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

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

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

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

(Anthony Eden, British Foreign Secretary) in 1942

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CRIMEAN QUAGMIRE: TOLSTOY, RUSSELL, AND THE BIRTH OF MODERN WARFARE by Gregory Carleton

March 12, 2025szfreiberger British History, Russian History Leave a comment

(An illustration of the charge of the Light Brigade at Balaclava during the Crimean War. (Photo by Time Life Pictures/Mansell/The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty Images)

In his consummate diplomatic history, THE STRUGGLE FOR MASTERY OF EUROPE 1848-1918, A.J.P. Taylor describes the Crimean War as a largely pointless conflict driven by miscalculation and misplaced ego on the part of the leaders of Britain, France and Russia. As many historians have described the war originated because of a series of careless decisions on the part of all involved in events leading up to the conflict which ended the post-Napoleonic War period. According to Taylor the war was fought for imprudent reasons as its outbreak was due supposedly because of England and France’s desire to protect Christian interests in the Ottoman Empire, but that was a smokescreen for the European powers to weaken the Turkish domain and assert their dominance.

Taylor stresses the role of domestic political pressure and the need to maintain national prestige pushing the powers toward war making it difficult to pull back and secure the peace. An accurate phrase that encapsulates the outbreak of war can be summed as “a war that didn’t boil” which reflects how a minor incident escalated into a major confrontation because of the inability of politicians to deescalate. The Treaty of Paris (1856) ended the fighting, and its results were rather inconsequential as it was designed to guarantee the integrity of the Ottoman Empire and neutralize the Black Sea. However, decisions which originated at Paris in the years following the war would in the end prove to be very consequential.

(William Howard Russell, ca. 1854)

In his new book, CRIMEAN QUAGMIRE: TOLSTOY, RUSSELL, AND THE BIRTH OF MODERN WARFARE Russian specialist Gregory Carelton argues that the Crimean War transformed how we understand war, eradicating 19^th century Romanticism which followed the Napoleonic War. Focusing on two young writers; Russian officer Lev Tolstoy, and The Times journalist William Howard Russell, Carelton relates how these men exposed government misinformation and coverups as their countries engaged in what military historians describe as the first modern war. Both men would pay dearly for exposing the actions of their governments, but their legacy certainly outlived them.

Carelton correctly argues that the war developed major aspects of modern warfare introducing a number of technological achievements. First, the destructive power of the rifle; others include long-range artillery, the railroads and telegraphs, photography, improved medical treatment, iron-clad steam powered ships, explosive shells, and land mines, all contributing to the carnage of warfare.

Carleton’s thesis continues as he argues that what also made the war significant were the ways in which we understand war and how we inform the public as for the first time the domestic audience learned of the true horrors of war that took place on the battlefield. The Crimean War was the first whereby public opinion helped push combatants to the negotiating table.

In Carleton’s narrative it was Tolstoy and Russell who deserve the credit for introducing the public to the images of war it had rarely, if ever, had witnessed before as they offered graphic scenes from the conflict. What enhanced their dispatches was the rise in literacy rates, particularly among soldiers in the British army who could then inform their families and the public in general with their experiences through letters, diaries, and memoirs. For the first time in history warfare technology allowed the public immediate insights as to what was occurring on the battlefield.

(Leo Tolstoy)

As to the direct causes of the war that threatened the post-Napoleonic settlement balance of power, Russia was deemed most culpable. The Tsarist autocracy would soon replace Napoleonic France as the main threat to British influence and power as it continued to expand across the Caucasus and Central Asia along with its domination of Eastern Europe. Few diplomats, politicians or generals trusted Russia which did accept any threat to the European order and was always willing to dispatch troops to put down any revolutionary threat as occurred in Hungary during the Revolutions of 1848. This fact was highlighted by the century-long conflict with the Ottoman Empire throughout Southeast Europe, across the Black Sea and the Caucasus. Another useful argument is represented by the Crystal Palace and Great Exhibition of 1851 in England which focused the world on the technological and intellectual achievements and potential of the British Empire as compared to the backwardness of Russia who saw innovation and change as a threat to its rule and power. For an in depth analysis encompassing the immediate causes, the outbreak, and the course of the war consult Orlando Figes’ excellent study THE CRIMEAN WAR: A HISTORY, Trevor Royle’s CRIMEA: THE GREAT CRIMEAN WAR 1854-1856, and Robert Edgerton’s DEATH OF GLORY: THE LEGACY OF THE CRIMEAN WAR.

