THE LUMUMBA PLOT: THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE CIA AND A COLD WAR ASSASSINATION by Stuart A. Reid

This is a July 3, 1960 file photo of Patrice Lumumba, the first prime minister of the Republic of Congo. — (Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba of ethe Congo)

The early 1960s was a period of decolonization in Africa. European countries had come to the realization that the burden of empire no longer warranted the cost and commitment to maintain them, except in the case where it was suspected that the Soviet Union was building a communist base. One of the countries which was trying to throw off the colonial yoke was the Congo and separate itself from its Belgian overlords. In 1960 it finally achieved independence and was led by a controversial figure, Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, a man who was ideologically an African nationalist and Pan-Africanist. However, soon after the Congo gained its freedom its army mutinied. The result was chaos and a movement by its Katanga province which was rich in mineral resources and led by Moise Tshombe to secede. What made the situation complex was that Lumumba was the country’s Prime Minister, and his president Joseph Kasavubu were often at loggerheads politically. Further, an army Colonel, Joseph Mobutu was placed in charge of the new Congolese army, the ANC who at times was loyal to Lumumba, and at times was in the pay of the CIA. The United Nations under the leadership of Dag Hammarskjold sought to try and end the chaos and bring a semblance of a parliamentary system to the Congo which in the end was beyond his reach.

The early 1960s witnessed the height of the Cold War, Moscow would aid the new government and sought to spread its influence throughout Central Africa and gain a share of its mineral wealth. Washington’s response was predictable as it worked overtly and covertly to block the spread of Soviet influence and its communist ideology. The background that led up to Congolese independence and subsequent events is expertly told by Stuart A. Reid’s new book, THE LUMUMBA PLOT: THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE CIA AND A COLD WAR ASSASSINATION. The title of the book is a little misleading as the book does not focus much on the CIA in the Congo as it concentrates more on the concern of diplomats in the UN and a series of plots in Leopoldville. The international panic over the havoc in the Congo, Reid writes, helped to transform the Cold War “into a truly global struggle.” The monograph recounts numerous personalities and movements which exhibited shifting positions throughout the narrative. With Lumumba’s continuous machinations President Eisenhower’s inherent racism and anti-communism emerged along with his perceptions of Soviet actions which in the end led to the Congolese Prime Minister’s assassination by the CIA.

(CIA Station Chief Larry Devlin in he Congo, early 1960s)

If one examines the American approach to emerging nations and the Soviet Union during this period it is clear that if a leader labeled himself a nationalist or a neutralist, Washington labeled him a communist. The American foreign policy establishment was convinced for decades that nationalism and communism were one and the same and presented similar threats to American interests. A nationalist is someone who believes that their country should be ruled by their countrymen, not a government imposed from the outside. Historian, Blanche Wiesen Cook’s THE DECLASSIFIED EISENHOWER outlines the Eisenhower administration’s approach to nationalist leaders in the 1950s exploring the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh In Iran, Colonel Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala, a coup in Syria called off because of the Suez Crisis, attempts to remove Fidel Castro in Cuba, and of course events in the Congo. This approach continued under the Kennedy administration leading to errors resulting in disastrous approaches toward Vietnam, Cuba, and the Congo as these leaders of these countries believed they had a target on their backs. As a result, they would turn to the Soviet Union for aid which of course Premier Nikita Khrushchev was more than happy to provide.

In 1974 in the US Senate, the Church Committee learned about CIA coups, assassinations and other methods employed to influence foreign governments all in the name of American strategic interests as it did in dealing with Lumumba. The most important question that the author raises is who killed Lumumba? The choices are varied; Belgium which had run their colony with cruelty since the late 19^th century; United Nations officials drawn into the Congo on a peacekeeping mission; the CIA fearing Lumumba was moving too close to the Communist bloc; or a young army officer, Joseph Mobutu who installed himself as leader. Reid’s interpretation of events relies on a multitude of sources, drawing from forgotten testimonies, interviews with participants, diaries, private letters, scholarly histories, official investigations, government archives, diplomatic cables, and recently declassified CIA files.

(CIA chemist Sidney Gottlieb headed up the agency’s secret MK-ULTRA program, which was charged with developing a mind control drug that could be weaponized against enemies)

The book pays careful attention to the role of the United States, its motivations, unscrupulous methods, the damage that was inflicted on the Congo, and how US officials displayed racist contempt for the Congolese, particularly members of the Eisenhower administration. According to Reid, “the CIA and its station chief in the Congo, Larry Devlin, had a hand in nearly every major development leading up to Lumumba’s murder, from his fall from power to his forceful transfer into rebel-held territory on the day of his death.” Events in the region would reverberate far beyond the Congo as its short-lived failure of democracy resulted in poverty, dictatorship, and war for decades. Further it would claim the life of Dag Hammarskjold who was killed under mysterious circumstances during a peacemaking visit to the Congo months after Lumumba’s murder. The mission to the Congo was seen as a dangerous misadventure, and the UN never fully recovered from the damage to its reputation because of what occurred.

Reid details a brief history of Belgian colonization in the Congo. Ivory and rubber were a source of wealth, and their occupation was extremely cruel as depicted in Joseph Conrad’s HEART OF DARKNESS. For a more modern view of this period and Brussel’s heartlessness see Adam Hochschild’s KING LEOPOLD’S GHOST. Despite allowing the Congo’s independence, in large part due to outside pressure, Belgium would work behind the scenes to undermine Lumumba and his government until his death and after. The question is what did Lumumba believe? The governments sitting in Brussels and Washington were convinced that Lumumba was pro-communism and particularly vulnerable to Soviet influence. In fact, Reid argues that all the available evidence suggests he favored the United States over the Soviet Union. The problem was the prejudice against Africa which dismissed any possibility that an African man could successfully lead an African country. Ultimately, Lumumba’s fate is part of a larger story of unprecedented hope giving way to an unrelenting tragedy.

Mr. Reid tells an engrossing storyteller who guides us from events in Leopoldville and Stanleyville to negotiations in New York at the UN, Washington at the National Security Council, and the halls of the Belgian government in Brussels. The tragedy that unfolds is expertly told by the author as he introduces the most important characters in this historical episode. In the Congo, the most important obviously is Lumumba whose background did not lend itself to national leadership. He was a beer salesman, postal clerk who embezzled funds, and a bookworm who was self-educated. He would be elected Prime Minister and formed his only government on June 24, 1960, with formal independence arriving on June 30^th. Other important characters include Joseph Kasavubu, Moise Tshombe, and Joseph Mobutu who all play major roles as Congolese political and ethnic particularism, in addition to Lumumba’s impulsive decision making and messianic belief in himself created even more problems.

(Mobutu Sese Seko)

For the United States, the American Ambassador to the Congo, Clare Timberlake convinced the UN to send troops to the Congo had a very low opinion of Lumumba as did CIA Station Chief Joseph Devlin who would be in charge of his assassination. President Eisenhower’s racial proclivities and looking at the post-colonial period through a European lens interfered with decision making as he ordered Lumumba’s death. He believed that Lumumba was “ignorant, very suspicious, shrewd, but immature in his ideas – the smallest scope of any of the African leaders.” CIA head, Allen W. Dulles called Lumumba “anti-western.” The UN plays a significant role led by Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold who tried to manipulate the situation that would support the United States, and he too thought that Lumumba was shrewd, but bordered on “craziness.” Ralph Bunche who made his reputation in 1948 negotiating with Arabs and Israelis did his best to bring the Congolese to some sort of agreement, but in the end failed. For Russia, Nikita Khruschev at first did not trust Lumumba, but soon realized there was an opportunity to spread Soviet influence and agreed to supply military aid to the Congolese army. Reid integrates many other characters as he tries to present conversations, decisions, and orders that greatly influenced the political situation.

(UN Secretary-General Gag Hammarsjkold)

The strength of the book lies in the author’s treatment of President Eisenhower’s and the CIA’s responsibility in the coup d’etat. The CIA persuaded Colonel Mobutu to orchestrate a coup on September 14. When the coup went nowhere the CIA turned to assassins who failed to carry out their mission. A scheme to inject poison in Lumumba’s toothpaste also went nowhere. In the end Patrice Lumumba at age thirty-five was murdered by Congolese rivals with Belgian assistance in early 1961, three days before John F. Kennedy who espoused anti-colonial rhetoric during his presidential campaign took office. Two years later Kennedy would welcome Mobutu Sese Seko who would rule the Congo, later called Zaire with an iron fist for thirty-two years to the White House.

Reid delves deeply into the personal relationships of the characters mentioned above. Attempts to get Tshombe to reverse his decision to secede from the Congo is of the utmost importance. Trying to get Lumumba and Kasavubu to cooperate with each other was difficult. Reid does an admirable job going behind the scenes as decisions are reached. The maneuvering among all parties is presented. Apart from internal Congolese intrigue the presentation of the US National Security Council as Eisenhower, Gordon Gray, the National Security advisor, Allen W. Dulles, and Secretary of State Christian Herter concluded before the end of Eisenhower’s presidential term that Lumumba was a threat to newly independent African states in addition to his own. In fact, at an August 8, 1960, National Security Council meeting , Eisenhower seemed to give an order to eliminate the Congolese Prime Minister.

(Moise Tshombe)

The role of Belgium is important particularly the June-August 1960 period as an intransigent Lumumba and an equally stubborn Belgium could not agree on the withdrawal of Belgian troops even after independence was announced. Belgium’s Foreign Minister, Pierre Wigney felt Lumumba was incompetent so how could Belgium reach a deal that could be trusted. Belgian obfuscation, misinformation, and cruelty stand out as it sought to leave the Congo on its own terms.

Another major player for the US was Sidney Gottlieb, who headlines a chapter entitled “Sid from Paris,” a scientist and the CIA’s master chemist who made his reputation experimenting with LSD as an expert in developing and deploying poison. He would meet with Devlin on September 19, 1960, and pass along the botulinum toxin which was designed to kill Lumumba but was never used.

Nicholas Niachos’ review in the New York Times, entitled “Did the C.I.A. Kill Patrice Lumumba?” on October 17, 2023 zeroes in on the role of the Eisenhower administration in the conflict arguing that Reid presented “new evidence found at the Eisenhower Presidential Library, Reid tracked down the only written record of an order at an August 1960 National Security Council meeting with the president, during which a State Department official wrote a “bold X” next to Lumumba’s name.“Having just become the first-ever U.S. president to order the assassination of a foreign leader,” Reid writes of Eisenhower, “he headed to the whites-only Burning Tree Club in Bethesda, Md., to play 18 holes of golf.”

Lumumba is re-elevated by the end of Reid’s book, mainly through the sea of indignities he suffered as a captive. Particularly disturbing is an episode from late 1960. His wife gave birth prematurely and his daughter’s coffin was lost when neither of her parents was allowed to accompany it to its burial.

Dwight David Eisenhower — (President Dwight D. Eisenhower)

In 1961, Eisenhower’s fantasies of the Congolese leader’s death — he once said he hoped that “Lumumba would fall into a river full of crocodiles” — were fulfilled. Lumumba was captured after an escape attempt and shipped to Katanga, where a secessionists’ firing squad, supported by ex-colonial Belgians, executed him. Reid shows how the C.I.A. station chief in Katanga rejoiced when he learned of Lumumba’s arrival (“If we had known he was coming we would have baked a snake”)but doesn’t ultimately prove that the C.I.A. killed him.

