Author: szfreiberger

AGENT ZO: THE UNTOLD STORY OF A FEARLESS WORLD WAR II RESISTANCE FIGHTER ELZBIETA ZAWACKA by Clare Mulley

szfreiberger World War II Leave a comment

The General Elżbieta Foundation, Toruń Black and white photo of Zo as a student taken for her student pass(The General Elżbieta Foundation, ToruńZo, as seen on her student pass, graduated from Poznań University with a higher degree in mathematics)

During World War II Poland witnessed  many individuals engaging in serious heroic actions.  The list is long and includes people like Witold Pilecki, an intelligence agent and resistance leader who volunteered to enter Auschwitz to gather intelligence and then escaped; Arena Sendler, head of the children’s division of the Zegota Council for the aid of the Jews which smuggled 2500 children out of the Warsaw Ghetto; Jan Karski, a Polish soldier, resistance fighter, and diplomat who provided evidence of the Holocaust to western leaders, and acted as a courier for the Polish government in exile to western allies; Mordechai Anielewicz, led the Jewish Combat Brigade (ZOB) during the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, and numerous others.  However, none are more remarkable than Elzbieta Zawacka, aka “Agent Zo,” the only female member of the Polish Elite Force during the war and took a leading role in many areas including the Polish uprising in Warsaw in August 1944.  Her actions, and the actions of many of her compatriots in the Polish resistance during the war and after are accurately chronicled in Clare Mulley’s latest book, AGENT ZO: THE UNTOLD STORY OF A FEARLESS WORLD WAR II RESISTANCE FIGHTER ELZBIETA ZAWACKA.

Mulley presents a series of themes in her monograph, but none is more fascinating then how women were viewed by Polish and English authorities during World War II.  Mulley correctly argues that thousands of Polish women rushed to defend their country in response to the twin invasions led by Germany in the west, and the Soviet Union in the East in September 1939.  Eventually over 40,000 Polish women were sworn in as members of the Polish Home Army, 10% of which were soldiers, none more important than Agent Zo who was a member of the Cichociemni or “Silent Unseen” made up of Polish Special Forces paratroopers.  The other 90% of women engaged in a myriad of activities ranging from acting as couriers, medical technicians, clerks, bomb makers, and gathering intelligence.  Agent Zo and her partners passionately argued that women could fight as well as men and should be declared part of a “legitimate” military force to be covered by the Geneva Convention, which when finally recognized by Polish and British bureaucrats in London would save many lives.  This theme pervades the narrative and provides great insight into the misogyny experienced by women in dealing with military and diplomatic decision makers during the war.  For example, Colin Gubbins, head of the British Special Operations Executive which engaged in sabotage against the Nazis throughout Europe, upon learning of Zo’s exceptional bravery and accomplishments referred to her a “grand gal.”

The General Elżbieta Foundation, Toruń Black and white photo of Zo in Polish military uniform smiling with four other women in similar uniforms(The General Elżbieta Foundation, ToruńZawacka (centre) took the nom-de-guerre Zo after being sworn into the Polish resistance)

Agent Zo’s remarkable life is examined in detail.  After explaining her familial roots Mulley examines Agent Zo’s rise from a senior instructor with the Polish “Woman’s Military Training Force (PKW)” to her varied assignments during the war as she craved serious military service once Nazi Germany had violated her country.  Mulley does a remarkable job recounting Agent Zo’s various relationships with both men and women.  All were Polish patriots with the same goals of working to keep the allies informed about Nazi atrocities, troop movements, and any intelligence they could gather.  The author explains Agent Zo’s many relationships, who influenced her the most, and who she relied upon and trusted.  A few stand out like Marianna Zaodzinska, a literary person and poet who was tactical instructor who would wind up as a commander during the Warsaw uprising.  General Stefan Rowecki who worked to unite all Polish resistance groups and create the Home Army who was also Zo’s commander.  Maria Witteck, Zo’s close friend and Commander of the Women’s Auxiliary Services.  Emelia Malessa, Zo’s superior who oversaw the Farmstead, the Polish overseas communication team.  Zofia Franio, supplied weapons to Jews fighting in the Warsaw Ghetto.  Sue Ryder, who volunteered at the First Aid Nursing Yeomanry (FANY), lying about her age, further as part of the SOE she transported agents for the ”Silent Unseen.”  Kazimierz Bilski, known as “Rum,” a member of the “Silent Unseen” and the Polish Sixth Bureau in London; and General Tadeusz Komorowski, “Bor,” Rowecki’s former deputy who succeeded him as head of the Home Army.

The role of female couriers was of major importance in the war.  Their harrowing experiences crossing Europe to provide intelligence hidden on microfilm to London from Warsaw are fully explored.  Zo and her fellow resistance fighters experienced numerous run-ins with the Nazis as they carried out their assignments.  Their fears of arrest, torture, and death were constant, but they did not let their anxieties interfere with completing their missions.  They provided evidence of Nazi atrocities, the Holocaust, technical information concerning Hitler’s miracle weapons – VI and V2 rockets, German troops positions, the needs of the Home Army, etc.  These brave women accomplished remarkable things and were willing to sacrifice their lives for their country.  A few examples include how Zo leaped from a moving train when Nazi soldiers entered and asked for identification on a trip in Silesia, or her parachute training which she had never done before the war leading her to jump behind Nazi lines.

