rape and how women react in the short term and cope in the long term.  They hide their feelings, particularly from men seeing themselves as “damaged goods,” blaming themselves for what has occurred.  It is left to female medical professionals to help these victims and Gerritsen effectively uses her dialogue to explore this issue.  A poignant example is Cordell’s conclusion that “a rapist never disappears from your life.  For as long as you live, your always their property.”

Gerritsen is a master at developing her characters, providing important background.  Rizzoli’s upbringing in a male dominated family with two brothers, one of which is a Marine and seen as the star of the family and a compliant mother.  She believes she received no recognition from her family, and this helps explain her inability to deal with certain male detectives.  Moore on the other hand had a wonderful twenty-year marriage when his wife died suddenly a few years earlier and he is still grieving, which explains in part how he treats Cordell.  In terms of character development, Gerritsen excels at uncovering the egos involved in the investigation and how everyone navigated their relationships with colleagues.  The Rizzoli-Moore connection is integral to the story and understanding how two people under immense pressure lean on each other, then are forced to face the reality of who they are.  Their tenuous association offers an important context to events that occur throughout the novel.

The core of the novel focuses on establishing a number of important links between a series of murders and trying to determine who is responsible. It is fascinating how the author weaves together her plot and the characters within.  None stand out as much as Rizzoli, who by the end of the novel learns a great deal about herself and her own insecurities as well as the perpetrator of these hideous crimes, who had a normal upbringing and appeared as ordinary as the next person.  Gerritsen has constructed a real page turner involving forensic science, detailed descriptions of anatomy, and imagination to maintain the reader’s interest throughout.

FEAR AND FURY: THE REAGAN EIGHTIES, THE BERNIE GOETZ SHOOTINGS, AND THE REBIRTH OF WHITE RAGE by Heather Ann Thompson

szfreiberger American cultural history, American Social History Leave a comment
March 5, 1981: Passengers on the New York subway, which was projecting a $369 million deficit that year. A brief story in The Times explained that a tax on oil companies passed by New York lawmakers was intended to narrow that deficit, but that a Federal appeals court effectively abolished the tax, “which had been counted on to produce more than $235 million a year, most of it earmarked for the cash-starved Metropolitan Transportation Authority.”

(1981 New York City Subway Car)

In 1968 I was eighteen years old and had been driving for a few months.  My mother asked me to take her to visit a friend and when we returned driving north on Ocean Parkway (Brooklyn, NY) in my father’s brand new Oldsmobile Cutlass a pink Grand Prix pulled next to us and ripped an American flag off the radio antenna which my father proudly displayed.  We drove about 50 miles per hour, and a hand reached out from the Grand Prix and tried to pull my mother’s arm through the passenger window which was open.  By this time, we were going 70 miles per hour, and I jerked the steering wheel into oncoming traffic to get away from our attackers.  Four black men in the car laughed their asses off and pulled away.  My immediate reaction was to chase after them, but my mother yelled not too as she wrote down their license plate.  We drove to the nearest police precinct and were told by a detective to forget the incident ever happened as the police could do nothing even if they caught the men, a judge would not pursue any charges.  I was incensed and drove to my girlfriend’s house and went into the courtyard of the school yard across the street and yelled epithets I am now ashamed of.  I relate this story as I read Pulitzer Prize and Bancroft Prize winning author Heather Ann Thompson’s latest book. FEAR AND FURY: THE REAGAN EIGHTIES, THE BERNIE GOETZ SHOOTINGS, AND THE REBIRTH OF WHITE RAGE as it raises the question of what is the proper response when you consider yourself in danger.

In today’s world where there are more guns than people, hidden carry laws, laws that seem to justify shooting someone for the slightest offense, and government agents shooting American citizens, it appears that shooting someone who compromises your safety is accepted by large elements of society.  We have witnessed a number of examples over the years when people have shot others and got away with it.  For example, the 2012 case of Trayvon Martin.   George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain in Florida, shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, an unarmed Black teenager.  Zimmerman claimed self-defense and was initially not arrested by local police.  After significant national outcry, he was arrested and tried for second-degree murder.  He was ultimately acquitted by a jury in 2013, a verdict that brought intense scrutiny to Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law.  Another example occurred in 2004 when Rodney Cox was shot and killed  bya Florida homeowner  later identified as a FEMA worker, who entered his FEMA trailer after a hurricane. The homeowner fired a warning shot and then shot the man after being placed in a “bear hug”. Prosecutors decided the homeowner was acting in self-defense, and he was not prosecuted. This case was a catalyst for the passage of Florida’s first “Stand Your Ground” law in 2005, which provides immunity from prosecution if an individual reasonably believes the use of force is necessary.  Recently, we had the 2023 shooting of  Ralph Yarl as Andrew Lester, an 84-year-old white homeowner in Kansas City, shot Yarl, a16-year-old black teenager in the head and then a second time after Yarl mistakenly knocked on his door to pick up his brothers. Lester was initially released without charges, sparking public protests. He was later charged with two counts of first-degree assault and armed criminal action, but the initial lack of charges was widely criticized by organizations like the “Equal Justice Initiative.”  Perhaps the most famous example is the 1984 shooting involving Bernard Goetz, a white man in New York City who shot four young Black men on a subway after they approached him and one asked for five dollars. Goetz argued he feared for his safety. He was later acquitted of the most serious charges, including attempted murder, though he was convicted of unlawful weapons possession. The case became a national flashpoint for discussions about race, crime, and self-defense.  I could list many more incidents, and it remains an issue today.