To quote Richard Haas whose excellent book, WAR OF NECESSITY, WAR OF CHOICE his views on the war in Iraq are very pertinent as the Crimean War was a war of choice initiated by empires infatuated with their own exceptionalism which were guilty of causing a stalemate on the battlefield, produced contradictory arguments and lies to justify their actions leaving both sides embittered with intense domestic blowback, all of which produced a quagmire as, it did in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and currently in Ukraine. Carelton argues that the effect of quagmires lasts long past the conclusion of the fighting. The results can break nations, bring down governments or lead to different types of revolution.

A key chapter in Carleton’s monograph is a comparison of the impact of Tolstoy’s and Russell’s socialization. Tolstoy on the one hand developed intellectually in a backward autocratic state with an 80% peasant population which was mostly illiterate. Russell, on the other hand, was impacted by a country that praised democratic principles, conducted elections, and had a mostly literate population. The impact of these writers was also different as Russell focused more on the tragedy as governments tried to cover up and deny the brutality of their war and the incompetence of the leaders who directed it. Tolstoy as a junior artillery officer focused on his direct experiences commenting on trench warfare, the siege of Sevastopol, and other examples of devastation in his short stories and later novels, WAR AND PEACE and ANNA KARENINA. As Carleton repeatedly points out, both men “laid the groundwork for veterans of World War I and later conflicts to try and understand and cope with their own experiences.”

The war itself would result in changing the governments of England and Russia. Russell wrote that Prime Minister Lord Aberdeen’s government was an aristocratic den, “aloof, out of touch, inept, and so it seemed uncaring.” He further pointed out that “the finest army that ever left these shores will soon cease to exist.” By the end of January 1855, Aberdeen’s government fell and was replaced by the former Home Secretary, Lord Palmerston. In Russia, Nicholas passed away and was replaced by Alexander II as Tsar who immediately wrote that the war was “a bottomless pit.”

(Cossack Bay, Balaklava)

Carleton does an excellent job integrating Russell and Tolstoy’s dispatches and stories describing the course of the war and the carnage they witnessed. The fact that both men were embedded with their armies gives further credence to support their views and how the public interpreted their ideas. Excerpts of their descriptions of the siege of Sevastopol provide the reader with many insights as to how the war was fought, the incompetence of the bureaucracies that hindered supplies, the brutal weather that soldiers endured, the lack of infrastructure limiting efforts to provide soldiers with what they needed, and the impact of the social class system that affected both armies. The end result was that the siege would soon devolve into a Somme-like catastrophe, albeit on a smaller scale.

Carleton’s use of letters, diaries, and memoirs by combatants in addition to the writing of Russell and Tolstoy add a high degree of authenticity in understanding the horrible conditions in which the war was fought and the incompetent leadership at home and on the battlefield. Carleton has produced a concisely written and tight monograph that provides numerous insights concerning the war, how it was fought, the results, and the implications for future wars. The author argues further that the war changed war writing forever and by breaking down different examples of Russell and Tolstoy’s works, i.e., “Sevastopol in September,” and “Sevastopol in May” Tolstoy has crossed the threshold, leaving behind Homeric expectations of glory with the truth about how a peasant army was being slaughtered. In Russell’s case his commentary on “the Charge of the Light Brigade” pulls no punches as it was not only a defeat, and its results had no consequences for the war. For Russell, the age of cavalry had passed as he described the siege as a “quagmire-like stalemate.”

The author spends an entire chapter tracing the myths associated with the “Charge of the Light Brigade” which would be immortalized by Alfred Lord Tennyson. The poet’s interest was piqued by Russell’s dispatches resulting in a remarkable poem in which Carleton beaks down stanza by stanza.