Getty Images Black and white photo of Polish troops with guns surrounded by rubble in Warsaw(Getty ImagesThe Warsaw Uprising was the largest organised act of defiance against Nazi Germany during World War Two)

From the outset of the war Zo argued for a Woman’s Auxiliary Officer Corps, which would eventually be ratified into law.  British and Polish  “higher ups” described Zo as “an insane feminist and pioneer of the liberation movement and equality of women….a hysterical women.”  It took until October 1943 for a decree on “Women’s Voluntary Service,” providing women between 18 and 45 the same rights and duties as men in the armed forces.  The result – thousands of Polish women came forward to volunteer.

Mulley’s research is impeccable, and she devotes a great deal of time to the political and diplomatic components of the war.  A few stand out.  It became clear to Zo that by the Fall of 1943 Polish influence and/or importance to the British government was waning, especially when there were no Polish diplomats present at the Tehran Conference.  As the Soviet Union broke through in the east, Stalin’s plans for a post war Poland began to become clear.  The Russian dictator planned to seize areas in eastern Poland, and shift Poland’s border westward in return.  Stalin denied that Russian soldiers committed the Katyn massacre which took place in the spring 1940 which was a series of mass executions of nearly 22,000 Polish military and police officers, border guards, and intelligentsia prisoners of war carried out by the Soviet Union, specifically the NKVD, at Joseph Stalin’s orders.  Stalin would not recognize the Polish government in exile and appointed his own government in Lublin, Poland toward the end of the war.  Another egregious action or non-action by Stalin was his refusal to allow any military assistance, be it bombers, supplies, men, the use of Russian airfields in order to assist Polish resistance fighters as they rose up against the Nazis in Warsaw in August 1943.  Stalin’s goal was clear – to wipe out any Polish opposition to Russian hegemony in Eastern Europe after the war.  Franklin Roosevelt felt the need to appease the Russian dictator, in part, because the Soviet military had done the bulk of the fighting against the Nazis.   Churchill had little choice but to go along.

The Nazis finally identified Zo, resulting in a price on her head  in March 1944 as the Nazis b targeted all women in their thirties as a means of finding her.  Mulley describes her clandestine life and travels in detail as she was ordered to remain in a convent to escape the Nazi dragnet.  Finally, she emerges to play a key role in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, but not as a fighter which was against her wishes.  With her experience and knowledge of the city, its sewers, basements, and neighborhoods in general she was put in charge of organizing women to deliver supplies, make incendiary bombs, deliver medical supplies, organize ambulances, and use couriers as a means of getting the truth out to the world.  In the end 18,000 resisters, and 200,000 civilians were killed in the uprising.  Once the city succumbed, Zo escaped and spent her time trying to reorganize the Farmstead.

Clare Mulley Two images of a tall communist-era apartment block with a mural featuring several paintings of Zo on the side of it(Clare Mulley/A mural depicting Zawacka has been painted on the side of the communist-era apartment block where she lived in Toruń)

Once the war ended Zo’s personal battle for Polish independence did not end as the new communist regime imposed by Stalin began to show interest in her just as they wanted to destroy any remnant of the Home Army that may have remained.  Stalin’s henchmen rounded up any Home Army veterans who they saw as part of a possible anti-communist resistance.  For Zo, the peace she fought so long and hard for instead “she felt that her country’s occupation by one hostile foreign power had now been replaced by another, and Poland was still not free.”  As Marissa Moss points out in her  December 11, 2024, review in The New York Journal of Books; “Zo herself was sent to prison, arrested for being part of a network spying on the communist government. She wasn’t part of any such group but looked guilty simply because of her past. Like many of her compatriots in the Home Army, her real crime lay in telling the story of Poland’s resistance, a story that contradicted the official Soviet version.” She was tortured and imprisoned and finally freed after Stalin died in March 1953, but she was not allowed to teach because of her “criminal record” and her refusal to join the communist party.  It was not until the arrival of the Solidarity movement and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 that she could be sure that her secret archive detailing the Home Army would be secure, as she was determined to collect even more stories of the Home Army, especially the part played by women.

Zo was the recipient of many awards and medals for her bravery and devotion to her country, but to her what really mattered was the history through which she had lived. She created a vast archive, hoping to educate a new generation about their country’s history. This book serves her mission well.

The General Elżbieta Foundation, Toruń Posed black and white photo of Zo looking into a mirror while wearing a white dress with decorative cuffs and belt(The General Elżbieta Foundation, ToruńElżbieta Zawacka crossed international borders more than 100 times as she smuggled military intelligence to the Allies)

BLACK BUTTERFLIES by Priscilla Morris

szfreiberger Historical Fiction Leave a comment

A Bosnian soldier returns fire in downtown Sarajevo as he and civilians come under fire from Serbian snipers, April 1992.