The C.I.A. has long denied blame for the murder of Lumumba, but I still wondered why Reid doesn’t explore a curious story that surfaced in 1978, in a book called “In Search of Enemies,” by John Stockwell. Stockwell, a C.I.A. officer turned whistle-blower, reported that an agency officer in Katanga had told him about “driving about town after curfew with Patrice Lumumba’s body in the trunk of his car, trying to decide what to do with it,”and that, in the lead-up to his death, Lumumba was beaten, “apparently by men who were loyal to men who had agency cryptonyms and received agency salaries.”

Still, Reid argues convincingly that by ordering the assassination of Lumumba, the Eisenhower administration crossed a moral line that set a new low in the Cold War. Sid’s poison was never used — Reid says Devlin buried it beside the Congo River after Lumumba was imprisoned — but it might as well have been. Devlin paid protesters to undermine the prime minister; made the first of a long series of bribes to Joseph-Désiré Mobutu, the coup leader and colonel who would become Congo’s strongman; and delayed reporting Lumumba’s final abduction to the C.I.A. On this last point, Reid is definitive: Devlin’s “lack of protest could only have been interpreted as a green light. This silence sealed Lumumba’s fate.”

(Patrice Lumumba)

THE PATRIOT: A MEMOIR by Alexei Navalny

January 10, 2025szfreiberger Russian History Leave a comment

(Feb. 21, 2021: Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny shows a heart symbol standing in the cage during a hearing to a motion from the Russian prison service to convert the suspended sentence of Navalny from the 2014 criminal conviction into a real prison term in the Moscow City Court in Moscow, Russia.)

The title PATRIOT: A MEMOIR for Alexei Navalny’s posthumous memoir is apropos because the deceased Russian political activist was a firm believer in his country’s potential and saw himself as a nationalist. The book itself is an indictment of the Kremlin encompassing the hope that events of 1991 fostered, the corruption of the Yeltsin years, and the authoritarianism of Putin’s continued reign.

The turning point in the memoir is 2011 as Navalny and his supporters created the Anti-Corruption Foundation (ACF) which sought to educate the Russian masses as to the overt corruption and lying of the Putin regime. Navalny organizes his memoir chronologically after beginning the book with being stuck with Novichok, the FSB’s poison of choice, and his recovery in a Berlin hospital which took months. From then on he proceeds in an orderly fashion employing his own brand of sarcasm and humor to describe his battle with the Kremlin and Putin’s minions. Navalny offers detailed analysis of certain figures, particularly Mikhail Gorbachev who the author feels had the opportunity to do wonderful things for the Russian people but fell short in his accomplishments. However, Navalny thanks him for creating the environment for him to become involved in politics and trying to reform a corrupt government as he writes; “he goofed, and that is precisely what I have to thank him for.” He spends less time analyzing Vladimir Putin leaving that job to historians such as Steven Lee Myers THE NEW TSAR, Masha Gessen’s THE MAN WITHOUT A FACE: THE UNLIKELY RISE OF VLADIMIR PUTINN, Philip Short’s excellent biography PUTIN, Fiona Hill and Clifford G. Gaddy’s MR. PUTIN: OPERATIVE IN THE KREMLIN, in addition to the spate of books published since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

(May 8, 2012: Alexei Navalny is seen behind the bars in the police van after he was detained during protests in Moscow, on a day after Putin’s inauguration.)

The book is written in a somewhat lighter tone than one would expect from an author who has suffered the travails that Mr. Navalny has endured. Despite the tenor of the book Navalny’s remarks are serious and deeply thoughtful. Emotional at times, Navalny writes clearly and concisely as he tries to explain what he has experienced during years of fighting the Kremlin in the name of the Russian people. From outright assassination attempts by poison to the many scenarios the Kremlin could dream up – some violent, some less so, but extremely painful and debilitating physically and emotionally, and of course prison.

After commentary about the war in Afghanistan and the nuclear accident at Chernobyl leading to the events of 1989 and 1991 due to the decision making of the “senile leadership of old men,” Navalny relates the flaws in the Soviet/Russian system be it poor military training where soldiers are treated like convicts so when you return home it is like being released from prison (no wonder they have done so well in Ukraine!). Navalny describes the constant surveillance of the Russian people, the shortages of food and other consumer goods, rock music seen as a pernicious western plot by the west, the selling of the countries assets to Yeltsin’s and Putin’s cronies to create a class of oligarchs which robbed the Russian people of the countries wealth and natural resources when they could have been applied to uplifting the entire population, and of course how Putin rose to power by promising to protect Yeltsin and his corrupt family.

(Sept. 8, 2013: Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, right, with his wife Yulia, daughter Daria, and son Zakhar leave a polling station in Moscow’s mayoral election. Moscow is holding its first mayoral election in a decade.)

Apart from the expected criticism of Yeltsin and Putin, Navalny points to the liberal reformers of the 1990s who he skewers for demanding freedom and all it can bring to becoming lackys of the Kremlin in return for the wealth that made them oligarchs. Navalny argues that the 1990-2020 period was stolen from the Russian people and how the Russian per capita GDP has fallen behind so many other countries because of the avariciousness of the Kremlin, their lies, and their contempt for their own people. Interestingly, Navalny began as a Yeltsin supporter but would realize that he was only driven by his lust for power, not the needs of his people.

Navalny’s sense of the absurd is on full display when writing about his arrests, trials, and imprisonment. He consistently points to the hypocrisy of post-1991 Russia where the only way to obtain or achieve one’s goals appeared to be through bribery, ripping off the state with cost overruns, limiting the civil rights of the people all in the name of the “new modern Russia.” Navalny provides intimate details of many aspects of his life. Two situations stand out for me. First, his flight from Berlin to Moscow after he recuperated from the Novichok poisoning by the FSB leading to his arrest upon his arrival at the airport. Another would be charges brought against him for actions he should have taken but could not because he was in prison resulting in further charges against him and lengthening his sentences. It reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut’s “cloud cuckoo land!”

The fact that Navalny was a trained lawyer and had a degree in finance and credit contributed to his investigations of the Kremlin. He was very conversant in how stock markets and exchanges worked, and it made it easier for him to root out corruption. His initial success began in 2011 as he developed a blog where he could post what his ACF staff were learning. He would file lawsuits against Gazprom and Transneft and other state corporations and picked up tens of thousands of followers. Navalny would buy a small amount of stock in companies he was investigating, allowing him to attend stockholders meetings which would turn into a farce when he attended and asked questions. When his blog was shut down by the Kremlin he would turn to YouTube, Instagram, Tik Tok, and Twitter to get his information pertaining to government corruption and lies to his eventual millions of followers. For a time, the Kremlin did not have an answer for him, especially when he labeled Putin’s party, United Russia, as “the party of crooks and thieves.” In a sense he had become the reincarnation of the Soviet dissidence of an earlier period.

(March 6, 2015: Alexei Navalny, a Russian opposition leader, walks out of a detention center in Moscow. Navalny walked out of a Moscow detention center a week after fellow opposition leader Boris Nemtsov was shot dead in what his allies say was a political killing aimed at intimidating them.)

The Kremlin’s goal in filing lawsuits against Navalny was to stop him from being active in politics – if you are convicted of corruption you cannot run for political office as Navalny did by announcing his run for the presidency in 2018 or the mayoralty of Moscow in 2013. Further, the Kremlin resorted to character assassination to discredit Navalny, but instead of losing support, much to the Kremlin’s chagrin, just enhanced his popularity.

(March 26, 2017: Police officers detain anti-corruption campaigner and opposition figure Alexei Navalny during an opposition rally in Moscow.)

What distressed Navalny a great deal was the impact of his work on his family especially when his brother was put on trial and given a three and a half year sentence, the constant harassment of his wife Yulia, and the tactics employed against hundreds of his followers. When he would ask if he should back off, they all stated that he “must” continue his work.

(March 27, 2017: Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny gestures while speaking, as his lawyer Olga Mikhailova listens, in court in Moscow, Russia. Navalny, who organized a wave of nationwide protests against government corruption that rattled authorities, was fined 20,000 rubles ($340) on Monday by a Moscow court.)

Navalny integrated a few of his speeches to courts at the end of his trials in his memoir. He pulled no punches in his criticisms of Putin and his regime, the legal system, and anything else that was on his mind knowing full well this would result to his own detriment as his remarks would spread among the Russian people. His commentary would always be logical, cogent, and demeaning to Putin’s regime and would result in further imprisonment which he describes by including a prison diary in the book.

(Jan. 28, 2018: Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, center, attends a rally in Moscow, Russia.The book is not all about corruption and lies. The section on how he met his wife Yulia, their courtship, and their family is heart warming in light of what was to happen to him. Yulia shared his beliefs and worked with him hand and glove. Throughout his memoir Navalny worries about Yulia and his children because in Putin’s Russia no one knows the depths of evil that the Russian autocrat will resort to.)

(September 13, 2015: A man takes a selfie with Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, center, near the Open Russia movement office during Russian regional elections in the town of Kostroma, some 300 km outside Moscow. Russians voted September 13 in a regional election expected to yield few surprises, with the country’s liberal opposition only able to field a handful of candidates.)

PATRIOT is a poignant book, because we know according to Putin that he was close to being exchanged for another prisoner a few months after his death. But his death follows a pattern in Russian dissident history be it Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Vladimir Bukovsky, Andrei Sakharov and many others who used their stature as a megaphone against Kremlin injustice. As Carole Cadwalladr writes in the October 27, 2024, edition of The Guardian entitled “ The Man Who Dared Defy Putin,” “Throughout, there’s the absurdity of the Putinist regime and its casual brutality. At one point, Navalny reports that he is no longer considered an escape risk and can be removed from the intensive surveillance register. “My joy was so boundless the director had to ask me to be calm and speak only when permitted to do so,” he writes. But then, immediately afterwards: “It is proposed that convict Navalny is placed on the intensive surveillance register as an extremist and terrorist.” It’s not so bad, he jokes. He doesn’t have to kiss a portrait of Putin. There’s just “a sign above my bunk saying I’m a terrorist.”

“If they finally do whack me,” he writes at one point, half joking, half deadly serious, “this book will be my memorial.” “It’s less a memorial than a handbook on how to stand up to a bully, the mission of his life. It’s not just Russians he showed how to do so with humor and grace and without fear, but the rest of us too. And there’s a surprise at the end: his Ukrainian grandmother’s religion wins out over his Soviet atheism. It’s the pillar of his faith alongside his unshakable belief in his “beautiful Russia of the future.” To borrow a hint of Navalny’s relentless optimism, maybe PATRIOT is one small step towards making that day come true.”

(May 8, 2012: Alexei Navalny, a prominent anti-corruption whistle blower and blogger, center, speaks to protesters gathered across the street from the presidential administrations building as a police officer tries to stop him in downtown Moscow.)

THE BOOKSHOP: A HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN BOOKSTORE by Evan Fliss

December 31, 2024December 31, 2024szfreiberger American cultural history, American Social History, Uncategorized Leave a comment

(The Strand Book Store, 12th and Broadway, NYC)

When I first graduated from college in 1971 I worked at a small family owned publishing firm in lower Manhattan called T.Y. Crowell and Company. It introduced me to the process of book publishing and afforded me enough of a salary that every Friday when I was paid I would walk to Broadway and 12^th Street in Manhattan, the home of the Strandbook store. I would proceed to blow half my paycheck on remaindered/used books and have a falafel sandwich from the food truck in front of the store. This behavior continued for about a year when Crowell was sold to Dunn and Bradstreet and moved the firm to 666 Fifth Avenue (the building the Saudis bailed out Jarad Kushner with $2 billion!) and the doom of sleaze of corporate America. This led to my resignation when the office manager, affectionately labeled by my boss as “silly bitch” refused to allow me to hang my Bob Dylan poster on the wall. I proceeded to graduate school to earn a Ph. D in history.