(British mortar batteries)

The writing of our subjects reflects the evolution of the transition from the Age of Romanticism to the Age of Realism leading to a revolution in war writing. Carleton makes the important point that Russell’s writing angered a public that grew tired of government obfuscation, and it became the major source of information for people to follow the war and understand it. Russell’s writings created a furor in government circles, and they put pressure on The Times’ editor, John Delane who refused to back down and would allow commentary such as the governments “incompetency, lethargy, aristocratic hauteur, official indifference, favor, routine, perverseness, and stupidity reign….the noblest army ever sent out from these shores has been sacrificed to the grossest mismanagement.” Russell went on to describe the soldiers as “victims” and for the first time newspapers began to publish lists of soldiers who had died. For Tolstoy, his wartime experiences convinced him to resign his military commission and pursue a writing career.

Carleton is clear as he reiterates how Russell and Tolstoy remapped how death should be understood on the battlefield and off, perhaps their most important contribution to understanding modern warfare. For both it came down to three principles: who died, how they died, and more importantly, why they died. In all areas they broke all previous conventions in their writing be it anyone could be a victim of war with no relation to rank, societal status or nationality. Further, they explored the true conditions on the battlefield. Lastly, they argued that Crimea does not fit the longtime view accepted of why wars are fought. The Crimean War, in short, had no precedent in the European mindset as it was the first to be recognized as a quagmire – literally where opposing armies struggled to take a few yards in deepening mud, trenches, disease, and resulting despair as an estimated 700,000 perished, three-quarters of which were Russian. The concept of a quagmire developed in the Crimea can easily be applied to today’s fighting in Ukraine.

(Camp of the 4th Dragoons, English and French)

The author’s short volume is loaded with examples to support each of his points and is an exceptional synthesis of the available material, primary and secondary. It looks at the war from a different perspective as Carleton argues it established truth as the aim of war reporting and understanding the power of words/lies to create war, death, and destruction. It helped establish a script with which to understand “quagmire conflict.”

As to the lessons learned from the war Donald Rayfield’s review published in History Today Volume 74 Issue 10 October 2024 is spot on as he writes: “The heritage of the Crimean War is mixed. Both sides realized that doctors and nurses, not generals and sergeants, were needed. In Britain and Russia, there was energetic medical progress: chloroform was now offered not only to officers and gentlemen. Sanitation, nutrition and nursing were given the same priorities as shells and fortifications. In Russia a military-medical academy started training thousands of doctors, including women, so that in the next Balkan war, 20 years later, Russia could boast of having women doctors serving at the front.

uses cookies. By continuing, you agree to accept cookies in accordance with our Cookie policy. Continue

(Alfred Lord Tennyson, poet)

Military lessons were learnt, too: Alexander II’s generals turned to the conquest of Central Asia and the Far East. As the world gradually conceded the Russians the freedom of the Black Sea, Alexander, the so-called liberator, began a genocidal deportation of hundreds of thousands of indigenous Caucasians and Crimean Tatars to Anatolia. The Crimean War, however, did initiate Russia’s most progressive era: serfs were freed, the arts flourished, a national health service was created. In Britain complacent aristocrats such as Lord Aberdeen yielded to energetic radicals such as Disraeli and Gladstone. Russians and Britons, but, alas, not the Ottomans, emerged wiser from their quagmire.”

According to Carleton the lessons to be learned are clear. “Quagmires become veritable graveyards of exceptionalism.” Need proof, look at the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the American war in Vietnam. Each resulted in the collapse of government and major policy implications for the future. As these wars were fought the calling cards of quagmires emerge – atrocities and war crimes. To cover this up the key link of 20^th and 21^st century quagmires is the “foundational lie,” as in any quagmire truth is the first casualty.

(Old engraved illustration of the Siege of Sevastopol during the Crimean War. (Picture by GettyImages)

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

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

(Captain James Cook)

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

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

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

(HMS Resolution)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(James Cook’s three Pacific voyages).

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

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

(Captain James Cook)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE ISLAND OF EXTRAORDINARY CAPTIVES: A PAINTER, A POET, AN HEIRESS, AND A SPY IN A WORLD WAR II BRITISH INTERNMENT CAMP by Simon Parkin

September 25, 2023September 25, 2023szfreiberger British History, World War II Leave a comment

Young Jewish refugees (including Peter Fleischmann, carrying large art folder) arriving in England in December 1938.