(A Bosnian soldier returns fire in downtown Sarajevo as he and civilians come under fire from Serbian snipers, April 1992)

In the 1970s CIA analysts warned that if Josip Broz Tito, the authoritarian leader of Yugoslavia died eventually the country would break apart and the result would be a nasty civil war.  Tito would pass from the scene in 1980, and it took until January 1992 for the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to cease its existence, dissolving into its constituent states.  Earlier an American National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) 15-90 presented a dire warning; “Yugoslavia will cease to function as a federal state within a year and will probably dissolve within two….A full-scale interrepublic war is unlikely, but serious intercommunal conflict will accompany the breakup and will continue afterward.  The violence will be intractable and bitter.”  

Slovenia was the first to declare its “sovereignty” in 1990.  Croatia followed in May, and in August, the Yugoslav republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina also declared itself sovereign.  Soon after, Slovenia and Croatia both declared formal independence on June 25, 1991.  Bosnia-Herzegovina declared its independence in May 1992, while the Serbs in Bosnia declared their own areas an independent republic.

Women run for their lives across ‘Sniper Alley’ under the sights of Serb gunmen during the siege of Sarajevo. 1992.

(Women run for their lives across ‘Sniper Alley’ under the sights of Serb gunmen during the siege of Sarajevo. 1992)

Serbia and Montenegro formed a new Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as a successor state to the old Yugoslavia, but the international community did not recognize its claim.  Over the next three years war would ensue in Bosnia and Herzegovina claiming hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced millions from their homes, as Europe experienced the most horrific fighting since World War II.  One major component of the fighting was the siege of Sarajevo which came about because the Bosnian Serbs wanted to create a new Serb state of Republika Srpska and would encircle the city, located in the southern part of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Starting in April 1992, Serbia set out to “ethnically cleanse” Bosnian territory by systematically removing all Bosnian Muslims, known as Bosniaks. Serbia, together with ethnic Bosnian Serbs, attacked Bosniaks with former Yugoslavian military equipment and surrounded Sarajevo, the capital city.  The resulting blockade and the ensuing assault with artillery, tanks, and 500,000 bombs resulted in the death of 13,952 people, including 5,434 civilians.  The population of Sarajevo dropped by a third because of the siege which lasted from April 5, 1992, to February 29, 1996, three times longer than the siege of Stalingrad, and a year longer than the siege of Leningrad.

The reasons behind the country’s breakup ranged from cultural and religious divisions between the ethnic groups that made up the former Yugoslavia, including Serbs, Croats, and Muslims.  Sarajevo’s 1991 ethnic population consisted of a total of 527,049, including; 259,470 ethnic Muslims; 157,143 Serbs; and 34,873 Croats.   In addition, the memories of World War II and the atrocities committed by all sides greatly contributed to the breakup, as did the growing nationalist forces.  Another major contributing factor was following the death of Tito in 1980, the provisions of the 1974 constitution kicked in providing for the dissolution of all power away from the federal government to the republics and autonomous provinces within Serbia.  The result was that the federal government maintained little control over the country.

This situation forms the background for Priscilla Morris’ evocative novel, BLACK BUTTERFLIES.  The story begins as Zora, an artist and teacher, and her husband, Franjo arrive at Zora’s aged mother’s apartment to find three people squatting and refusing to leave arguing that the city government had decided that if a flat was unoccupied anyone could live there.  Their daughter Dubravka was married to an Englishman and resided near Salisbury, and they decided to send her mother to visit because of the stress of the situation and her declining health, accompanied by Franjo leaving Zora alone in Sarajevo.

A wounded woman is helped to get out of her apartment building after it was hit by a rocket fired from Bosnia Serb positions, June 1995.

(A wounded woman is helped to get out of her apartment building after it was hit by a rocket fired from Bosnia Serb positions, June 1995)

The novel focuses on the experiences of Zora Kocovic, an artist and teacher at the National Academy of Art and her attempts at survival as Sarajevo is being pounded by artillery and sniper fire by Bosnian Serbs who want to ethnically cleanse the city of Muslims and Bosnian Serbs who do not support them.  Zora’s family has left for England and Zora thought it would be safe to remain in the city, but that turned out to be a “pipe dream.”  Along with her neighbors they try to navigate a situation where electricity, water, phone lines, and the airport have been cut off and it is too dangerous to walk the street to find food and water because of sniper fire.  Bodies lay in the street for days and city services are non-existent.

One of Morris’ most important themes is the importance of art in wartime, particularly those who are suffering.  This can be seen in numerous ways.  Zora continues to instruct those students who are able to make their way to her flat, even creating an art exhibition out of any material they can employ for the neighborhood.  When she runs out of paper and canvas, she and her eight year old neighbor’s daughter Una draw on the walls and paint natural scenes.  To further her work, Zora takes her last few coins to purchase art supplies from the wife of an artist who has disappeared.

UN peacekeepers and Sarajevo citizens take cover from gunfire on the city’s infamous ‘Sniper Alley’, March 1993.