The thing I carried with me from this experience was my love of books. Today I own a library of about 8500 volumes which has created a family problem when trying to downsize. Over the decades I have spent an inordinate amount of time browsing and buying in bookshops. The Strand, despite its commercialization since COVID remains my favorite. As my wife and I have traveled across Europe and other places I make it a habit to visit a bookstore and purchase a book in every city visited. Perhaps my favorite is Bertrand Bookstore located in Lisbon, Portugal, supposedly the oldest book establishment in Europe. Strolling on Charing Cross Street in London also produces many bookshops which I have fond memories of. In the United States among my favorites include Powell Books in Portland and Chicago; Haslams Books in St. Petersburg, Titcomb’s Books in East Sandwich located on Cape Cod, the Harvard Bookstore in Cambridge, MA, Water Street Books in Exeter, NH, Douglas Harding Rare Books in Wells, ME, Old Number 6 Book Depot in Henniker, NH, Toadstool Bookstore in Peterborough, NH, and of course there are numerous others that I could list!

Powell's Books City of Books on Burnside

(Powell’s Bookstore, Portland, OR)

As I have spent so much time in bookshops I have developed a love for the ambiance, smell, and contact with other book buyers who share my affliction as a book-a-holic as I cannot leave a bookshop without a purchase. Over the years I have looked for the best history of American bookstores. Recently, I believe I have found it, Evan Friss’ latest endeavor, THE BOOKSHOP: A HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN BOOKSTORE.

Friss has authored an ode or perhaps a love song to his subject – a warm historical recounting of the personalities, challenges, historical perspective, and pleasure people derive from frequenting these establishments. Friss introduces his topic by describing a small bookshop located in New York City’s West Village which opened in the 1970s. This marked his entrance into the wonderful world of books that I have loved since my early teenage years.

Over the years independent bookstores have been disappearing. According to Friss, in 1993 there were 13,499 bookstores in America, in 2021 just 5,591. Friss is correct in that, “if bookstores were animals, they’d be on the list of endangered species.”

Land vehicle, Automotive parking light, Automotive tire, Automotive exterior, Automotive lighting, Alloy wheel, Fender, Rim, Town, Vehicle door,

(Books are Magic Bookstore in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn, NY owned by author Emily Staub and her husband)

Friss lays out his monograph in chapters set in a series of book establishments that includes itinerant book people who used carriages pulled by horses in the 18^th century onward, trucks filled with books, kiosks on streets, book delivery trucks (long before Amazon), and of course a brick and mortar shops. These establishments produced amazing personalities that include Toby, the owner of Three Lives Bookstore, located in the West Village; Benjamin Franklin’s Bookshop in Philadelphia in the 1770s, Old Corner Books run by B. H. Ticknor, a friend of Nathaniel Hawthorne; George Harrison Mifflin and E.P. Dutton who also owned bookshops during this period; James T. Fields who also published The Atlantic Monthly, Marcella Hahner who supervised Marshall Field’s Department store large book section and greatly impacted the role of women as book sellers through book fairs, author presentations (i.e.; Carl Sandburg’s books on Lincoln), she could make a book’s success if she endorsed and ordered it – a 1920s Oprah!; Roger Mifflin who drove a truck selling books, as did Helen McGill. Frances Steloff developed the Gotham Book Mart that specialized in literature that dominated the New York book scene including publishing for decades including World War II. Ann Patchett, bestselling author opened Parnassus Books in Nashville, as the city was losing bookshops and she believed with her partner Karen Hayes that the city needed an indie bookstore that thrived as she saw herself protecting an endangered species. Lesley Stahl called Patchett “the patron saint of independent bookstores.” Lastly, how could you author a book about bookshops and not provide a mini biography of Jeff Bezos and how Amazon tried to take over the book trade.

Friss is correct that when entering a bookstore, it is a “sensory experience” – The scent of a book known as “bibliosmia” which I love while holding a book cannot be replicated with a Kindle. These experiences have been greatly impacted through our sectionalist history. Since most books published in the United States before the Civil War were in the northeast, authors have to avoid any discussion of slavery for fear of lost sales below the Mason-Dixon line. This did not stop Tickner and Fields from publishing UNCLE TOM’S CABIN. Soon Ticknor was taken over by E.P. Hutton and merged with Houghton, Mifflin.

(Water Street Books, Exeter, NH)

The role of book buyers is carefully laid out by the author. It is in this context that Paul Yamazaki is discussed and his San Francisco bookshop It was during the late 19^th century that traveling bookstores emerged from Cape Cod to Kennebunkport, Northport to Middlebury, all the way to Lake Placid. They would drive their carts, carriages, trucks all over making customers and friends. Yamazaki would order appropriate books and deliver them to his customers – especially important in rural areas.

Friss uncovers many tantalizing stories about the book business, particularly the relationships between booksellers and the evolution of how these interactions would later lead to the forming of publishing companies that set the market with book buyers of what was available for the public to read and purchase. Perhaps the best stories are presented in his chapter on The Strand Bookshop as it brought me back to 1971 and browsing their stacks. The picture of the shop that Friss includes from the 1970s is exactly as I remember it.. The narrowness of the aisles, the smell of used books, and the store’s ambiance were perfect. For me going downstairs where the 50% off publisher copies is located was my favorite. Friss includes personality studies of Burt Britton and Benjamin Bass who owned and operated Strand for years. Friss’ focus is on the evolution of the Strand from its 4^th avenue Book Row location to 12^th and Broadway. Due to Covid and Amazon the shop went under a more commercial transformation (it now offers pastries and “Strand blend coffee”) but it remains an iconic bookshop and tourist attraction, but it has lost some of its roots from the 1960s and 70s.

Friss correctly points out that bookshops had a significant role in American foreign policy aside from its domestic influence. The Aryan Book store opened in Los Angeles in 1933 and evolved into the center of American Nazism managed by Paul Themlitz. Book shops were also caught up in the anti-communist movement with over 100 stores run by the Communist Party of the United States. Wayne Garland managed a successful socialist bookstore in Manhattan called the Worker’s Bookshop and also fought against Fransico Franco in the Spanish Civil War as part of the Abraham Lincoln Battalion. Congress even held hearings in the 1930s about these stores, particularly the growing communist movement. This would lead to further issues during the McCarthy period in the early 1950s as government officials believed that if you frequented certain types of bookstores it was an indicator of your politics and threat level. Apart from the right components of the book trade Fliss nicely integrates the other spectrum, recounting counterculture shops.

(Author and ownerof Parnassus Books in Nashville, TN, Ann Patchett)

Fliss doesn’t miss any angle when presenting his history of bookshops as he discusses the life of Craig Rodwell who was known as the “sage of gay bookselling.” Rodewell would open the Oscar Wilde Bookshop in Greenwich Village in 1967 with the store serving as the front line of activism after the NYPD launched the Stonewall Raid which would lead to the gay pride movement. All of these types of bookshops are important to American culture which today is under attack as more and more state legislatures are producing legislation to ban books. Interestingly, freedom of speech does not seem to be part of the right wing interpretation of the constitution.

One of the most interesting aspects of Fliss’ research is the impact of the killing of George Floyd on the book market. As the “Black Lives Matter” movement spread the increase in book sales to black owned bookshops skyrocketed. Fliss provides a concise history of black owned bookshops dating back to the 19^th century and his conclusions are quite thoughtful.

Fliss devotes the last section to the growth of large chain bookstores like B. Dalton, Borders, Waldenbooks, Doubleday, and the goliath of stores created by Barnes and Noble. By 1997 Barnes and Noble and Borders accounted for 43.3% of all bookstore sales. By 2007 Barnes and Noble had $4.65 billion in book sales and the competition was slowly withering away. Fliss explains that 2019 what once was a battle between indie bookstores and the large chains evolved into a war between in-person bookstores and Amazon. Barnes and Noble’s massive growth had stalled, and an investor group controlled by Waterstones, Britain’s largest bookstore chain, poured money into Barnes and Noble, who like others had significant issues caused by Covid. Its resurgence in its fight with Amazon was led by James Daunt, known as a “bookstore whisperer” in England – his goal was to make Barnes and Noble more like an independent store. Daunt has been very successful in recreating Barnes and Noble and Fliss correctly concludes that the fate of the chain is “intertwined with the fate of American bookselling and maybe even the fate of reading itself” as Amazon is always hovering over what we read and where we buy.

Fliss has authored a phenomenal book tracing the development of bookshops for centuries culminating with the threat of Amazon and Jef Bezos who wanted to put “anyone selling physical books out of a job.” The situation grew worse with the Kindle resulting in 43% of indie shops being driven out of business and by 2015 with its $100 billion in books sales. By 2019 Amazon sold 50% of the books purchased in the United states. What is clear from Fliss’ somewhat personal monograph, bookstores were a public good – the benefit was the experience – the browse, interaction with others, a place of comfort and rejuvenation. Fliss’ work is a treasure for anyone who loves books, and possibly for those who don’t!

Strand Book Store 1 Bookstores Greenwich Village

(The Strand Bookstore)

ALL THE GLIMMERING STARS by Mark Sullivan

December 19, 2024December 19, 2024szfreiberger Historical Fiction Leave a comment

Mark Sullivan’s grasp of story creation for historical fiction is exceptional. He has the ability to blend storytelling with historical facts that transport the reader to different eras seeking to understand the interplay of human relations. This talent was on full display in his previous two novels; BENEATH THE SCARLET SKY which centers on the rescue of Jews during the Holocaust guiding and transporting them across the Alps, and THE LAST VALLEY which focuses on people caught between the pincer of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia during World War II Ukraine. Sullivan’s remarkable story telling gift is on full display in his latest effort; ALL THE GLIMMERING STARS as two young people, Anthony Opoka and Florence Okori are kidnapped and forced into the fanatical Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in the early 1990s, though the story encompasses the 1987-2009 period. Sullivan describes how these two and other victims try to navigate their captivity and survive. The book is historical fiction, but it is based on the actual journey of Anthony and Florence.

Image

(LRA leader Joseph Kony)

In developing his plot line, Sullivan describes the daily existence in parts of Uganda where a primitive lifestyle full of disease, poverty, and civil war is the norm. At the outset, the main characters are children. Anthony Opoka is a fifteen year old when seized by the LRA, after a wonderful life with his family, particularly his father George, who spends his time instructing his son from an early age to be a good human. Florence Okori, who lived 60 kilometers southeast of Anthony’s village comes from a family that believes in education, and she is a lover of school and her goal in life is to be a nurse. However, nomadic warriors called the Karimojong arrive at her school, strip her teachers and burn all educational facilities. Florence is devastated as she had spent two years surviving a measles epidemic and now she has lost the thing she loves.

Anthony and Florence will meet in captivity and fall in love realizing that they can never go home again. Under the threat of messianic warlord Joseph Kony and his LRA who continue to kidnap children to do their fighting, Anthony and Florence devote their lives to helping their fellow child captives escape bondage and return to their families by relying on their early education by their parents by following the stars.