A 1987 photograph shows Bernie Goetz, a white man in a windbreaker wearing wire-framed glasses. He is standing in a hallway holding a manila folder, with three other men nearby.

(Bernie Goetz on the second day of his 1987 trial, at which he was charged with attempted murder in the shooting of four Black teenagers)

For Thompson, the Goetz case is emblematic of the white rage that was simmering in America for decades as media mogul Rupert Murdoch exacerbated the fear and anger of Americans as his newspaper the New York Post reported on the personalities involved as overnight Goetz’s young victims would be characterized as villains, the trial which eventually took place, and Goetz’s acquittal.  The book follows the reverberations of the subway shooting and their decades long impact on American society while skillfully recovering the lives of the real victims who many decided that their lives really did not matter.

One of the monograph’s many strengths is the background information that Thompson provides.  The author meticulously explains her views based on superb research that includes interviews with many of the participants.  She immediately sets the stage for the events that took place on December 22, 1984, by visiting the plight of New York during the 1970s and early 80s.  By 1980, Ronald Reagan campaigning for the presidency visited the south Bronx stating, “he hadn’t seen anything like this since London after the blitz.”  Since the late 1970s New York had sunk to new lows as newspaper headlines blared that “President Ford Tells New York to Drop Dead” as Washington refused to offer assistance for its budget and debt crisis.  Thompson points out that weakening of the American economy throughout the seventies led to less federal funding resulting in services being cut, free college tuition withdrawn, city employees across the bureaucracy fired, and an increase in landlords engaging in arson to collect insurance money for their buildings which they refused to maintain.

Once Ronald Reagan assumed the presidency he set out to undo as many New Deal socio-economic policies as possible.  The Berhard Goetz saga must be seen in the context of the time period in which it took place.  By the early 1980s Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, the Civil Rights Movement, and the liberal-progressive legislation of the 1960s was beginning to stoke the anger of working class whites in America.  This anger would push many whites to leave the Democratic Party and turn their support to Ronald Reagan whose genius was his ability “to appeal to white self-interest and to exploit racial rage to greater success, convincing some of the most diehard Democratic Party voters that this was in their best interest also.”  The result was the “trickle-down theory” of economics resulting in devastating consequences for minorities living in the south Bronx and other poverty stricken areas of the city.  This approach to the federal budget – cutting social spending programs disproportionally hit poor urban families of which the four boys that Goetz targeted were members.  The spending cuts fueled Reagan’s tax policies allowing the rate for the wealthy at certain levels +to decline from 70% to 28%.

A photograph of Goetz on the way to his trial, wearing a pink button down shirt and glasses.

(Bernhard Goetz)

Thompson continues her excellent analysis by explaining that the lack of jobs, declining educational opportunities, and fewer public places to experience enrichment led to underprivileged teenagers hanging out on street corners, gaining easy money from selling drugs to the point that the south Bronx became known as “crack town.”  Further exacerbating the situation was the HIV epidemic which was partly fostered by drug addicts exchanging infected needles.  This was occurring at a time when health care resources were increasingly unavailable.  Soon gang violence would result as the Reagan administration refused to confront the growing AIDS crisis.

Interestingly the 1980s became the center of what Michael Douglas stated in the film “Wall Street,” “that greed was good” enhancing the reputation and lifestyle of white New Yorkers like Donald Trump and his father.  The watershed moment for New York also revolved around Rupert Murdoch’s 1976 purchase of the liberal New York Post and turning it into a tabloid that pandered to a disgruntled white audience employing the sensationalist tactics that were successful in Australia and England.  With right wing columnists like Patrick Buchanan arguing that the election of Ronald Reagan was a necessity for white voters who feared the rising black crime rate, and that unlawful behavior was endemic to certain neighborhoods.