(British citizens walking into Camp Hutchinson, Peter Fleischmann is carrying an art folio)

The concept of internment was employed during World War II supposedly as a strategy to protect the national security of the countries that implemented it. The most famous example was the internment of Japanese Americans in the United States resulting in 125,284 individuals of Japanese descent rounded up and dispersed to 75 incarceration sites. A lesser known example was perpetrated by the British government for suspected German agents sent to a number of facilities on the Isle of Man. British policy is the subject of Simon Parkin’s latest book, THE ISLAND OF EXTRAORDINARY CAPTIVES: A PAINTER, A POET, AN HEIRESS, AND A SPY IN A WORLD WAR II BRITISH INTERNMENT CAMP.

Parkin’s main focus is the Hutchinson Camp which became the home of an eclectic and talented group of people. The camp was populated with over 1200 prisoners predominantly refugees from Nazi Germany who had been living in England peacefully at the time of their arrest. Parkin’s begins by exploring English paranoia concerning a “fifth column” as it appeared the Nazis were about to invade. Prime Minister Winston Churchill authorized the arrest of thousands among them were “so-called aliens” resulting in the imprisonment of teenagers who fled Germany on Kindertransport trains among them was Peter Fleischmann one of the main characters of the monograph. In an interesting description, Parkin places Fleischmann at a concert performed at Camp Hutchinson symbolizing how one could be imprisoned by one’s liberator. For Peter it was a reminder of Gestapo roundups in a world he had fled. Other prisoners included Oxbridge dons, surgeons, dentists, lawyers and scores of celebrated artists – a truly talented array of people, one of “history’s unlikeliest and most extraordinary prison populations.”

A group of people designated as ‘enemy aliens’ on their way to an internment camp in Britain in 1940.

(British citizens carrying their possessions entering Camp Hutchinson)

The author launches his subject by describing the story of Herschel Grynszpan’s odyssey leading him to assassinate a German diplomat in Paris as revenge against the Nazis for seizing his parents who wound up in the no man’s land between Germany and Poland. The result was Kristallnacht launched by the Nazis in November 1938 a policy designed to terrorize Jews into leaving Germany. After discussing the impact of the beatings, seizures, and destruction of Jewish property, Parkin relates Peter’s early life after the death of his parents, living with an insensitive uncle, life in a series of orphanages, and finally his arrival in England. His story is one of abandonment and reflects British policy toward German refugees that they accepted and then arrested. British policy was clearly a haphazard one with little thought and planning as they seized thousands of people who in no way were a threat to the “empire.” Rather than carefully constructing tribunals made of knowledgeable people to make decisions they placed people totally unprepared and trained to make those decisions – the result was mass arrest. Churchill was part of the process, and he ordered all enemy aliens between the ages of 16 and 60 seized– leading to the transformation of asylum seekers into enemy suspects.

For Peter his final arrest came on July 5, 1940, and along with thousands of others were subjected to the inhumanity and indignities of how the British processed the men stealing their limited possessions, deprived them of their civil rights, and saw themselves as having survived dangerous escapes from Germany to be imprisoned by their saviors. Hitler laughed at British policy correctly pointing out how the British were copying the Nazis by rounding up so many Jews. Parkin describes a number of British facilities and for many it took months to reach Camp Hutchinson.

An internment camp on the Isle of Man in 1941.

(British internment camp on the Isle of Man)

Parkin correctly points out that internment brought lingering desperation and gloom, but it also brought the creative inspiration as a vehicle for survival as the men put their substantial musical, literary, and artistic talents to use. Parkin describes concerts, classes of all types – academic to vocational, inventions, and other areas of prisoner expertise in great detail, a creative Hutchinson University. What emerges is a communal type of living where talented people mostly share their expertise with each other to make their situation tolerable.

Parkin focusses on a number of important characters throughout the book. Michael Covin, a former British journalist who survived the sinking of the refugee ship SS Arandora Star by a Nazi submarine to become a chronicler of what brought men to the camp and life under incarceration. Klaus Ernst Hinrichsen, an art historian whose writing and commentary serves as an important source for the author. Kurt Schwitters, poet and artist who served as a mentor for Peter. Bertha Bracey, a Quaker who led a refugee organization working to gain asylum for children from Germany and securing the release of those incarcerated. Ludwig Warschauer, the subject of a fascinating chapter as MI5 refused to allow his release as they correctly identified a German spy within their midst. His wife, Echen Kohsen, an heiress who had cared for Peter in Germany will finally leave him when the truth comes out. Parkin discusses many other talented prisoners and the effect prison life had on them emotionally and professionally.