(Anthony Opoka and Florence Okori)

As the story evolves Sullivan lays out the psychological imprint that the LRA strives for as it brain washes its child recruits. Joseph Kony sees himself as a messiah in the light of Jesus and his own version of Catholicism. Military and mind training are developed through Anthony’s experiences and his friend Patrick Lumumba who saves his former competitor’s life on more than one occasion. The combat experiences are vivid and hundreds of unarmed child soldiers are killed. Dealing with Anthony’s psyche on multiple levels, Sullivan brings out the hidden survival skills taught by his father as he approaches a life as “a good human.” For Anthony, who “not long ago had been a head boy, a top student, a leader, a revered son and brother, a running champion, a young man with a bright future in front of him,” all seem lost as he is absorbed into the LRA. At first, Anthony seems to try and rationalize the benefits of his situation, but after facing combat as an unarmed teenager and a fully equipped soldier his attitude become one of bitterness against Kony believing his youth and promise has been stolen by a man who ruled with merciless fear, killing children or turning children into killers for his own insane ideas.

The situation for child recruits is deplorable as they are used as cannon fodder in the LRA’s war to overthrow the Ugandan government. The back story is clearly laid out as the LRA is allied with the Sudanese government which is threatened by the Dinka tribe in southern Sudan. In return for the LRA fighting the Dinka, the Arab government supplies the LRA with weapons, money, and training. Kony’s rationale is to employ his forces to defeat the Dinka, and once that job is completed take all they have acquired and learned and overthrow the Kampala government.

The story markedly changes when Anthony and Florene are abducted. Their lives were now subject to Kony’s whims and the LRA with so many contemptible rules about all aspects of their existence. Sullivan takes the reader throughout northeast Uganda and southern Sudan as combat rages and the death count rises, particularly among the child warriors. Sullivan delves into Kony’s thought process as the guerilla leader’s goal was to create fighters out of 12 to 16 year old teenagers because their brains were not fully developed, weak, and ready to be brainwashed and trained. His rationality rested on the lack of anything good in their lives. Kony’s convoluted belief system alleged that once they made it through their training ordeal and facing the enemy without weapons they would realize their value to Kony personally and the LRA in general. They would then feel part of a family and a vision of the future which would link them to Kony forever.

(Anthony and Florence on the left, the rest are family and friends)

As time passed, Anthony was accepted into Kony’s good graces as he rose to become his communication officer. Despite his survival, Anthony grew increasingly bitter and angry toward Kony as he witnessed the seizure of thousands of child recruits and their resulting deaths. For Anthony, Kony was a cruel megalomaniac.

Sullivan’s gift is his ability to write about the horrors of events in Uganda and southern Sudan in a manner that allows the reader to tolerate their revulsion as to LRA actions. This is accomplished as Sullivan does not hammer the reader with repulsive descriptions but lays out events as “softly” as possible.

Sullivan introduces and develops a number of important characters that influence Anthony and Florence’s lives. Mr. Mabior, a shopkeeper, educated Anthony as he lay dying and imparts his wisdom concerning the “four voices of suffering;” Mr. Alonsius, Florence’s teacher whose praise created her goal of becoming a nurse; Miss Catherine, a nurse whose care saved Florence from dying from measles; Patrick Lumumba, Anthony’s racing competitor who will become his friend and guide him through the labyrinth of rules fostered by the LRA; Anthony’s father, George offered much needed advice that was the key to Anthony’s survival – “whenever you were confused about what to do, always ask – what would a good human do?” and Josca, Florence’s mother, would always say, “there is nothing stronger than the power of love – whatever the problem, it could be solved by turning to love as the answer.”

The dichotomy of Anthony and Florence’s lives are on full display before and after their abduction. Their eventual love for each other and their children will help them overcome practically anything as they both came from strong loving families, and they maintained the values their parents taught them throughout their lives. Sullivan’s recreation of their life story is at times harsh, warm, with the ability to face and overcome whatever challenges they must confront.

Ugandan Rebel Leader Joseph Kony Makes Rare Appearance

(Joseph Kony and his followers)

Ultimately the novel describes two people who are madly in love, resilient, and the ability to persevere, exhibit tremendous courage, with a high degree of compassion. Their upbringing, family values, and moral code allowed them to survive. It is a story of a spiritual journey taken by two people which resound throughout the novel. Sullivan has authored an impactful story and hopefully his subject matter dealing with child seizures, war, and death will end quickly in areas of Africa.

To conclude, every time I read a Mark Sullivan novel the time expended is rewarding on every level. I hope he is working on his next book which I will read with pleasure. Sullivan continues to tell stories that are inherently moving, inspiring, healing and without doubt extremely meaningful for me and his many readers.

———————————————————————————————————————————————-

After the Ugandan Civil War, Kony participated in the subsequent insurgency against president Yoweri Museveni under the Holy Spirit Movement or the Uganda People’s Democratic Army before founding the LRA in 1987. Aiming to create a Christian state based on dominion theology, Kony directed the multi-decade Lord’s Resistance Army insurgency. After Kony’s terror activities, he was banished from Uganda and shifted to South Sudan.

Kony has long been one of Africa’s most notorious and most wanted militant warlords. He has been accused by government entities of ordering the abduction of children to become child soldiers and sex slaves. Approximately 66,000 children became soldiers, and 2 million people were displaced internally from 1986 to 2009 by his forces. Kony was indicted in 2005 for war crimes and crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, but he has evaded capture. He has been subject to an Interpol Red Notice at the ICC’s request since 2006. Since the Juba peace talks in 2006, the Lord’s Resistance Army no longer operates in Uganda. Sources claim that they are in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), the Central African Republic (CAR), or South Sudan. In 2013, Kony was reported to be in poor health, and Michel Djotodia, president of the CAR, claimed he was negotiating with Kony to surrender.

By April 2017, Kony was still at large, but his force was reported to have shrunk to approximately 100 soldiers, down from an estimated high of 3,000. Both the United States and Uganda ended the hunt for Kony and the LRA, believing that the LRA was no longer a significant security risk to Uganda. As of 2022, he is reported to be hiding in Darfur.*

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Kony

THE WAR OF PRESIDENTS: LINCOLN VS. DAVIS by Nigel Hamilton

December 10, 2024szfreiberger Uncategorized Leave a comment

(Confederate President Jefferson Davis and President Abraham Lincoln)

One might ask if we need another book about the Civil War. What angle might an author take that would appear new and consequential? It appears that presidential historian Nigel Hamilton, the author of a trilogy focusing on the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, another on Bill Clinton, and finally one on John F. Kennedy has done so. Further, Hamilton has also written a monumental multi-volume biography of British General Bernard “Monty” Montogomery and seems to have found his Civil War niche. Hamilton’s latest effort entitled THE WAR OF PRESIDENTS: LINCOLN VS. DAVIS focuses on presenting a comparative biography of Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis zeroing in on the first two years of the war and their viewpoints and actions. Hamilton’s goal as he states in the preface is “to get into their warring minds and hearts – hopefully supplying enough context, meanwhile : to judge their actions and decisions, both at the time and in retrospect.”

From the outset Hamilton raises an important question; how did the “rail-splitter” from Illinois grow into his critical role as Commander-in-Chief, and manage to outwit his formidable opponent, Jefferson Davis who was a trained soldier and Mexican War hero, while Lincoln, a country lawyer had served only briefly in the militia? The answer to this question is fully addressed by the author as he reaches a number of important conclusions, none more important than Lincoln’s refusal to name slavery as a cause and goal for the war in order to maintain border state loyalty and encourage a reunion with the Confederacy. This was Lincoln’s mindset for two years as Hamilton relates his personal moral equation in dealing with slavery as he ultimately will change his policy and issue the Emancipation Proclamation in January 1863 freeing 3.5 million slaves without which the south could not fund their armed insurrection. Once Lincoln made it clear the war was being fought over slavery European support for the south and diplomatic recognition necessary for the survival of the Confederacy would not be forthcoming – sealing the defeat of the south and the failure of Davis’s presidency.

(Secretary of State William Henry Seward)

Hamilton’s methodology is to alternate chapters following the lives of both men. From Davis’s arrival in the first Confederate capital in Montgomery, Alabama to Lincoln’s tortuous voyage avoiding assassination plots as he arrived in Washington, DC. The key topics that Hamilton explores include a comparison of each president’s personality, and his political and moral beliefs including events, strategies, and individuals who played a significant role leading up to and the seizure of Fort Sumter. These figures encompass role of Major Robert Anderson who commanded the fort and General Winfield Scott, who headed northern forces, the role of Lincoln’s cabinet particularly Secretary of State William H. Seward, who was seen by some as committing treason for his actions, Postmaster General Montogomery Blair who was against the war, and Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton. Hamilton goes on to lay out the catastrophe that was General George McClellan and his paranoia and refusal to take advantage of his overwhelming military resources and his incompetent “Peninsula Campaign.”

Hamilton does a wonderful job digging into the personalities of the major historical figures and how their actions influenced Lincoln and Davis and the course of the war. The roles of McClellan, Fremont, Scott have been mentioned but the author also delves into the mindset of important military leaders such as Generals Joe Johnston, Pierre Beauregard, Stonewall Jackson, Irvin McDowell, and others. Further, Hamilton also introduces a number of important sources that other historians have not mined as carefully. For example, the diaries of State Department translator Count Adam Gorowski, a Polish aristocrat whose negative opinions of Lincoln are striking as it seemed Lincoln was unable to enforce the powers of his office and lack of military competence would have drastic consequences. London Times war correspondent William Howard Russell’s opinions are explored in detail, in an addition to Elizabeth Keckley, a formerly enslaved woman who first served as a seamstress to Davis’s wife Varina, and later to Mary Todd Lincoln, and John Beauchamp Jones, a War Department clerk from Maryland who supported the Confederacy.

(Commander of Northern forces, General George Brinton McClellan)

Hamilton’s view of Lincoln is rather negative for the first two years of the war as he writes, Lincoln, “had really no idea what he must do to win the war – or how to reconstruct a civil society in the slaveholding south, so dependent upon cotton, if he ever did.” Interestingly, Davis wanted a defensive war to protect the deep south, he never favored a full blown civil war with the seizure of Washington, but was forced into it when more states seceded, he was called upon to protect them as they moved the Confederate capital to Richmond, Va. Davis’ strategy was to bluff Lincoln until it was clear that McClellan’s Peninsula Campaign was foolish, then he went on the offensive.

What sets Hamilton’s work apart from others is his writing style. His narrative prose flows evenly and makes for a comfortable read. His sourcing is excellent adding the latest documents and secondary sources available. His integration of letters, diary excerpts, and other materials creates an atmosphere where the reader is party to conversations and actions between the main characters, i.e., Lincoln-McClellan interaction in person and in writing among many others. Hamilton’s approach provides for subtle analysis, but he does not hold back, particularly in providing evidence for Lincoln’s mediocre performance as a military leader, who is overly worried about political issues. This is evident in his approach to McClellan’s Peninsula campaign when the overland option driving south toward Richmond made much more sense than a complex amphibious strategy designed to go ashore in southern Virginia and drive north toward the Confederate capital. By 1861 Hamilton argues that Lincoln seemed out of his depth as a military commander and appeared reluctant to make military decisions. His reaction to John C. Fremont’s Emancipation Proclamation in Missouri is a case in point as he forced the General to rescind the order which was consistent with his refusal to have the issue of slavery affect the fighting.