With this background Thompson creates the ingredients that led to Goetz’s behavior.  The author explains the family backgrounds of Goetz and his victims, their belief systems, and the impact of society.  For the four boys who were shot, the life and lack of opportunity led them on the path they chose as did Goetz’s anger at what he perceived to be the cause of crime, disease, street beggars, drug dealers, rotting garbage on the streets, and homelessness.  After being a mugging victim on January 26, 1981, on Canal Street in lower Manhattan, Goetz decided to travel to Florida to purchase guns, since he could not obtain a license in New York.  The more Goetz witnessed his Greenwich Village neighborhood declining his anger was compounded.

Darrell Cabey leaving Bronx County Courthouse with attorneys

(Darrell Cabey with his lawyers William Kuntsler and Ron Kuby)

Once Thompson provides the reader with the socio-economic climate Goetz resents, she carefully takes the reader through the events on the New York City subway system of December 22, 1984.  After providing the details of the shootings she emphatically states that Goetz had no right to shoot Darrell Cabey, James Ramsuel, Barry Allan, and Troy Canty as many of the witnesses in the subway car attested to.

Thompson excels at describing the legal strategies employed by the prosecution and Goetz’s defense as well as the actual trial.  As he approached his day in court Goetz came to believe that he represented something very important and that the “public wasn’t going to take it anymore.”  He hired Barry Slotnick as his lead attorney, and it would turn out to be an excellent choice.  Slotkin had defended well known clients like Meir Kahane, John Gotti, and Manuel Noriega and his brash, uncompromising, and at times nasty approach to defending his clients were part of the reason for his success.  As was evident in his defense of Goetz he would think outside of the box and badger witnesses and the judge until he was satisfied with how the case proceeded.  The prosecution was led by Greg Waples, an excellent litigator, but more conventional than the opposition.

After a series of legal machinations and dubious claims by lawyers the trial would begin on December 12, 1986.  Thompson presents the give and take between witnesses, lawyers, and prosecutors allowing the reader to witness a pseudo boxing match with verbal punches and counter-punches thrown on a daily basis.  The author provides many insights pointing out how effective or ineffective the prosecutor and defense carried on.  Slotkin in particular was very efficient in confronting one of the victims, James Ramseur, as he took him apart with a series of pointed questions, overwhelming him on a personal level, badgering him in such a manner that he became so angry he refused to cooperate with the court proceedings.  Slotnick’s strategy of bullying witnesses was a gamble which in the end paid off.  Perhaps Slotnick’s most brilliant move was to get the judge to allow a recreation of the crime scene in court with “large” black Guardian Angels to replicate the four victims, and gaining permission to bring the jury to a subway car at the site of the shootings which would become the key to the final outcome of the trial.

Daily News front page January 1, 1985 , Headline: 'DEATH W

Thompson does a marvelous job dissecting the nuances of the prosecution and defense and correctly concludes that the jurors fundamentally related more to Goetz than they did to the four young men who were shot based on juror statements after the trial.  Thompson’s use of juror statements explaining why they acquitted Goetz on the most serious charges is insightful.  For the jury at times, it was difficult to ascertain who was on trial for Goetz or his shooting victims.  The key to the views of a number of juror’s opinions was Slotnick’s ability to convince them that Darrell Cabey was not shot while seated, but standing in front of Goetz.  A number of jurors believed that Goetz’s 1981 mugging was directly impactful as to how he acted on the day of the subway encounter and saw him as a “frightened man.”  As to his admission of guilt to the Concord, NH police detectives they rationalized that Goetz was on the run for nine days and was “exhausted and distraught” so his statement could not be accepted as totally rational.  Judge Crane’s instructions played a major role in the fact that the jury had to decide if Goetz saw himself as being in mortal danger and whether it was reasonable for him to believe he was. In addition, Slotnick did a better job than Waples.  Lastly, Thompson correctly concludes that “in the 1980s climate in New York a gun-wielding loner like Goetz was more sympathetic to these jurors….than four unemployed Black teenage dropouts trying to survive and somehow thrive in the same city and country.”

The author follows up her effective coverage of the trial and appeals applying the same judicious process in presenting the civil litigation period that followed over the succeeding ten years as the Cabey family tried to gain restitution for what happened to Darrell, and Goetz’s strategy to defend himself.  It is clear that the period highlighted the emergence of a new era of racialized rage and the role the Goetz trial played in its enhancement.  The rape of a white woman in Central Park by five black teenagers would bring about their conviction (which was overturned years later) and labeled them as the Central Park Five, as well as the murder of Yusef Hawkins by a white mob in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn are all emblematic of the period.  New York City would turn to Rudy Guliani as mayor in 1993 and along with federal legislation implemented by Bill Clinton, New York cracked down on petty crimes, expanded prison sentences, implemented harsher sentencing all of which can be related to the Goetz trial.