(UN peacekeepers and Sarajevo citizens take cover from gunfire on the city’s infamous ‘Sniper Alley’, March 1993)

Morris’ description of Sarajevo is vividly rendered from its cobblestone streets, grandfathers playing chess outside, the shade offered by the spires of Orthodox churches, and the minarets dating to the Ottoman era.  It was a beautiful city before the siege and served as a bridge between east and west based on its multi-ethnic culture and religions.  But as the siege begins to take its toll people are reluctant to leave despite the danger for fear squatters would take over their flats, stealing their possessions.  Morris uses the dialogue between her characters to shine a light on the ethnic hatred that exists in the city.  A comment by Zora’s neighbor Vensa, an orthodox Christian is emblematic of how people feel, she says to Zora; “But God, I’m terrified, aren’t you?  Day by day, Sarajevo is becoming more Muslim.”  Zora visits her Uncle Vuk who believes that the Muslims want an Islamic state, and Serbs would then be treated as if the Ottoman Empire were reconstituted.  This leads to constant anxiety among her characters as she goes on to describe “Bosnian Serb snipers lying behind sandbags on the tops of buildings and taking aim at people in the street below as if they are sparrows.”

Serb nationalists cannot accept that people like Zora want to go on living with Muslims and Croats as they have always done – historically, Sarajevo was always seen as a model of tolerance.  The situation is very trying for Zora.  Her studio was her sanctuary, but once Bosnian nationalists banned it, she hurried to recoup as much art supplies and her paintings as possible, but they would soon run out.  Zora becomes further depressed when she was promised a seat on a UN bus leaving the city and at the last minute it fell through.

Breakup of Yugoslavia animation

In one of the most poignant scenes in the book is also its title, Zora and her neighbors are outside when it seems to be raining black puffs of paper.  In reality it is paper from books that have been destroyed from the National Library by the shelling.  They refer to the paper flying around as “Black Butterflies.”  For Zora, her national heritage has been destroyed.  She states, “Zora Kocovic, the painter, is dead.” Her survival rests on her relationship with her neighbor Mirsad, who owns a bookstore and his son Shamir, who has joined the anti-nationalist forces.  Their camaraderie, along with other neighbors, becomes the core of each other’s existence.  The people become their own family, and their relationships carry them through the harshest aspects of the shelling.  They create a sumptuous meal for all in Zora’s flat, they work to find a phone that works so Zora can speak with her daughter in London, Zora cooks pigeons, spending money needed for art supplies to buy garlic so she can cook for all, among other examples.  Even when Zora falls in love with Mirsad, which occurs after many seasons of mutual suffering, it is a love doomed to fail as the conflict rages on, as it is born out of proximity and trauma and the constant fear of loss, rather than a betrayal of her husband in England.

Morris takes a narrow approach in developing her story and toward the expanding fighting.  Her focus on Zora and her compatriots allows her to keep the burgeoning war in the background as she focuses on the daily travails of her characters.  According to Malavika Praseed in her August 28, 2024, book review entitled, “Rebirth Amongst Despair in “Black Butterflies” in the Chicago Review of Books; “While it is easy for a book of this nature to end either in soul-crushing despair or unrealistic optimism, Morris is savvy in her story craft and chooses neither. This is true to Zora’s character arc compared to her life arc; while the former ends, the latter must continue in new circumstances and with new knowledge of the suffering that came before. It is also true to the Bosnian genocide as a whole, which only just begins in Sarajevo and escalates to a multi-year conflict with an Islamophobic focus. Nevertheless, Black Butterflies is both a historical portrait as well as a character one, with emphasis on the latter. Morris understands her intent, to tell a single story touched by many other characters, but still unmistakably Zora’s, instead of widening her scope and losing tender moments and pinpoint detail in the process.” 

Further, Bea Seaton wrote in the New York Times on September 3, 2024 ,a view I agree with wholeheartedly; “This is a dark novel that wrests beauty and hope out of suffering.  It is a work of literature that transforms horror and violence into a life force.”

A boy playing on a tank in the Sarajevo neighbourhood of Grbavica, April 1996.

(A boy playing on a tank in the Sarajevo neighbourhood of Grbavica, April 1996)

SYMPHONY FOR THE CITY OF THE DEAD: DIMITRI SHOSTAKOVITCH AND THE SIEGE OF LENINGRAD by M. T. Anderson

szfreiberger Biography, Russian History Leave a comment
  • HISTORIX Vintage 1942 Dmitri Shostakovich Photo Print - Vintage Photo of Noted Russian Composer Dmitri Shostakovich Poster Wall Art Print (11x14 Inch)
  • (Dimitri Shostakovitch)

There are many historical works that describe the Nazi siege of Leningrad during World War II.  The monographs that stand out are Anna Reid’s LENINGRAD: TRAGEDY OF A CITY UNDER SIEGE, 1941-1944; Harrison Salisbury’s THE 900 DAYS: THE SIEGE OF LENINGRAD; and David M. Lantz’s BATTLE FOR LENINGRAD: 1941-1944.  All reflect the military strategy pursued by the Germans and the utter devastation they employed.  Further, they are well researched  and reflect each author’s mastery of the material.  Another piece that describes the horrors of the siege, but in a different manner is M. T. Anderson’s SYMPHONY FOR THE CITY OF THE DEAD: DIMITRI SHOSTAKOVICH AND THE SIEGE OF LENINGRAD.  The book is the story of the siege, mostly through the eyes of Russian musician and composer, Dimitri Shostakovich, and its impact on his beloved city of Leningrad. 