(John C. Fremont- “The Pathfinder”)

Davis’ strategy was a simple one. Fight a defensive war and gain European recognition for the Confederacy. His problem was slavery was viewed negatively in European diplomatic circles. Davis hoped that the need for cotton, necessitating England and France breaking through the northern blockade, would become more important than moral stances related to the enslavement of three and half million people.

Lincoln had difficulty accepting the fact it was slavery that allowed the Confederacy to fight as cotton provided the wealth to purchase weapons, slaves provided food to survive, and the overall manpower to run plantations when southern whites went off to fight. Davis was fully aware of Confederate weaknesses; southern planters were against taxation, European recognition was not forthcoming, 5.5 million v. 23 million people, the extra expense and manpower to defend Kentucky and Virginia spreading his lines thinner and thinner until McClellan’s refusal to engage with superior forces provided Davis with a solution.

Perhaps Hamilton’s most important theme is “Lincoln’s eventual recognition in extremis, of his blunder would compel him, belatedly, to change his mind and agree to make the Confederacy’s use of millions of enslaved Black people – almost half the Southern population – a war issue.” By doing so Lincoln poked holes through Davis’s southern fiction that the Confederacy had “a legal justification for mounting armed insurrection: defense of soil and family.”

(General Robert E. Lee, pictured here in 1863, never wore the Confederate uniform in this house. Three days after his resignation from the US Army, he was appointed commander in chief of Virginia’s military)

Hamilton argues that Davis did not defeat Lincoln because of hubris in the person of General Robert E. Lee who took Confederate troops north in 1862, and Davis’s failure to stop him. Once the southern argument of self-defense was lost, Lincoln could finally pivot to his strongest position – emancipation. Once the war became a conflict to end slavery, accepted by enough of the north, the south would lose hope of diplomatic recognition by European powers hungry for cotton. The book will conclude on January 1, 1863, with the announcement of the Emancipation Proclamation.

Historian Louis P. Masur October 31, 2024, Washington Post book review of Hamilton’s work hits the nail right on the head as he writes: “Lincoln too would dramatically transform his side’s military strategy. Much to the dismay of abolitionists, and biographer Hamilton as well, Lincoln initially refused to take direct action to emancipate the enslaved in the Confederacy. Radical Republicans were especially enraged when, in September 1861, Lincoln forced Gen. John C. Frémont to rescind Frémont’s unauthorized order declaring martial law and freeing the enslaved in Missouri. Lincoln offered the legal and political argument that the order stood outside military necessity and served only to alienate the four slave states remaining in the Union, of which Missouri was one. Within a year, though, he decided on an Emancipation Proclamation that would liberate most of the enslaved people in the Confederacy; the multifaceted story of how he changed his mind, pieces of which are told in Hamilton’s book, is one of the most absorbing in all of Lincoln scholarship.

(Secretary of War, Edwin M. Stanton)

“In truth,” Hamilton writes, “Lincoln had really no idea what he must do to win the war.” But “Davis had had no idea how to win the war, either.” These thoughts capture a truism — much of what we think about the past comes from understanding it backward. Neither Lincoln nor Davis, in the moment, knew what might work or what needed to be done or how to do it. This is why counterfactuals are so prominent in considerations of war. What if Lincoln had fired McClellan earlier? What if Davis had stopped Lee from invading Maryland? What if Lincoln had acted sooner against slavery? Hamilton is keenly attuned to the way hindsight can both enlighten and obscure, and he peppers the narrative with questions and retrospective speculations, sometimes excessively so.

There have been scores of books on Lincoln and Davis, but few that examine them jointly. Hamilton’s uncommon approach helps illuminate an observation once made by the historian David Potter, who suggested that “if the Union and the Confederacy had changed presidents with one another, the Confederacy might have won its independence.” The statement invites us to identify the qualities that distinguished Lincoln from Davis. There are many, but none more instructive than this: Over the course of four years, Lincoln grew into the job of president and commander in chief, whereas Davis remained set in his ways. This sweeping dual biography succeeds in dramatizing the reasons one triumphed and the other failed.”

(Mary Todd Lincoln and Varina Davis)

It is clear from Hamiliton’s monograph that the turning point in the Civil War did not take place on the battlefield per se. Hamilton developed the Confederate strategy that in the end resulted in an invasion of the north through Maryland and an obnoxious Proclamation on the part of General Robert E. Lee. Expecting Marylanders and Kentuckians to rally around the Confederacy, Lee and Davis were surprised when that did not come to fruition. Once the south invaded the north, the rationale that the Confederacy was a victim of northern oppression was no longer valid and acceptable to European diplomats. With the invasion of Maryland, Lincoln was driven into a corner and finally was willing to do something about slavery being the foundation for the Confederacy’s economy and military strength. Lincoln “bit the bullet” by employing the issue of millions of enslaved people as a military and moral issue.

His strategy was clear, the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing 3.5 million slaves as of January 1, 1863. This would result in Europeans refusing to recognize the Confederacy with the war now being fought over slavery. For Davis, it appeared the war would eventually be lost. But it would be his decision to allow Lee to invade Maryland that drove Lincoln to the war of attrition.

Hamilton has completed a remarkable work of narrative history with a unique approach which should be welcome to historians and Civil War buffs alike.

TARGETED BEIRUT: THE 1983 MARINE BARRACKS BOMBING AND THE UNTOLD ORIGIN STORY OF THE WAR ON TERROR by Jack Carr and James M. Scott

November 8, 2024szfreiberger Uncategorized Leave a comment

(The scene around the U.S. Marine Corps base near Beirut, Lebanon, following a massive bomb blast that destroyed the base on Oct. 23, 1983)

On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched an unspeakable terrorist attack on Israel killing over 1200 men, women, and children, and seizing over 200 hostages. The Israeli response was a brutal attack of retribution that has led to the death of tens of thousands of Palestinians and the evisceration of a significant part of the Gaza Strip. Acting as an ally of Hamas and an Iranian puppet, Hezbollah launched a campaign of rocket attacks against northern Israel which led to over 60,000 Israelis abandoning their homes in support of their ally. Recently Israel assassinated Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, and a number of other officials who were set to take his place. Once Nasrallah passed from the scene Israel launched an invasion of southern Lebanon and bombed any area of Lebanon which it deemed a stronghold of Hezbollah, including Beirut.

These events remind one of the 1982 Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon as history once again repeats itself fostering the creation of Hezbollah due to Israeli military and diplomatic errors. The introduction of Hezbollah to the world scene caused by the Israeli invasion would lead to the terrorist attack against the American barracks and headquarters in Beirut which resulted in the death of 241 Marines. The full story as to how and why this occurred and its impact on American foreign policy and the Middle East region and its effect on the families of the Marines who served is the subject of a new book by Jack Carr, a former US Navy Seal sniper and author, and historian James M. Scott entitled; TARGETED BEIRUT: THE 1983 MARINE BARRACKS BOMBING AND THE UNTOLD ORIGIN STORY OF THE WAR ON TERROR.

American Marines search for survivors and bodies in the rubble, all that was left of their barracks head quarters in Beirut, after a terrorist...

(Marines searching for bodies after the attack)

The approach the authors pursue in relating their subject is somewhat bifurcated. The narrative is broken down into three parts. First, half and the most important part of the monograph seeks to relate the background for the attack on the Marine barracks on October 23, 1983, beginning with the attack on the American embassy on April 18, 1983, and the evolution of Washington’s “peacekeeping mission” in Lebanon designed to curtail the factional warfare between Christian and Islamic forces centered on Beirut. The authors expand their focus on American decision making, the dangers Marines confronted as they carried out their mission, and the debate as to how the United states should respond to the plethora of sniper attacks, suicide bombings, and artillery shells that landed on the Beirut airport, the location of the Marine barracks.

In the next section, Carr and Scott describe the truck bomb attack in detail that resulted in the death of 241 Marines and another 158 wounded. They focus on rescue and recovery reflecting on the horror and other emotions displayed by Marines and others who charged into the debris to try and locate survivors. The concluding section of the narrative brings into clarity the response of the Reagan administration to the calamity unfolding in Beirut and the decision making that led to the American response to the crisis. In addition, the authors describe the agony faced by families and a final evaluation of the errors perpetrated by the Reagan administration.

All in all, the book is a useful retelling of events and the response of participants, but apart from exploring the private lives of numerous Marines and their families the book does not present any new detail. The main criticism of the book is at times it rests on secondary sources to present its story. The book relies heavily on journalistic sources, particularly that of Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, and Robert Fisk, of the Times of London, among others. Once the authors move on to Reagan administration decision making and later the emotional trauma faced by surviving family members, Carr and Scott primary sourcing improves as they rely on interviews with survivors and families who for many will not get over the tragedy.

An American Marine Second Lieutenant stands with his back to rescue workers swarming the ruins of the American embassy after a suicide bomber...

(The Marine barracks after the attack)

The key event that would lead to the massacre of the Marines was the Israeli decision to launch “Operation Peace for the Galilee,” which was supposed to remove Palestinian Liberation Organization forces from southern Lebanon and push them twenty five miles north to the Litani River. Many events altered the Israel strategy as they moved beyond the river into West Beirut. Exacerbating the situation was the assassination of Lebanese president Bashir Gemayel, a Maronite Christian from Syria and his replacement by his incompetent brother Amin. Israeli actions fostered the further radicalization of Islamic Jihad and Islamic Amal with the assistance of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. Originally greeted as saviors from the PLO, the Shiites in southern Lebanon grew increasingly angry against Israeli occupation leading to constant violence as Maronite Christians under the guise of the Phalangists fought various Islamic factions, in addition to an ethnoreligious group, the Druze. As the horrors of war evolved an international peacekeeping force made up of Americans, French, and Italians arrived on August 25, 1982, which eventually would lead to disaster.

The authors spend a great deal of time explaining the debate in Washington as to the mission of American forces. The United States wanted to be seen as a neutral entity to try and win over certain factions to try and create a government of reconciliation. However, as the United States armed the Lebanese army, it became the victim of numerous mortar and sniper attacks placing Washington in a quandary – if it retaliated it would no longer appear neutral – if they did nothing the Marines would become “sitting ducks.” Carr and Scott delve deeply into the debate within the Reagan administration with Assistant National Security advisor Robert McFarlane and Secretary of State George Schultz advocating a forceful response after diplomatic attempts to convince Syrian president Hafez El-Assad to withdraw his forces from the Bekaa Valley failed. Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger and Vice President George Bush opposed the use of force, and Lebanese policy became hostage to the interpersonal rivalries within the Reagan administration. Reagan and his advisors had difficulty making the tough decisions that were called for as the situation deteriorated. Historians are handicapped even after four decades as some critical meeting minutes and documentary details remain classified.

President Ronald and Nancy Reagan view the coffins of victims killed in a bomb explosion at the United States Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon.

(Reagans Viewing Bombing Victims’ Coffins)

Perhaps the best sources employed by the authors are the letters written by Marines to their families in the United States. The fears and hopes of the soldiers are on full display and it lends itself to a very personal examination of the crisis. Carr and Scott try to humanize their subjects as they describe family reactions, funerals, phone calls from President Reagan, but the bottom line is the family members, members of Congress, and certain elements within the Reagan administration could not fathom how American policy in Lebanon served any purpose.