Attorney Barry Slotnick defends Bernhard Bernie Goetz.

(Goetz’s defense attorney Barry Slotnick)

Thompson’s new historical study offers portraits of many characters from the period including Goetz and his victims, Barry Slotnick, William Kuntsler, Rudy Guliani, Curtis Sliwa, Rupert Murdoch, Donald Trump, and a host of others.  She explores how the Reagan Revolution overturned New Deal and Great Society legislation leading to the “greed is good” motto of the 1980s, the conservative approach to crime of the 1990s, and the significant impact of Murdoch’s purchase of the New York Post in addition to the creation of the Fox New Network that today still reinforces the racial and economic views of a significant portion of white America and of course the Trump administration.   If there is one aspect of Thompson’s presentation that is not quite supported by the past is that white rage was not endemic to the period of the Goetz trial. It  exacerbated a condition that has always existed in American history whether the Reconstruction period after the Civil War, the racial movements dealing with immigration after W.W.I, the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s and the violence it produced, to an administration that panders to white racial rage as witnessed by its “anti-brown and black” immigration and overall economic policies.  Overall, Thompson’s meticulous work should be commended as she presents a painful historical theme that she dramatically demonstrates.  A theme we are living through today as the news reports on racial crimes and economic inequality each and every day.

(1980s New York City Subway Car)

THE DIRECTOR by Daniel Kehlmann

szfreiberger Historical Fiction Leave a comment

  • The Director: A Novel

The Weimar Republic and the rise of Nazi Germany have been mentioned a great deal in American political circles of late because of the supposed similarities of repression and violence in late 1920s and throughout the 30s in Germany compared to what has been occurring in the United States recently.  On a cultural level political figures in both time periods have tried to impact society whether it is on film, changing perceptions about history, literature, religion, immigration, and ethnic-racial relationships.  These time periods lend themselves as wonderful opportunities to create historical fiction.  Today’s obsession with autocracy and the loss of democracy are subjects which in the future will soon lead to many novels, but the Weimar and Nazi periods have already been mined deeply.  A recent example is German author, Daniel Kehlmann’s latest work, THE DIRECTOR which follows other reconceived historical novels like, MEASURING THE WORLD and TYLL in which the writer bases important scenes on real life.

In his latest Kehlmann focuses the famous Austrian filmmaker, G.W. Pabst, who along with Fritz Lang and F.W. Murnau were the major filmmakers of the Weimar era.  Pabst began his career as an actor and theater director, before becoming one of the most influential German-language filmmakers in Europe in the 1930s.  With the arrival of sound movies, he made a trilogy of films that secured his reputation: “Westfront 1918 (1930), “The Three Penny Opera (1931), and “Kameradschaft  (1931).  Pabst was planning to develop his career in Hollywood which did not work out so he left for France  when war was declared in 1939.  Finding himself trapped he was forced to return to Nazi Germany.  Under the auspices of propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbles Pabst made apolitical  films for the Nazis, forever complicating his reputation.

In Kehlmann’s novel, Pabst receives word that his mother is ailing, and he travels to Austria to visit her along with his wife and son who now witness the brutal cruelty of the Nazi regime whose Minister of Propaganda wants to enlist him to make pro-government films.  Pabst believes that he has free will and will not have to succumb to Goebbels’ persuasion, but that is a naïve belief.  The novel explores the complicated relationships and differences between “art and power, beauty and barbarism, cog and conspirator.”  Further, THE DIRECTOR is a parable about moral compromise and the seductions of art – and asks the question how far a person would go working with an evil taskmaster.

Austrian film director G.W. Pabst wearing a sweater vest and tie and holding a movie camera

(Director G.W. Pabst, who briefly worked in Hollywood before returning to Austria and working with the Third Reich, inspired Daniel Kehlmann’s engrossing historical fiction)

The reader is indirectly introduced to Pabst as Kehlmann opens the novel with Franz Welzek and a friend who resided at the Abendruh Sanitorium traveling to Vienna for an interview with Hans Conrad on his “What’s New On Sunday” television program.  Since Welzek had been Pabst’s assistant director at the outset of his career it was expected that his former mentor would be a topic of conversation, but it did not go well. 