The narrative is different from other works that explore the siege and is a story according to the author “about the power of music and its meanings – a story of secret messages and double speak, and how music itself is a code; how music coaxes people to endure unthinkable tragedy; how is allows us to whisper between the prison bars when we cannot speak aloud; how it can still comfort the suffering, saying whatever has befallen you – you are not alone.”

No photo description available.

(Dmitri Shostakovich and second wife Margarita Kainova in the Bois de Boulogne in Paris. May 1958)

Anderson educates the reader as to Shostakovich’s early years and career, reviewing his symphonies and other artistic works.  He also provides the reader with the historical background that impacts Shostakovich.  Beginning with World War I, the Russian Revolution, the role of Vladimir Lenin, the rise of Stalin and the implementation of the Five year plans, the resulting collectivization of the peasantry, and the purges and “show trials” that were employed to foster blame for the death of millions of peasants.  Anderson is able to integrate Shostakovich’s artistic development during the period and his relationships with other intellectuals, artists, i.e., Vsevolod Meyerhold, Vladimir Mayakovsky who would commit suicide because of Stalin’s repressive regime, Boris Pasternak, and the poet Osip Mandelstam who died in a transit camp near Vladivostok.

Interestingly, the horrors that Stalin inflicted on the Russian people in the 1930s did not immediately affect Shostakovich.  However, as the decade progressed and intellectuals, artists and poets were sent into internal exile or murdered he realized he would have to deal with the authorities.  For Stalin, literature and the arts were the gear and screw of his propaganda machine.  Anderson carefully lays out the impact of the new Soviet system on the arts and literature.  He describes in detail how writers, musicians, poets, etc. were manipulated by the regime to propagandize the masses, i.e., using symphonies to depict the joys of collective farming!

Shostakovich’s problems began when Stalin attended Lady Macbeth at the Bolshoi for which he had written the score.  Stalin was not pleased and complained “that’s a mess, not music.”  Shostakovich became a target in Stalin’s war against culture.  He was accused of “formalist” crimes which no one really understood as Stalin pushed “Socialist Realism.”  Shostakovich was attacked for “being too simple, being too complex, being too light and trivial, being too gloomy and despairing, being too emotional, being too unemotional, including popular dance tunes, neglecting music of the people, tossing out the old ways of the great composers, and following the old ways of the great composers from the pre-Revolutionary past.”  The government refused to allow Shostakovich to play his Fourth Symphony in public (it would remain banned for twenty-five years).

No photo description available.

(Dmitri Shostakovich with his first wife Nina Varzar, Ivan Sollertinsky (far left), Alexander Gauk, and unidentified. Photograph from the 1930)

The effect of the Great Terror (see Robert Conquest’s book of the same title for a comprehensive look at Stalin’s murderous repression of the 1930s) on Shostakovich’s relatives and friends was immense as some were arrested, some went into internal exile, some were tortured, some were murdered.  Shostakovich was listed by the NKVD as a “saboteur.”  When Shostakovich’s Fifth Symphony was completed, two members of the Committee for Artistic Affairs stated the “Symphony’s success has been most scandalously fabricated.”  As Shostakovich watched everyone disappear he assumed he would be next.  The Great Terror was a period of insanity as Stalin even purged the military including Marshal Tukachevsky, the Soviet Union’s most talented general who was murdered.  Roughly 60-70% of the Soviet officer corps were eliminated; 27,000 officers were killed or lived in exile in the east. This would come home to roost as the Nazis invaded Russia in 1941 and the Russians offered little resistance at the start.

In the end the Great Terror resulted in eight million arrests; one million shot; and seven million sent to prison camps.  As Anderson chronicles the horrors – two million died in camps between 1937-8.  The question is how did Shostakovich avoid arrest.  First, he was an international celebrity.  Second, even though the NKVD paid a great deal of attention to him, gathering a case for prosecution, once the war drew closer it diverted their attention away from him.

Horses Pull Supplies To Leningrad

(TASS/Getty ImagesHorses transport supplies to Leningrad over the frozen Ladoga Lake, dubbed the “Street of Life.”)

In part one of the narrative Anderson prepares the reader for the coming of the Second World War.  Shostakovich’s life is studied and analyzed in detail.  After recounting the impact of Stalin’s terror, in Part II, the author turns his attention to Russia in June 1941 as Germany invades and ultimately Shostakovich’s beloved Leningrad is placed under siege.  Anderson lays out Nazi policy toward Russia and Hitler’s desire for lebensraum or living space in the east.  Stalin had read MEIN KAMPF, and like Winston Churchill believed that a German invasion was inevitable.  Anderson explores Stalin’s coping strategy which culminated in the Nazi-Soviet Pact of August 1939, which failed to stop a Nazi invasion, but in Stalin’s eyes it allowed Russia over a year to prepare.  Interestingly, at the same time Stalin could not believe that Hitler would go back on his word as they split Poland in two.  The first days of the Nazi invasion were a massacre, and Stalin would disappear for ten days as he could not believe the Russian people would support a murderer, but in reality what they opposed even more was a German murderer.  During this time Shostakovich composed music for the soldiers, dug ditches, and became a rooftop fire fighter.  Shostakovich and the Russian people believed that “the Nazi barbarians seek to destroy the whole of Slavonic culture.”  Shostakovich’s music was designed to remind Russians of the power and legitimacy of their own culture, so slandered by the invading German horde.