The authors delve into the lives of many individual soldiers in their narrative. Among those who stand out are Colonel Timothy Geraghty who took command of Marine operations in Beirut on May 30, 1983, who opposed changing the rules of engagement even after the American embassy bombing and the increase in factional warfare. Lieutenant John Hudson who headed medical operations with fifty naval corpsmen. Drs. Gilbert Bigelow and James Ware, dentists who would take care of the local Lebanese and did yeoman work after the attack on the Marine barracks. Rabbi Arnold Resnicoff, Father George Pucciarelli, and Chaplain Danny Wheeler did their best to maintain the spirits of the soldiers under their command and bring solace and comfort after the debacle and other situations. Hussein al-Mosur who headed Islamic Amal and Imad Mughniyeh who headed Islamic Jihad. The two organizations would unite and form Hezbollah, “the Party of God” who perpetrated the attack on the Marine compound with the assistance of Iran. Many other portraits are offered particularly after attacks and the ultimate explosion at the Marine barracks.

The authors do an excellent job conveying the angst that troops felt as they were sequestered in bunkers as rocket fire against their positions was almost constant. The anxiety is conveyed in their letters home as their compatriots were killed or wounded. An insightful example is a letter from Dr. John Hudson to his wife that reflected his anger, fears, and honesty evaluating what he experienced as useless sacrifices. Hudson believed the Marines were “sitting ducks,” particularly when the rules of engagement would not allow them to return fire. There are many other letter excerpts that reflect the untenable position the Reagan administration placed their soldiers in.

Vehicles destroyed in the bombing of the armed motorcade of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, sit on a street Monday, February 14 in...

Carr and Scott alternate chapters between events on the ground in Beirut with that of decision making in Washington. The problem that comes to the fore is the lack of continuity between the two. To their credit the authors are successful in capturing the harsh reality of life in Lebanon during the period presenting heart rendering vignettes describing the lives of the Lebanese people. In the end there was to be no large-scale US military operation targeting those responsible for the bombing.

The book is an important one because of the lessons learned and those that should be learned today. The War on Terror did not begin until after September 11, 2001, however it was the 1983 bombing that was the precursor to a broader general global strategy to deal with terrorism. The attack highlighted vulnerabilities in dealing with terrorist threats and greatly influenced the evolution of Washington’s counterterrorism goals. In addition, the Israelis seem to be on the verge of repeating the errors of the early 1980s. The Netanyahu government’s actions in southern Lebanon and Beirut may seem like victory, but since there does not seem to be an end game (as is the case in Gaza), Israel will foster the next generation of Hezbollah/Hamas types that will emerge. It seems every decade or so Israel plays Whack a mole which in the real world is not a substitute for concrete policy to achieve long lasting change or at a minimum a reduction of tension.

SIGN UP NOWSections

(The scene around the U.S. Marine Corps base near Beirut, Lebanon, following a massive bomb blast that destroyed the base on Oct. 23, 1983)

THE WIDE WIDE SEA: IMPERIAL AMBITIONS, FIRST CONTACT AND THE FATEFUL FINAL VOYAGE OF CAPTAIN JAMES COOK by Hampton Sides

November 3, 2024szfreiberger Biography, British History, Maritime History Leave a comment

(Captain James Cook)

One of the most important questions in evaluating the men that made up the Age of Exploration rests on their motivation. Were they driven by visions of wealth or conquest as most were or was it the desire to map the 18^th century world for future generations? For the explorer, James Cook, it is in both categories. In Hampton Sides latest work, THE WIDE WIDE SEA: IMPERIAL AMBITIONS, FIRST CONTACT AND THE FATEFUL FINAL VOYAGE OF CAPTAIN JAMES COOK, the author argues that Cook was a map maker and explorer, not a conqueror or colonizer. A number of historians would dispute Side’s arguments, but it is clear that the worst elements of colonization manifested themselves after Cook’s death.

For many, Cook has become the “Columbus of the Pacific,” something Sides has difficulty accepting. The author argues in his introduction that after providing information about Cook’s earlier voyages he would focus on his third and last expedition presenting the Captain’s goals and assumptions in all their flawed complexity. Sides’ monograph is not one of hagiography as he does not attempt to lionize or demonize his subject. The goal was to describe “what transpired during his consequential, ambitious, and ultimately final voyage.”

HMS Endeavour: a replica of the research vessel on which James Cook sailed to Australia and New Zealand on his first voyage of discovery from 1768 to 1771 | Photo: Shutterstock

(HMS Resolution)

It is clear that the credit that Cook earned in discovering certain geographical areas is mistaken as lands that figured into Cook’s drama were founded or settled earlier by other explorers like the ancient Polynesian wayfarers or Spanish sailors. It is probably more accurate to argue that Cook and fellow seamen were merely visitors to the areas he is given credit for locating, not the discoverer of those regions. As with all of his books, THE WIDE WIDE SEA is heavily researched, based on logs and journals prepared by Cook and other expedition participants, in addition to oral histories similar in his approach in previous books like; HELLHOUND ON HIS TRAIL, BLOOD AND THUNDER, AND IN THE KINGDOM OF ICE and others. He has produced a fast paced adventure story that takes place on the high seas and is an important examination of the complexities and impact of the Age of Discovery.

Cook’s voyages can be described as one of cultural clashes as he and his crew came upon Polynesians, Inuit tribes, Alaskan natives, and other indigenous peoples. In coming in contact with indigenous peoples many misunderstandings occurred as the concept of private property held by Europeans conflicted with the idea of communal sharing held by native peoples. Unfortunately, what one group saw as sharing in communal fashion, the other saw as theft which at times resulted in violent punishment.

Sides begins his story with a character portrayal of Cook who is described as adopting Quaker values from his training – temperance, frugality, modesty, truthfulness, and a ferocious work ethic and a disdain for arrogance and ostentation, all features of his personality that appear throughout the book. He was very direct and always strove for simplicity. Interestingly Sides points out that we know little of his emotional world despite the many journals little of it shines through. “There were depths, but the soundings were few…. he was describes as a navigational machine.” Sides goes on to describe Cook’s approach to navigation and command allowing the reader to feel they have gotten to know him somewhat – which is useful in gaining an understanding of his decision making and behavior. He was far from being romantic, if he was anything it was as a professional map maker with little regard for sentiment as he tried to make sailing a science. Cook was an unassuming man who was “respectful of local people and kept his ear attuned to what had come before.”

Bay of Karakakooa at Owhyee Bay of Karakakooa at Owhyee, or Hawaii, where Captain James Cook was killed. 1873 james cook stock illustrations

Overall Cook’s interaction with indigenous people were peaceful, but there were exceptions. One in particular was extremely egregious as he was intolerant of theft. He easily got along with native leaders and fostered trade with any tribe or group he came in contact with, however, if stealing was involved he became a different person and unleashed extreme punishments as was the case when a sextant was stolen on one of the Tahitian islands. During Cook’s first two voyages he exhibited a high degree of tolerance of native populations and his own crew. However, he seemed to change as the third voyage evolved, shocking his men.

One of the highlights of Sides’ commentary is his anthropological summations of the areas that Cook visited. The description is a sailing itinerary that highlights the natives, their lifestyle, how they interacted with their crew, the types of flora and fauna, animals and other important items he came in contact with. The sailing part is most interesting as Sides described the hazards and difficulties that Cook, and his crew confronted. First and foremost were the many leaks that the HMS Resolution suffered. It was obvious that the construction of the ship lacked quality and there was constant need to repair leaks. Weather obviously was a challenge with high seas, extreme wind, fog, rocky coastlines, underwater obstacles, etc. But even though Cook exhibited less leniency and patience he still maintained the respect of his crew for the most part.

Of the many characters that Sides introduces perhaps the most important was Mai, a native of Raiatea, a volcanic island 130 miles northwest of Tahiti who earlier was brought to England by Captain Tobias Fornaux of the HMS Adventure. Mai had his own agenda for requesting passage to England dealing with the Bora Borans, the enemy of his people. Aside from those details, Mai’s presence allows Sides to explore the Tahitian culture and social system. Cook viewed Mai favorably but at times frowned upon his obsessions flaunting the wealth he acquired in London, and his decision making. When the Admiralty decided Mai must return home Cook was given the charge to transport him and leave him in Tahiti during his voyage. The Cook-Mai connection provides insights into the behavior of indigenous people and what motivated them. Sides employs Mai as a beacon to describe the first two years of the voyage. His language skills, planting, hunting talents, navigation mastery contribute to Cook’s early success and knowledge of native culture. Once Mai left the expedition he would not live long, dying at age twenty-seven, and in the end was known as “the gentle savage.”

(Steel engraving death of Captain James Cook on 14 February 1779 on Hawaii)

Other characters are dealt with in depth including William Bligh, who Cook respected throughout the voyage. Bligh would gain greater notoriety as the Captain of the HMS Bounty, which suffered a mutiny which became the subject of a fascinating novel written in 1932 by Charles Nordhoff and James Norman Hall. Another important character was William Anderson, a surgeon whose curiosity would benefit mankind. Captain Charles Clerke, Cook’s friend who led the HMS Resolution as part of the expedition. John Ledyard, a Connecticut American who attended Dartmouth and had previously sailed to Gibraltar and the Barbary coast before being impressed into the British navy. His written descriptions appear throughout the book and are a treasure to read as were the perceptive writings of Lieutenant John King, who would become Cook’s right hand man as they reached Hawaii after traveling down from the Arctic Circle. King’s relationship with Cook was important as he became his sounding board as he was well read and a natural diplomat.

A key theme Sides develops centers around Cook’s instructions from the Admiralty which stressed the goal of locating the Northwest Passage across the top of North America. Repeatedly Cook’s decisions were loyal to the Admiralty, though he did veer away from the overall plan periodically. A major example is his exploration of the Alaskan coast, the Bering Sea as he made his way to the Arctic. Once there he realized that the ice was so extensive at that time of year that it could not be penetrated. He decided to sail south and return during a warmer season lengthening time frame. But as he made decisions, his instructions were his foremost concern. The key to the expedition was to expand European power and would assist in laying the basis of later colonization even if that were not Cook’s personal goal. Cook was an explorer-scientist, not an imperialist.

As the monograph evolves, Sides pays particular attention to explorers who came before Cook. Credit is given to Spanish explorers and their findings, as is the work of George Vancouver who was part of Cook’s crew, who fourteen years later discovered the city and islands that bear his name, but as far as the Russians were concerned their expeditions produced inaccurate maps that Cook had to correct as he transversed the coastline of Alaska. Sides also stressed the role of the American revolution which was occurring simultaneously and its impact on Cook’s expedition.

(James Cook’s three Pacific voyages).

Cook’s personal decline leading to moral collapse by the third year of the voyage is a matter of debate among historians. But one can never discount his journals and ship logs, which dedicate hundreds of thousands of words to oceanic data as Cook was a “navigational machine.” Cook’s death is shrouded in violence as he revisited Hawaii on his return voyage. As Doug Bock Clark points out in his New York Times review entitled “Capt. Cook’s final voyage to the Pacific islands gets a close examination,” June 9, 2024, p. 22 ; “ In the end, Mai got his guns home and shot his enemies, and the Hawaiians eventually realized that Cook was not a god. After straining their resources to outfit his ships, Cook tried to kidnap the king of Hawaii to force the return of a stolen boat. A confrontation ensued and the explorer was clubbed and stabbed to death, perhaps with a dagger made of a swordfish bill.