Soon Kehlmann leads us to a 1933 scene where Pabst is lounging poolside in Hollywood at a friend’s house ruminating about his idea for a film – “War Has Been Declared.”  A pair of self-assured American studio executives arrive and try to convince Pabst to direct one of their films, but he refuses stating the script is weak.  Instead, Pabst tries to persuade them to make his film, “War Has Been Declared.”  The two ignore Pabst’s request and refuse to take no for an answer, but Pabst holds to his principles and begins to realize that he does fit into Hollywood’s artistical demands.

Fast forward once again and we find Pabst trying to convince Greta Garbo, (who owes the start of her career to Pabst) to star in his new film, but she has doubts and expresses her distaste for certain male actors.  Garbo’s commentary are among the many keen observations that Kehlmann makes throughout the novel about human behavior and how unstable it is.

Pabst feelings about Hollywood are reinforced at a gathering of film directors and producers at Fred Zinneman, the producer’s house as the usual chit chat was ongoing.  Two things emerge.  First, Pabst is convinced he must leave Hollywood and return home.  Second, a guest at the party, Kuno Kramer, a Nazi supporter tries to dissuade Pabst from returning to Vienna and settle in Germany where he would have the freedom to make the films he wants.  A constant undercurrent in the novel is the treatment of Jews in Vienna as guests discuss their plight, and Pabst fears that the Nazis who will achieve Anschluss with Austria shortly will force him to make films for the government whether in Austria or Germany.

With this backdrop the author develops Pabst’s journey to agree to make films for the Nazi regime.  After arriving in Vienna, then part of the Ostmark (Eastern March) as it was referred to after the Nazis seized Austria through the Anschluss of March 1938 Pabst and his family face a conundrum as they arrive at their Dreiturn Castle in the town of Tillmitsch to visit his mother Erika who seems to be suffering from dementia.  Kehlmann introduces many unusual characters, the first of which is Karl Jenzabek and his wife Liesl and their two daughters who are the caretakers of the property.  They are a  strange family who carry on in a mysterious and abusive manner toward Erika and her family.  Pabst decides they must leave especially after enduring a supposed accident on a ladder where he is injured.  In the background Nazism permeates as Karl sees himself as an important local Nazi leader and the anti-Semitic overtones are clear as is his racist hatred of Jews (Pabst is considered half-Jewish).  Pabst’s plan had been to visit his mother, get her settled and move on to Marseilles and travel by ship to New York to renew his film career in the United States.  Hitler’s invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, closes the Austrian border leaving the Pabst family trapped and under Nazi suzerainty.

Author Daniel Kehlmann.

(Author Daniel Kehlmann)

Kehlmann’s scene construction and dialogue are curious .  When Pabst is on a ladder in his library and Jenzabek slowly moves it in a manner that creates fear resulting in the director losing his balance falling to the floor is puzzling.  When Gertrude, his wife demands that they call the police he refuses as he realizes there are no police for people like them in the Ostmark.  Other examples include Pabst’s interactions with Leni Riefenstahl who he helped begin her career in film and later would be his co-director, which she greatly resented.  Kehlmann’s portrayal of the creator of the Nazi documentary “Triumph of the Will” and Hitler favorite is incisive and reflects her true nature – a woman who did not feel the need for a co-director and things got rather testy when they worked together, to the point she even threatened him with a concentration camp visit.  Other examples reflect on the vapid nature of Nazi society as wives of government officials meet in a book group focusing on the mediocre novelist, Alfred Karrasch, which Pabst’s wife Gertrude attends and tries to gain cultural acceptance.  Lastly, there are many scenes that reflect the technical nature of making films and the role of the actors.  Interestingly, Pabst concludes that directors can be superfluous as the actors and technicians can carry on without them.

Kehlmann integrates incidents that highlight the cruelty of the Nazi regime.  A case in point is Pabst’s son, Jakob’s encounter with friends, one of which is a bully.  All are farm boys and avid Nazi believers, but Jakob comes to the realization that if you can defeat the bully, even by cheating you would be seen as a winner, and this would gain respect.  Once the incident takes place and Jakob is able to beat up his counterpart the lesson is learned.  You must always be seen as a winner, not worrying about how you won, but creating a positive perception by others no matter how you accomplish it.  This is right out of the “autocrat’s playbook” –  sounds familiar.