Anderson does a wonderful job mining period photographs of the war and the siege of Leningrad depicting the horrors that the Russian people were subjected to over a three year period.  Famine, cannibalism, eating corpses, and other demeaning behaviors dominated the people of Leningrad as they tried to survive.  Anderson’s chapter “The City of the Dead” explores the dreadful experiences of the Russian people in detail, to the point he explains the differences between cannibalism and eating dead corpses.  The city’s population remained about 2.5 million, after 636,000 evacuated.  The losses from starvation in part can be blamed on the incompetence of Russian leadership.  For example, Andrei Zhdanov and Kliment Voroshilov, the Leningrad city bosses stored all of the city’s emergency food supply in one place, a group of thirty-eight year old wooden warehouses which made it easy for the Germans to destroy massively contributing to the city’s famine.  The Nazi nutritionists figured out how much food intake the Russian people would need to survive.  Once they decided that there was not enough food supply to feed the city’s residents they stopped bombing the city, implemented a siege, all to save German soldiers, and eradicate the subhuman Slavs.  This would drive the Russian people to make many moral decisions dealing with who should live and who should die.

Citizens Dig Through Rubble And Snow Leningrad

(Sovfoto/UIG/Getty ImagesResidents clearing snow and ice. The city declared a clean-up operation to prevent the spread of disease from scattered feces and unburied corpses)

Anderson follows Shostakovich’s personal journey as he fled Leningrad and settled in Kuibyshev, a Moscow suburb.  He decided on his latest symphony; the 7th would be a testimonial to Leningrad’s struggle.  He would broadcast for the Radio Committee and worked to raise morale, a key component in any war.   This coincided with the turning point in the war as Nazi troops were finally stopped twenty miles south of Moscow, and the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor bringing the United States into the war which provided massive amounts of equipment, planes, and weaponry.  At the same time, December 1941, Shostakovich completed his 7th Symphony.  As the symphony was analyzed, was it anti-Stalin, was it anti-Hitler, was it anti Stalin and Hitler or something else.  From Shostakovich’s perspective it “was an abstract depiction of the bondage of the spirit; all those petty, ugly things that grow disastrously within us and lead us all in a dance of destruction.”  The symphony was dedicated to the people of Leningrad.  The playing of the composition had to be put off for months as it required a large orchestra, however, half the number of musicians needed were dead.  Anderson’s portrayal of how the orchestra was pieced together and the impact of the concert which took place August 9, 1942, is extremely moving and important, as it showed the Russian people how committed they were to their country as they finally experienced normality for a brief period of time.

Stalin’s regime decided to use the 7th Symphony as a vehicle to cement the United States as a Russian ally and convince the American people to support the Soviet Union.  At the outset of the book Anderson describes how a microfilm of the symphony was transported from Russia to the United States “across steppe, sand, sea, and jungle” in the midst of the war. Once it arrived it was performed in New York and Leningrad to try and shift the negative mood of the Russian people and even went as far as placing Shostakovich on the cover of Time magazine. 

Symphony Show In Leningrad

(A soldier buys a ticket for the first concert of Shostakovitch’s 7th Symphony)

If there is one area that the author could have improved upon it is his sourcing.  To his credit the photos are remarkable, as are the excerpts from survivor’s diaries, and literary figures depicting the plight of the city.  However, too many citations are from secondary sources which Anderson summarizes.  But, there is enough primary material available so as to not rely so much on secondary works.

Anderson’s historical portrayal contains all the World War II intrigue of an Alan Furst novel.  It tells of the horror of living during a three year siege and describes the physical oppression and daunting foes within and outside Leningrad.  This is also a story of survival against impossible odds.  Throughout, the author weaves the thread of Shostakovich’s music and the role it played in this appalling drama.  Anderson’s writing flows beautifully despite his topic and is a useful tool to explore its subject matter without getting bogged down in minute detail.

Black and white photograph of composer Dmitri Shostakovich

(Dimitri Shostakovitch)

AN UNFINISHED HISTORY: A PERSONAL HISTORY OF THE 1960S by Doris Kearns Goodwin

szfreiberger American cultural history, American Political History, American Social History, Biography Leave a comment
Image: Richard Goodwin and Doris Kearns Goodwin

(Author Doris Kearns Goodwin with her husband, Richard Goodwin, at commencement ceremonies at UMass-Lowell on May 29, 2010)

For over ten years I had the pleasure of living and teaching in Concord, MA, a town with a deep history and a number of famous residents.  One of those residents was Doris Kearns Goodwin who could be seen often on Sunday mornings at the Colonial Inn having breakfast.  It was my pleasure as Chair of the History Department at Middlesex School to welcome her as a speaker at our school and expose our students to a gifted historian with a deep understanding of the American condition past and present.  Her biographies of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, the Roosevelts, and the Fitzgeralds and Kennedys stand out for their deep research, insightful analysis, and a writing style that draws the reader to her subject.  Other books reflected on her experience as a White House fellow in the Johnson administration, an analysis of the leadership of the subjects of her biographies, and even a personal memoir growing up in Brooklyn and sharing a love for the Dodgers with her father.  Her latest work, AN UNFINISHED HISTORY: A PERSONAL HISTORY OF THE 1960S can be classified as a biography, a memoir, as well as an important work of history assessing and reassessing the impactful events of the 1960s. 