The British massacred many Hawaiians with firearms, put heads on poles and burned homes. Once accounts of these exploits reached England, they were multiplied by printing presses and spread across their world-spanning empire. The Hawaiians committed their losses to memory. And though the newest version of Cook’s story includes theirs, it’s still Cook’s story that we are retelling with each new age.”

(Captain James Cook)

THE SIEGE: A SIX DAY HOSTAGE CRISIS AND THE DARING SPECIAL FORCES OPERATION THAT SHOCKED THE WORLD by Ben Macintyre

October 24, 2024szfreiberger Adventure, British History Leave a comment

Getty Images A hostage scrambles to safety (On 30 April 1980 six gunmen took over the Iranian embassy in Kensington. The siege ended when the SAS stormed the building.)

If one thinks about events that took place in 1980 two hostage situations should come to mind. The first and more prominent was the seizure of the American Embassy in Tehran by Islamic radicals imprisoning 52 Americans for over a year. The second took place in London months later as Iranian Arabists seized the Iranian embassy and took 26 hostages for six days until they were freed. The first event in Tehran took place following the overthrow of the Pahlavi Dynasty as part of the Islamic Revolution that brought Ayatollah Khomeini to power who instituted an extreme Islamic regime. The hostage crisis was very impactful for the 1980 Presidential election as President Jimmy Carter’s failure to bring home the hostages, despite a valiant rescue attempt that failed, contributed greatly to his defeat by Ronald Reagan. Meanwhile across the Atlantic, the lesser known hostage situation was evolving as six heavily armed gunmen stormed the Iranian Embassy as a means of gaining support against the new Iranian government who were persecuting the Iranian Arab ethnic minority in Khuzestan, Iran.

Both crises produced rescue missions, the first by the United States, Operation Eagle Claw approved by President Carter failed as technical difficulties resulted in a disaster in the Iranian desert. The second was conducted by British Special Forces (SAS) and was deemed successful. Many accounts of the American hostage crisis and failed rescue mission have been written, but until now the accounts of events in London have remained largely negligible. The narrative description, analysis, and character studies associated with the London crisis has been filled by Ben Macintyre’s latest effort; THE SIEGE: A SIX DAY HOSTAGE CRISIS AND THE DARING SPECIAL FORCES OPERATION THAT SHOCKED THE WORLD.

Brendan Monks/Daily Mirror/Mirrorpix/Getty Images Pc Trevor Lock (One of the 26 hostages was PC Trevor Lock, of the diplomatic protection squad, who was standing guard outside the embassy. He can be seen here talking with police negotiators from an upstairs window.)

Macintyre’s new book is his latest success after having written more than a dozen acclaimed books about war and espionage, including volumes on British Spy Kim Philby, the Nazi POW camp Colditz, the preparations for D-Day, and an account describing how Oleg Gordievsky the Russian spy helped bring the Cold War to a conclusion. As is the case with all of his books, Macintyre latest is highlighted by a taut and engrossing story that is deeply researched that will draw in the reader’s attention as it seems to flow like a novel, but in reality is a work of historical non-fiction. For Macintyre, the key to the narrative is that “no one knows how they will respond to lethal jeopardy, until they have to.”

Macintyre comes to a number of important conclusions as he develops his monograph. He sees the crisis as a turning point in the relationship between breaking news and the viewing public as he describes how media outlets responded to the hostage situation. Second he argues that this was a pivotal moment in the public history of Britain’s secretive SAS (Special Air Service). Lastly, it was an early test for the new government of Margaret Thatcher, whose response to the crisis would reaffirm her reputation as the “Iron Lady.”

The seizure of the embassy stemmed from the treatment of the Arab minority in Iran under the reign of the Shah as well as the Khomeini government. Originally when the Islamic Republic was founded it promised to recognize Arabistan’s autonomy and the rights of its people. Almost immediately it changed its approach and clamped down on its Arab population just as the Shah had as oil rich Khuzestan drove policy. Further complicating the situation was the role of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein who saw an opportunity to exacerbate relations with the new Iranian regime and take advantage of the situation as he saw Iran’s aggressive new theocracy as a threat to his power and ambitions. Khuzestan was an easy and cheap way to undermine the Khomeini regime and destabilize Iran.

Macintyre clearly explains the demands of the hostage takers – their motivations, and how their actions had major implications for the Middle East. When Republican Guards engaged in violence and death against Arab demonstrators it spurred on a small group led by Towfiq Ibrahim al-Rashidi, also referred to as Salim whose brother was tortured and executed by Republican Guards.

PA Media SAS enter the building (The SAS went in barely 20 minutes after the command was issued – their assault relayed by TV cameras trained on the embassy. In 15 minutes it was all over.)

Throughout the narrative Macintyre integrates the ongoing American crisis in Tehran stressing the Thatcher government’s concerns after the American rescue attempt to free its hostages was a failure – she would refuse to provide victory for the Khomeini regime at any cost. There was no way she would allow the terrorists to walk free. Macintyre also stresses the mindset of the hostages. Their fears are paramount, but the author also describes how Stockholm and Lima syndrome emerge amongst the hostages as some developed a certain empathy for the terrorist’s themselves. The strategies pursued by government negotiators is on full display as is SAS planning for any eventuality during the crisis.

Interestingly Towfiq and his cohorts were not trained terrorists as improvisation best describes their behavior as their strategy did not play out as they had hoped. Their behavior during the crisis was not consistent, particularly Towfiq who was hard to read. Sometimes calm, but at the next “moment polite and apologetic, then suddenly aggressive; in one breadth threatening to kill many innocent people, and in the next describing himself as a benevolent humanitarian.”

There are many important characters that emerge throughout. Obviously Towfiq and his accomplices, but others stand out. John Albert Dillon, the chief troubleshooter for Scotland Yard; Fred Luff the main government negotiator; Chris Cramer, a BBC producer, Simeon Harris, a BBC sound engineer, and Major Hector Gullen; the Commander of B Squadron – the standing counter-terrorist force; Professor Peter Gunn, a psychiatrist at Maudsley Psychiatric Hospital and a leading authority on the terrorist mind; and a number of other government officials and personalities. Among the hostage’s Syrian journalist Mustapha Karkouti stands out as does Seyyed Abbas Lauasani, the Republican Guard spy who served in the embassy; Dr. Gholam-Ali Afrouz, the Iranian ambassador to Britain; Roya Kaghachi , the secretary to the ambassador; Trevor James Lock, the police constable who guarded the embassy; and Ron Morris, the embassy majordomo. Macintyre provides brief biographical sketches of all the main participants and the reader acquires intimate knowledge of their backgrounds which impact their behavior during the crisis.

(Elite members of Britain’s SAS abseil down the wall at the rear of the embassy on May 5, 1980, to end the six-day siege.)

In his Washington Post review Charles Arrowsmith points out that “Macintyre’s many sources include the diaries of hostages as well as interviews he conducted with SAS officers who participated in the event — the first such interviews to be sanctioned by the British Defense Ministry. He consulted other living witnesses, including Trevor Lock, the police officer who was guarding the embassy, and Maj. Hector Gullan, who coordinated the SAS raid. Fowzi Badavi Nejad, the only terrorist not killed in the raid, is alive, too — he’s still in Britain, released from prison in 2008 and living under an assumed name — though it’s not clear if he spoke to Macintyre. Regardless, the final product of Macintyre’s research is a remarkably immersive account of what happened.

THE SIEGE is brilliantly assembled. Despite the historic import of its events, it’s the humdrum details that linger: an order of 25 hamburgers for those trapped inside the embassy; armed SAS officers gathered around a TV to watch the snooker; a captive engrossed in Frederick Forsyth’s espionage classic “The Day of the Jackal.” For policeman Trevor Lock, it’s the scent of Old Spice, a bottle of which the terrorists found during their time in the embassy, that takes him right back to the scene. It contains the faint but ineradicable trace of an event whose significance persists for both him and the world, even as its particulars have faded. Macintyre’s superb reconstruction restores it to vivid, complex life.”**

**Charles Arrowsmith, “Ben Macintyre’s THE SIEGE vividly recounts a hostage crisis,” Washington Post, September 20, 2024.

F Zabci/Shutterstock SAS move in (On the sixth day of the siege, after the gunmen shot dead Iranian press attache Abbas Lavasani and dumped his body outside the building, Home Secretary William Whitelaw ordered the SAS to attack.)

AFTERMATH: LIFE IN THE FALLOUT OF THE THIRD REICH 1945-1955 by Harald Jahner

October 20, 2024October 20, 2024szfreiberger German History, Nazi Germany, World War II Leave a comment

The area extending north beyond the Brandenburg Gate was later controlled by Soviets for almost 40 year. Note the portrait of Stalin in the center.

(Berlin at the end of World War II)

Today Germany finds itself as the strongest economic power in Europe, in addition to possessing major military influence due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Its influence in Europe is strong and many of the goals of the Nazi regime during World War II have been achieved peacefully since unification following the collapse of the Soviet Union. If one thinks back to 1945 Germany was devastated as it suffered from pervasive allied bombing be it Dresden, Berlin, Cologne, Hamburg, and other German cities. Living in one of these cities in the summer of 1945 and to imagine Germany’s dominant position in Europe today as a member of the European Union would be unthinkable. The question is how did Germans face up to their Nazi past and how did they move on, for most with no sense of responsibility or guilt for the Holocaust and other atrocities committed by the Hitlerite regime domestically and across Europe? Harald Jahner a German cultural journalist and former editor of the Berliner Zeitung focuses on the immediate postwar period in trying to determine why this happened in his book AFTERMATH: LIFE IN THE FALLOUT OF THE THIRD REICH 1945-1955.

Jahner immediately asks a series of questions which he hopes to convey the answers to. For the nine million Germans who were bombed out of their homes and evacuees, the fourteen million refugees and exiles, the ten million released from forced labor and imprisonment, and the countless millions of returning prisoners of war the question was clear; “How was this horde of ragged, displaced, impoverished and leftover people broken up and reassembled? And how did former national comrades (Volksgenossen), as German nationals were known under Nazism, gradually become ordinary citizens again?” This process would lay the foundation of the “German economic miracle” of the postwar period and as a result is an important aspect of western history for historians to explore.

(The Nuremburg Trials)

Interestingly, the Holocaust had a negligible impact on the consciousness of most Germans during the period. Many were aware of the crimes that took place in the name of Aryan unity and lebensraum (living space in the east) and perhaps guilt about causing the war, but there was little guilt concerning the death of six million Jews. In fact, the whitewashing of the existence of the extermination camps was common even as the allies tried to confront the German people with evidence of Nazi crimes. This coverup in part was due to the prevalent view of many Germans that they were now the victims. As Jahner writes; “the survival instinct shuts out feelings of guilt.”

The postwar period was riddled with instances of imprisonments during the war for minor offenses who remained imprisoned after the war, some for years. Disturbingly, at the same time former Nazi elites, scientists, and spies emerged in the bureaucracy of the new Federal Republic and cooperated with former allies as the Cold War approached. At the same time ordinary people starved, lost their shelter, and tried to survive with the absence of authority.