Triumph Des Willens - 1934

(Leni Riefenstahl and Adolf Hitler)

From this point on Kehlmann delves into the dilemma of collaboration with a murderous government that is on the verge of genocide.  Pabst is asked to visit the Ministry of Propaganda in Berlin when he meets Joseph Goebbles who creates a moral dilemma, either making films for the government or perhaps he will be taken elsewhere.  The dialogue is fascinating as Goebbels, who is never named by the author, first wants Pabst to admit the errors of his ways and do penance for making communist propaganda and being an enemy of the German people, but he doesn’t know how because he does not believe this characterization of himself.  In their innocuous conversation Pabst finally rationalizes his decision to cooperate with Goebbels forceful requests. One of  Pabst’s film colleagues puts it as best as he can rationalizing that “once you get used to it and know the rules, you almost feel free.”  Pabst wonders if he is losing his mind and hopes to delay making a film until the war is over.  Pabst rationalizes that “maybe it’s not so important what one wants.  The important thing is to make art under the circumstances one finds oneself in.”  He believes in Germany he will have good scripts and high budgets and the best actors, something that did not always occur in the United States and elsewhere. 

In reality he had more creative freedom in the Third Reich than under the Hollywood studio system, but it came at a steep price casting concentration camp victims as extras in a pivotal scene.  He also collaborated with Riefenstahl on her film “Lowlands,” which used prisoners from Maxglan in Salzburg, Austria where more than 230 Sinti and Roma were kept in prison as forced laborers. In Spring 1943, they were deported to an extermination camp.  Wilzek justifies the film telling Pabst that “there’s nothing we can do; we didn’t make it happen.  We can’t keep it from happening.  It has nothing to do with us.” 

Kehlmann’s recasting Pabst’s life through historical fiction is a Faustian tale that explores how far an artist will compromise with the devil to continue to make his art.  In Pabst’s case we must wonder about his rationalizations as he is no better than Riefenstahl as he uses extras from a camp near Prague (probably Theresienstadt) in the last of the three films he made for the Nazis, “The Molander Case.”  Pabst is desperate to complete the film before the Red Army arrives.  He needs 750 extras taken from the camp to play as the audience in a concert hall.  Pabst will murmur to himself that “not a single person.  Will be harmed because of us.  No one has been…the film must be finished.”  For Pabst once again rationalizes that “his art will endure beyond any regime,”  but isn’t this a final descent into complicity?

Kehlmann states “that art might warrant moral compromises, but how far do you go?”  For the author he does not know what he might have done.  In an intellectual exercise you hope you will do the correct thing.

Triumph Des Willens - 1934

(Nuremberg Party Rally, 1935)

CROATIA UNDER ANTE PAVELIC: AMERICA, THE USTASE AND CROATIAN GENOCIDE IN WORLD WAR II by Robert McCormick

szfreiberger American Diplomatic History, Croatian history, World War II Leave a comment
File:Western Balkans 1942.2008.png

(The Balkans during World War II)

The conclusion of the Second World War brought about a rearrangement of wartime allies as the Cold War commenced.  In addition, to this realignment there were a number of decisions made by America and its allies after the war to pursue certain war criminals including Nazi intelligence assets and scientists.  This would lead to welcoming Wernher von Braun and 116 German scientists into the United States to continue work on V2 rockets and other projects culminating in July 1970s landing on the moon.  Other questionable characters were allowed to escape to South America despite the efforts of “Nazi hunters” like Simon Wiesenthal and operatives of Israeli intelligence.  The American role in this process has been scrutinized by many historians who have produced many critical monographs exploring the actions of the Truman administration.  One glaring example is the treatment and attitude toward Croatia’s fascist leader Ante Palevic after the war, who along with other members of his Ustase party was responsible for the deaths of over 350,000 Serbs, Jews, and Roma. 

A few months ago, my wife and I toured Croatia and Bosnia led by our Croatian friend and guide, Davor Miskic who exposed us to Croatia’s long and tortured history and arranged visits to many historical sites having to do with the Second World War and what Croatians call the War for the Homeland in the 1990s.  One that stood out was our visit to  the Jasenovac concentration camp which was situated near the village of Jasenovac in occupied Yugoslavia and operated by the Ustaše Supervisory Service.  The camp was known for the mass murder of Serbs, Romani people, Jews, and political opponents, including Croat and Bosnian Muslim dissidents.  It was notorious for its extreme brutality, often exceeding that of some Nazi-run camps, and was one of the ten largest in Europe.  The camp was largely destroyed by the Ustaše in April 1945 to hide evidence of their crimes. 

 Ante Pavelic was a Croatian nationalist who believed that the Serbian people were an inferior race and at the end of the war was never made to answer for his crimes and was able to escape to exile in South America partly due to the role of the United States who had their own Cold War priorities.  This era of Croatian history is very controversial and today has still not been resolved, and during moral and ethical discussions or whenever war politics emerges heated arguments can take place.   After our visit to Croatia, I became very interested in the role of Pavelic and that of the United States after the war.  There are few worthy historical monographs in English on the topic, but Robert B. McCormick’s CROATIA UNDER ANTE PAVELIC: AMERICA, THE USTASE AND CROATIAN GENOCIDE IN WORLD WAR II despite some flaws, is one of the most useful in English.