The story centers on her relationship of forty-six years with her husband Richard Goodwin, a significant historian and public figure in his own right. Theirs was a loving relationship between two individuals who loved their country and did their best to contribute to its success.  Richard Goodwin, an adviser to presidents, “was more interested in shaping history,” Doris says, “and I in figuring out how history was shaped.” Their bond is at the heart of her latest work providing an intimate look at their relationship, family, and many of the important historical figures that they came in contact with.  The book focuses on trying to understand the achievement and failures of the leaders they served and observed, in addition to their personal debates over the progress and unfinished promises of the country they served and loved.

Image: Richard Goodwin and Lyndon B. Johnson

(President Lyndon B. Johnson prepares for his State of the Union address with, from left, Richard Goodwin, Jack Valenti and Joseph A. Califano, Jr. at the White House in Washington on Jan. 12, 1966)

Goodwin’s recounting of her life with her husband encompassing Dick’s career before their marriage, and then after they tied the knot.  In a sense it is a love story that lasted over four decades, and it also embraces the many significant roles played by Dick and his spouse.  The events of the 1960s are revisited in detail.  The major domestic accomplishments and foreign policy decisions are examined in detail from the perspective of the participants in which they were familiar with and had personal relationships.  Doris conducts intensive research and analysis and integrates her husband’s actions and thoughts throughout.  In addition, she is a wonderful storyteller relating her own experiences and that of her spouse.

Doris begins her memoir recounting her search for the young “Dick” and searching his early diary entries and letters from the 1950s onward.  She describes a young man in love with America, a theme that is carried throughout the book.  Dick believed in Lincoln’s credo – “the right of anyone to rise to the level of his industry and talents – would inform every speech he drafted, every article he wrote, and every cause he pursued.”   The power couple relied extensively on Dick’s personal archive which he assiduously maintained throughout his career and retirement years for many of the stories and commentary that Doris relates.  This personal archive was in storage for years and emerged during their senior years, i.e.; they had 30 boxes alone on John F. Kennedy’s presidential campaign.

Kennedys RFK canonical.jpg

(Bobby Kennedy)

A major theme of the memoir was “the tremor” that existed in their marriage as Dick was loyal to Kennedy, and Doris to Lyndon B. Johnson.  Doris provides intimate details of their marriage and overall relationship relating to personal struggles, politics, and portrayals of prominent figures, i.e.; date night, watching the 1960 presidential debates years later, the origin of JFK’s inaugural address Dicks role in the Peace Corps, Latin American policy, including the Alliance for Progress. etc.  Dick developed a special relationship with JFK which was shattered upon his assassination.  Interestingly, Doris spends a great deal of time discussing Dick’s transition from an early member of the New Frontier who worked on Civil Rights among his many portfolios to taking his talents as a speech writer in support of Lyndon Johnson.

One of the most enjoyable aspects of the book is how Doris recounts meaningful events decades later.  A Cuban Missile Conference in which Fidel Castro and Robert McNamara and co. attending while they were all in their eighties was eye opening, as was Dick’s meeting with Che Guevara which had implications for Dick’s career.  Throughout Doris’ wit and humor are on display as she writes “here I am in my eighties and my thirties at the same time.  I’m burning my life candle at both ends” as she explored the many boxes Dick kept for decades.


(Doris Kearns Goodwin with LBJ/Richard Goodwin with JFK)

The book’s depth is enhanced by the many relationships the couple developed over the years.  The ones that stand out obviously are the two presidents they served, but also Jackie Kennedy, Sarge Shriver, Bill Moyers, Robert F. Kennedy, and numerous others.  For Doris it was a magical marriage full of fun, love, and serious debates; she writes, “….my debate with Dick was not a question of logic or historical citation.  It was about the respective investments in our youth, questions of loyalty and love.”

Dick’s reputation was formed by his almost innate ability as a wordsmith that produced so many important speeches.  From JFK’s Alliance for Progress speech to formulating the term “Great Society,” to authoring the “We Shall Overcome,” Voting Rights, and RFK’s “South Africa’s Day of Affirmation” speeches which all impacted history based on who was speaking Dick’s phraseology and thoughts.  After writing for JFK and LBJ, Dick turned to writing and supporting Robert Kennedy, a move that would sever his relationship with LBJ.