Jahner begins his narrative by describing the plight of the German people. Examples abound during the early months of the postwar period of suffering of the survivors of the war, and the author concludes as far as any guilt was concerned; “forgetting was the utopia of the moment.” As a cultural historian Jahner’s main focus is how German culture evolved after the war as a tool to denazify the German people. The author’s focus is broadly encapsulating a broad realm of cultural issues including film, music, art, newspapers, literature, furniture design, clothing, architecture, etc. Jahner delves into the acceptance and rejection of certain cultural avenues following the war. In film, comedies rather than dramatizations were seen as more acceptable. The cultural leaders were concerned about the general public’s taste and understanding of art. The Third Reich had conditioned people in terms of aesthetic judgement, now they needed to break the intellectual chains of the past, i.e.; accepting modern abstract art which was seen as positive as it represented the denazification of culture.

(German soldiers returned home after WWII)

In an interesting comparison between the American and Soviet view of how to denazify and integrate the German people after the war, Jahner focuses on how the United States relied on art as a vehicle to promote democracy. Employing the CIA as a vehicle to transfer funds to promote western culture, US intelligence services funneled money to particular cultural leaders as a means of obtaining their ends. The Americans however were less likely to offer the Germans the chance of rehabilitation so soon after the war as the Soviets did. Americans had no communist theory of history that would have enabled them to view Germans as victims of Hitler. On the contrary Americans saw the average German as “a militaristic, authoritarian, hard hearted character for whom the Fuhrer’s state was the most representative form of government.” The Russian approach was simpler, purging who they felt threatened by, offering what became known as East Germans an off ramp to acceptability, and a culture that was much more digestible like “Socialist Realism.”

Jahner offers a window into how the German people coped economically on a daily basis exploring rationing, the black market, crime, exploitation, and the lack of housing which he argues would eventually lead to a market economy. He explores topics like sex, love, the plight of orphans, returning POWs, forced laborers, demobilized soldiers, and other wandering human beings who had been displaced by war. However, the most important insights he offers centers around the belief by Germans that the Nazis had humiliated them and the argument that they too were victims of Hitler. This rationalization made it easy to avoid discussion of the Holocaust after the war and any German responsibility. Hitler worshipers were “duped” rather than guilty for the events that led to war and what transpired during the war. The positive is Jahner’s belief that what he terms as “intolerable insolence” is the belief that to establish democracy in post war Germany this denialism was a necessary prerequisite because it created the foundation of a new beginning. The victim narrative reached its apex in April 1945 when the Germans were in fact liberated.

Jahners concludes that the majority of surviving Germans were so preoccupied with their own suffering that the dominant mood was one of self-pity. Since they were victims they “had the dubious good fortune of not having to think about the real ones.” As grim as Jahner’s discussion is concerning the amount of rubble that was left for the Germans to clear and live with, for many it is just punishment for a sophisticated people who succumbed so easily to the Nazi regime. The eventual robust economic recovery of the East and West was a boon, according to Jahner, “but such good fortune had nothing to do with historical justice.”

Excellent aerial view showing devastation and bombed out buildings over wide area.

(Berlin at the end of World War II)

NIGHT OF THE ASSASSINS: THE UNTOLD STORY OF HITLER’S PLOT TO KILL FDR, CHURCHILL, AND STALIN by Howard Blum

September 21, 2024September 21, 2024szfreiberger Nazi Germany, World War II Leave a comment

Many believe that the most important World War II conference between Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin, and Franklin D. Roosevelt took place at Yalta. For those who despise Roosevelt it was at Yalta that the president was duped by the Soviet leader which would lead directly to the Cold War following the president’s death. Obviously, Yalta was of prime importance when one examines the post-war period, but in fact according to historian Keith Eubanks in his landmark study, SUMMIT AT TEHRAN, the agreements reached at Yalta and much of the postwar settlement were fashioned by the Tehran discussions.

Since Teheran was the first meeting of the “Big Three” coming at a time when it was becoming increasingly clear that the Germans were going to lose the war, anything the Nazis could do to prevent the allied leaders from developing plans to bring the war to a conclusion and what the post-war world would look like was imperative. For Adolf Hitler, if his commandos could disrupt the conference of perhaps kill allied leadership, new heads of state might be willing to develop more reasonable policies toward Germany other than the goal of “unconditional surrender” announced by Roosevelt at the Casablanca Conference on January 24, 1943. In Howard Blum’s NIGHT OF THE ASSASSINS: THE UNTOLD STORY OF HITLER’S PLOT TO KILL FDR, CHURCHILL, AND STALIN the author explores events and decision making surrounding the Nazi plan to assassinate allied leaders – code named Operation Long Jump. Blum’s effort is not a work of counterfactual history discussing what might have occurred had the Nazi plan been carried out, but an interesting historical monograph that unwraps how close the Nazis came to success.

(Walter Schellenberg as an SS-Oberführer in 1943)

Blum’s work reads like an engrossing spy thriller, when in fact it is a true story. It reads like a well written novel, but in reality it is a narrative history at its best. The monograph itself is presented on parallel lines. First is the competition between SS General Walter Schellenberg who headed Section 6 of the Reich Security Office (RSHA), and Michael Reilly, the Secret Service agent who was the head of President Roosevelt’s security detail. The author, having examined the pertinent documentation, delves into the mindset of both figures and the strategies they developed in order to achieve their goals. For Schellenberg it was to decapitate allied leadership, and for Reilly to thwart any assassination attempts and keep the “Big Three” safe. The second thread that Blum catalogues are the measures taken to protect Roosevelt and his allied compatriots and Nazi covert plans over a two year period to offset the fact that the war seemed lost by killing the “Big Three” and hoping that replacement leaders would be more amenable. Third, are the character studies of each of the important personages in the story. From Schellenberg and his commando operatives, allied and Nazi spies, to Reilly.

Blum’s commitment to detail is the highlight of the narrative. For example, the removal of tons of seized opium from smugglers stored in the basement of the Treasury building in Washington to create a safe space for Roosevelt after December 7, 1941, or the use of Al Capone’s automobile that was outfitted with amazing safety features for the time to protect the president. Other examples include Churchill’s capacity to ingest brandy and scotch and his lax approach for his own security. Blum delves deeply into the spy craft that was employed highlighting agents, double agents, recruitment of commandos, training for the assassination missions and other aspects of intelligence dexterity.

The author does a useful job discussing the competition within the Nazi bureaucracy exemplified by the relationship between General Schellenberg head of Section 6 of SS intelligence, and the head of Abwehr, the military espionage branch of the Wehrmacht, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris. Another example of this competition is highlighted by the Abwehr commando training program centered at Lake Quenz headed by Major Rudolph von Holten-Pflug produced jealousy on the part of Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS who ordered Captain Otto Skorzeny to create an SS version of Lake Quenz. It would be Skorzeny who had rescued Benito Mussolini from Allied control who would train the commandos and lead them into Teheran to assassinate their targets. Other key players include Franz Mayr and Roman Gamotha, German spies who had been dropped into Iran in 1940, one of which turned out to be a double agent; Julius Berthold Schilze-Holthus, a Nazi diplomat stationed in Teheran; Nasr Khan who led the Qashqai Tribe’s military arm who allied with the Germans; Lili Sanjari, Roman Gamotha’s secretary and Franz Mayr’s mistress among many other characters.

(Michael Reilly and FDR)

At various times it appears that Schellenberg’s plot would be successful. By November 1943, all the pieces he put into place had come together. Abwehr and SD agents had successfully gone undercover in Iran early in the war. Two agents remained active, one in Teheran, and the other in the tribal hill country. In previous operations commandos had parachuted into Iran and established the procedures for aerial insertion missions with the necessary equipment to carry out the plot. Further, the alliance with Nasr Khan remained firm. Lastly, Hitler had complete confidence that Otto Skorzeny, the very tactician who had supervised the training and execution for previous missions into Iran, could carry out a successful assassination mission.

It is interesting to explore how Reilly and the American secret service tried to keep the President and his entourage safe. Reilly had to deal with a stubborn president who enjoyed certain peccadillos of life that he was wanting to give up. Further, plans seemed to change almost on a dime especially as negotiations with Stalin to choose the site of the meeting constantly ran into roadblocks. Other aspects of the trip to Tehran after it was finally chosen were that Roosevelt, Churchill, and Kuomintang leader Chiang Kai-Shek would first meet in Cairo which created more headaches for Reilly and company.

(Otto Skorzeny in 1943)

The role played by the Russians is consequential for a country that was occupied by both the Soviet Union and the United States. During the war, Iran became a major transshipment route for American Lend-Lease aid to the Soviets, and thousands of American, British, and Russian troops controlled the major cities and ports, particularly Tehran. Blum shows the ruthless nature of the Soviet precautions as Soviet intelligence and secret police agents of the NKVD, the forerunner of the infamous KGB, began a massive sweep of Tehran to arrest any German national or potential sympathizer when the first hint of a conspiracy is heard. For Reilly, the role of Soviet intelligence was concerning with their nest of secret agents and posers in Teheran, and how he could work with his Soviet counterparts to ensure the safety of the “Big Three.” Reilly’s concerns were also evident when Stalin offered to have the American delegation moved to the Soviet compound in the city. The rationale was clear, the American embassy was just outside the city and would require a short car ride each day for the president creating an interesting target. A move to the Soviet compound would include Russian eavesdropping devices placed throughout where the American delegation would be staying – certainly, a dilemma for the Americans. Interestingly, Roosevelt was not keen staying at the British compound located near the Russians either.

Blum uses Russian archival sources only made public in the last twenty years along with an ample collection of other primary and secondary sources as he weaves a fast-paced story of how Nazi intelligence services and special commando units tried to infiltrate an assassination team into Iran. It is a story that would make Ken Follett, Robert Ludlum, and Ian Fleming proud. In the end the Germans would come closer to a successful suicide mission that is generally believed. Except for the usual difficulties of controlling foreign intelligence operatives-greed, stupidity, and bad luck, the Nazis might have gotten their commandos within lethal proximity to the “Big Three” and conducted a successful war altering mission.

If you would like to read an updated version of the story see Brad Meltzer and Josh Mensch’s THE NAZI CONSPIRACY: THE SECRET PLOT TO KILL ROOSEVELT, STALIN, AND CHURCHILL.

Doc's Books

A window into Doc Freiberger's library

Author: szfreiberger

THE LUMUMBA PLOT: THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE CIA AND A COLD WAR ASSASSINATION by Stuart A. Reid

THE PATRIOT: A MEMOIR by Alexei Navalny

ALL THE GLIMMERING STARS by Mark Sullivan

THE WAR OF PRESIDENTS: LINCOLN VS. DAVIS by Nigel Hamilton

TARGETED BEIRUT: THE 1983 MARINE BARRACKS BOMBING AND THE UNTOLD ORIGIN STORY OF THE WAR ON TERROR by Jack Carr and James M. Scott

THE WIDE WIDE SEA: IMPERIAL AMBITIONS, FIRST CONTACT AND THE FATEFUL FINAL VOYAGE OF CAPTAIN JAMES COOK by Hampton Sides

(Captain James Cook)

(Steel engraving death of Captain James Cook on 14 February 1779 on Hawaii)

THE SIEGE: A SIX DAY HOSTAGE CRISIS AND THE DARING SPECIAL FORCES OPERATION THAT SHOCKED THE WORLD by Ben Macintyre

AFTERMATH: LIFE IN THE FALLOUT OF THE THIRD REICH 1945-1955 by Harald Jahner

NIGHT OF THE ASSASSINS: THE UNTOLD STORY OF HITLER’S PLOT TO KILL FDR, CHURCHILL, AND STALIN by Howard Blum