(Adolf Hitler greets Ante Pavelic on June 6, 1941)

McCormick’s monograph is broken into four sections.  First, he provides a concise and useful background describing Yugoslav politics before World War I and the diverse factions leading up to the creation of Yugoslavia after the war I including Croatia’s role in the new country.  He goes on to review the problems this structure created particularly with Croatian nationalists who wanted their independence.  Secondly, McCormick examines the 1930s and the rise of Pavelic as a leader of the Croatian nationalist movement and the rise of the Ustase.  Thirdly, he considers Pavelic and the Ustase actions during World War II, and lastly, how Pavelic and other Ustase figures escaped prosecution in Europe for their crimes and fled to South America.  Throughout the author integrates the role of Washington as the narrative evolves focusing on the role of domestic politics in the United States and its impact on Croatia and Yugoslavia.  He focuses on the State Department and the intelligence community in his analysis of how Pavelic reached power, committed atrocities, and finally escaped and reached a number of conclusions, however few are new.

McCormick’s analysis into Pavelic’s belief system is important as it provides the basis for his actions throughout the 1920s, 30s, and 40s.  He would create the Ustase as a revolutionary and terroristic organization employing extreme violence in the pursuit of his agenda of Croatian independence.  His ideology was proto-fascist, but he also held a deep belief in Catholicism – a mystical belief in the holiness and sanctity of the Croatian state.  To achieve his goals Serbian and foreign influence within Croatia had to be destroyed as well as the Yugoslav state.  For Pavelic Croatians were of pure peasant stock with a separate nationality from other Balkan people.  Individual rights were secondary to the maintenance and establishment of Croatia.  Peasants were placed on a pedestal – the solid, pure, incorruptible peasant was portrayed similarly to the way the Nazis portrayed the Aryan race.  Finally, he believed that the Croatian people were chosen by God to protect and defend Catholicism against Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Communism.  McCormick’s description of Pavelic’s belief system makes it easy for the reader to understand the extreme actions he was responsible for.

The importance of Washington’s role is stressed throughout.  The role of Croats and Serbs in American politics is overly stressed in creating funding for the Ustase’s violent behavior in Croatia.  McCormick repeatedly argues whenever he talks about the impact of Croats and Serbs in American politics that the Department of State and FDR’s advisors did not want to anger either community because most who had immigrated to the US had settled in midwestern industrial cities like Youngstown, Chicago, Cleveland, Akron, and Pittsburgh which contained factories that were a necessity to the American war effort.  I am not saying his analysis is incorrect+, but he repeatedly makes the same argument blaming the State Department for its lack of interest in events in Croatia and the fundraising in the Croatian community, which does not make for easy reading.

.
Ante Pavelic

(Ante Pavelic)

McCormick concludes throughout the book that most Croatians were working class people and had little money to donate to the Croatian national movement overseen by Pavelic supporters like Ante Dosen, Frank Budek, Reverend Ivan Stipanovic, and Dr. Branimir Jelic. McCormick spends a great deal of time discussing the movement to enlist American Croats in the Pavelic and the Ustase cause, but overall, there were few Croatian-Americans who became Pavelic supporters during World War II.    This is the most detailed aspect of the book and in the end it does not deserve the coverage the author provides, though his coverage of Franciscans and their support for Pavelic is interesting and goes along with the Pope’s refusal to condemn Ustase policies during the war.

An area of strength for McCormick is the chapter entitled “Carnage” where he lays out the course of World War II and its impact on non-Christian Croatian people.  He provides a detailed description of Ustase concentration camps, particularly Jasenovac, one of twenty-two camps controlled by the wartime Croatian government which was a puppet state of Nazi Germany.  The government was referred to as  the Independent State of Croatia (NDH in Croatian) and was a one party dictatorship under the exigencies of the fascist Ustase organization under Ante Pavelic.  The regime target Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies as part of its large scale campaign of genocide, in addition to anti-fascist or dissident Croatians and Bosnian Muslims.  McCormick’s observation that the crimes committed by the NDH proportionally surpassed  only by Nazi Germany is bone chilling.

Washington became aware of the Ustatse genocide in May 1941 but as was the case with the Holocaust did little.  The State Department under Cordell Hull never paid much attention to the Balkans believing it was in the British sphere of influence, and any offers of American aid were almost perfunctory as by the time lend-lease, which was offered by FDR would reach Yugoslavia it would be too late.  McCormick is correct that in large part that the problem in the State Department resides under the umbrella of Breckenridge Long, who had been US Ambassador to Italy in the 1930s where he was well-versed in Croat-Serb hatred, and was Assistant Secretary of State in charge of immigration during World War II.   Long’s approach to the massacre of Serbs was similar to his approach in blocking Jewish immigration during the Holocaust.  Long was an extreme nativist who deserves greater discussion than McCormick offers.  The author should have developed Long’s racist and bigoted approach toward immigration further as he was against anyone from the Balkans or Eastern Europe from immigrating to the United States.