(Doris Kearns marries Richard N. Goodwin on Dec. 14, 1975. About 170 people attended their Lincoln, MA, wedding, during which this photo was taken, including Boston Mayor Kevin H. White, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Norman Mailer, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., and Hunter Thompson. Photo credit: Photo by Marc Peloquin. Courtesy of Doris Kearns Goodwin Papers)

Doris Kearns and President Lyndon B. Johnson, White House Cabinet Room, Oct. 29, 1968. Kearns was Secretary of the White House Fellows Association, and the event marked the presentation of the White House Fellows Report on Youth Participation. Doris Kearns Goodwin Papers, courtesy of the Briscoe Center for American History.
(Doris Kearns and President Lyndon B. Johnson, White House Cabinet Room, Oct. 29, 1968. Kearns was Secretary of the White House Fellows Association, and the event marked the presentation of the White House Fellows Report on Youth Participation. Doris Kearns Goodwin Papers, courtesy of the Briscoe Center for American History)

L-R: Ricahrd Goodwin, Bill Moyers, President Lyndon B. Johnson. Photo by Yoichi Okamoto, courtesy of the LBJ Presidential Library.

Perhaps the finest chapter in the book in terms of incisive analysis is “Thirteen LBJ’s” where Doris drills down to produce part historical analysis and personality study.  LBJ was very moody and insecure, and he often burst out his emotions.  Johnson was very sensitive about the press as he saw himself as a master manipulator and he always suspected leaks which he despised.  He went as far as planting “spies” among others he feared like Robert Kennedy.  Johnson’s approach to people was called “the Johnson treatment,” which is on display during his meeting with Governor George Wallace of Alabama and Senator Everett Dirkson during the Civil Rights struggles.  Johnson could be overbearing, but in his mind what he was trying to achieve on the domestic front was most important. 

Political expediency was an approach that Johnson and Robert Kennedy would employ during the 1964 presidential campaign when LBJ ran for reelection and Kennedy for the Senate from New York.  Though they despised each other, Kennedy needed LBJ’s political machine and popularity to win, and Johnson needed to shore up his support in New York since he was a southerner.  For Johnson he would rather have had “Bobby” lose, but he wanted his vote in the Senate.  The LBJ-RFK dynamic dominated Johnson’s political antenna.  Johnson was paranoid of Kennedy and feared he would run to unseat him in 1968.  When the Vietnam war splintered America and Robert Kennedy turned against the war it substantiated Johnson’s fears.  Further, when Dick, then out of government came out against the war, later joining Kennedy’s crusade, Johnson once again was livid.  From Dick’s perspective he acted in what he saw as the best interests of America.

Doris nicely integrates many of the primary documents from Dick’s treasure trove of boxes.  Excerpts from many of Dicks speeches, his political and private opinions, transcripts from important meetings inside and outside the White House are all integrated in the memoir.  As time went on Dick turned to Eugene McCarthy and helped him force Johnson to withdraw his candidacy in 1968 after the New Hampshire primary.  Dick would join Kennedy once he declared for president.  The campaign was short lived as RFK was assassinated by Sirhan Sirhan in Los Angeles after winning the California primary.  Dick was devastated by Kennedy’s death and would eventually attend the 1968 Democratic Convention where he worked with McCarthy delegates to include a peace plank into the Democratic Party platform.  Doris was also in Chicago and witnessed the carnage fostered by Mayor Daley and the Chicago police

(Mr. Goodwin with Jacqueline Kennedy and her lawyer, Simon H. Rifkind, rear, in Manhattan in 1966. Mr. Goodwin was for years identified with the Kennedy clan)

One of the criticisms of Doris’ memoir is her lack of attention to the political right and her obsession with the middle to political left.  That being said it is important to remember that this is not a history of the 1960s but a personal memoir of two people who fell in love, married in 1975, and the narrative correctly revolves around their firsthand experiences and beliefs.  Doris would go on to work for Johnson after he left the White House, splitting her time between teaching at Harvard and flying to Texas , to help with his memoirs.  Doris rekindles the spark of idealism that launched the 1960s which is missing today.  She introduces readers to the Kennedy-Johnson successes in racial justice, public education, and aid for the poor, all important movements.  In addition, she delves into the debate about the conduct of the war in Vietnam, including the anti-war movement, and the toppling of a president.  Doris Kearns Goodwin has done a useful service by recasting the 1960s in her vision.  It is an excellent place to start a study of the period, and its impact on what appears to be a wonderful marriage.

Doris Kearns Goodwin And Richard Goodwin

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

szfreiberger African History, American Diplomatic History Leave a comment
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 19th 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 30th.  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

(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 Photo

(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.

: Portrait of Moise Tshombe

(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.”

Photograph of Patrice Lumumba in 1960

(Patrice Lumumba)

THE PATRIOT: A MEMOIR by Alexei Navalny

szfreiberger 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

szfreiberger 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 12th 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 18th 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.

  • NH – EXETER – WATER STREET BOOKSTORE – DOUBLE AWNING ENTRANCE - OPEN
  • (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 19th 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 4th avenue Book Row location to 12th 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 19th 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

szfreiberger Historical Fiction Leave a comment
Uganda Kenya Border Map Image courtesy of Britannica Inc

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.

No photo description available.

(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 Opoka

(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

szfreiberger 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.

William Seward

(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.

George McClellan, Portrait, Brady

(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.

Engraved portrait of John C. Frémont

(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.”

Robert E. Lee in a Confederate uniform.

(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.

[BLANK]

(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

szfreiberger 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)