Ante Pavelic, head of Croatian delegation, Rome

(Ante Pavelic and Benito Mussolini May 22, 1941)

As Pavelic’s atrocities became known even Hitler wanted him to tone it down as it was driving Serbs and some Croats to join Josip Broz Tito’s partisans who were fighting the Nazis throughout Yugoslavia.  Further  it created difficulties for the Nazis to gain control of Croatian natural resources – food and bauxite.  In the end Hitler will allow him to continue the killing as it conformed to his racial views.  As he grew increasingly unpopular Pavelic would blame the Communists.  His unpopularity apart from his genocide were the death of thousands of Croatians who died at Stalingrad fighting with the Nazis.  When Italy surrendered to the allies, the Nazis seized Dalmatia which provided even further evidence that Pavelic was Hitler’s puppet.  One would think that despite the Office of Strategic Services under William Donavan’s optimism to take advantage of Pavelic’s unpopularity the US would have altered its policies, but as per usual the State Department blocked any opportunity to do so.

McCormick’s analysis of the war’s conclusion and Pavelic’s ability to escape arrest and prosecution lacks any new information.  One of the issues that stands out is the author’s lack of interest in the Bleiberg Massacre at the end of the war where thousands tried to reach the Austrian border as the war concluded.  They were not allowed entrance and were pushed back into Yugoslavia resulting in the death of between 30-100,000 people murdered by Tito’s partisans.  McCormick covers the massacre in one short paragraph.  Further, the author’s explanation of how Pavelic escaped justice is the standard argument that the former Ustase murderer benefited from the difficulties inherent in the United States-Yugoslav relationship as Washington saw Tito as conforming to the Soviet line refusing to deal with the extradition of war criminals that Belgrade was interested in.  What is clear is that Stalin and Tito did not get along as Yugoslavia was not liberated from the Nazis by the Red Army, but more so by the actions of Tito’s partisan forces.  Stalin could not accept Tito’s approach to creating a monolithic voice within the communist bloc which is obvious from their communications.  The United States lost an opportunity with Yugoslavia as it saw a cohesive Communist world opposing them.

Serbs interned in the Jasenovac camp

Serbs interned in the Jasenovac concentration camp in Croatia. [LCID: 85815]

(Serbs interned in the Jasenovac concentration camp in Croatia. Jasenovac, Yugoslavia, 1941–45)

The author’s treatment of Yugoslav government attempts to extradite Pavelic is very useful,blaming  British and American opposition to the Cold War climate that existed after the war.  He lays out the role of elements within the Catholic church in hiding, financing, and facilitating travel for Pavelic and other Ustase escapees.  Italy and the Vatican play a major role in this scenario as Washington feared a communist electoral victory in Italy and did not want to anger Catholic voters.  According to McCormick there is evidence to suggest that Pavelic met with high Vatican officials including Monsignor Montini, Secretary of State for the Holy See, the future Pope Paul VI. 

View of the Jasenovac camp

View of the Jasenovac concentration camp in Croatia. [LCID: 67090]

(View of the Jasenovac concentration camp in Croatia. Jasenovac, Yugoslavia, 1941-1942)

McCormick delves into State Department policies and roadblocks related to capturing Pavelic and turning him over to Tito’s government.  Washington took a page out of Mussolini’s diplomatic playbook from the late 1930s through the war in keeping Pavelic under surveillance as an asset to be used against Tito’s government.  Italy and England’s role are explored, and the United States repeatedly shifts the blame on to them for their inability to meet Tito’s demands for Pavelic.  McCormick is correct in concluding that had the United States arrested Pavelic and prosecuted him for war crimes after the war his impact on post-war Croatian society may have been different.  At the very least it would have improved Yugoslavian-American relations during the Cold War which would only have benefited US relations with Tito.

Part of McCormick’s issue is that he relied almost solely on English-language sources, the broadness of the book’s scope, and the title which is somewhat inaccurate.   I expected the monograph to focus more on the internal workings of Pavelic’s regime and less on the émigré organizations and figures in the United States.  A clearer introduction is called for, but in support of McCormick’s effort I would point out that despite its shortcomings the book is readable, well researched, and provides a useful introduction to the topic.

File:Map Western Balkans 1942.png