Once the pressure on the Home Office grew and grew the government decided on a convoluted release policy which was almost as incompetent as their initial internment program. Parkin describes hearings and judgements which made no sense, and of course Churchill did little to circumvent it. For many like Peter the government offered release in return for joining the military. Many agreed, and many refused to be blackmailed. As many talented and influential people were released by 1941, Peter and hundreds of others remained interred.

TateImages_MA2610_preview — (Peter Fleischmann)

Parkin includes a final chapter in which he describes what occurred to people after release. Finally, Peter will be accepted to an art school because of recommendations by camp artists and the work of refugee organizations. This had been his life’s wish and finally he acquired people he could rely on and trust.

For the most part, Simon Parkin’s account is a riveting one reflecting a shameful chapter in British history which is also a testament to creativity and hope. At times the author gets bogged down in the details of his subjects and it would have been interesting to compare women’s internment camps, which he mentions in passing in more detail. But overall, a useful account of a forgotten category of a brutal British policy.

THE KING’S PLEASURE: A NOVEL OF HENRY VIII by Alison Weir

August 20, 2023szfreiberger British History, Historical Fiction Leave a comment

Holbein - Henry VIII — (Hans Holbein the Younger, *Portrait of Henry VIII,* 1540, oil on wood, Palazzo Barberini, Rome)

The concept of “popular history” has proven to be a bone of contention between writers who engage in the genre and more academic historians. According to one definition popular history is “dramatic storytelling often prevails over analysis, style over substance, simplicity over complexity, and grand generalization over careful qualification.” In response author Alison Weir argues that history is not only for academic historians who engage in deep research and hope to uncover a new thesis that plays well in the academic community. For Weir the author of seventeen works of historical non-fiction and fourteen works of historical fiction history belongs to all of us and if it is written in an entertaining manner based on extensive research it can be labeled “popular,” if so I am proud to be one of its practitioners!

Weir’s latest work of historical “popular” fiction is THE KING’S PLEASURE: A NOVEL OF HENRY VIII, a novel that purports to tell its reading audience the life of the outsized English monarch from his point of view. After writing the six Tudor Queens series, individual novels which explore the lives of Katherine of Aragon, continuing with Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, Anna of Cleves, Katheryn Howard, and Katherine Parr, Wier decided it would be useful to present Henry’s views to balance those of his detractors. Wier has also written a work of non-fiction about the life of Henry’s mother entitled, THE WHITE ROSE: A NOVEL OF ELIZABETH OF YORK.

Catherine Of Aragon Engraved portrait of Catherine of Aragon (1485-1536), the first queen of Henry VIII of England. She holds a bible in one hand. (Photo by Stock Montage/Getty Images)

(Katherine of Aragon)

Weir’s Henry VIII was a sensitive young man who lost his mother at the age of eleven shortly after his brother Arthur had passed away. The loss of his mother who he truly loved plays an important role in Henry’s view of women throughout his life.

At eleven, Henry had mastered French, Latin, and Italian and loved to engage in physical exercise and excelled at horsemanship, the longbow, fencing, jousting, wrestling, and swordsmanship. As his humanistic education developed he showed great interest in the classics, literature, and poetry and saw himself as a true Renaissance individual. Weir bases her novel on years of researching the history of the Tudors and though she might be considered a “popular historian” her knowledge of her subject and the detail she presents are quite impressive. An early example involves his relationship with his father Henry VII following the death of his brother and the negotiations involved in Henry VIII marrying his widow, Katherine of Aragon. As is her wont, Weir analyzes the political implications of the death of Queen Isabella of Spain, the debate as to whether Henry VIII can marry his brother’s widow, the relationship between father and son, particularly how Henry VIII becomes angrier and angrier at his father’s refusal to allow Henry to marry following the papal dispensation approving the marriage.

(Anne Boleyn)

Henry VIII is seen as loving and very solicitous of Katherine for years until she is unable to meet Henry VIII’s obsession to produce a male heir when he rationalizes casting her aside because of the security needs of his kingdom. As one reads on, the novel transports the reader to 16^th century England with all major events and characters involving Henry wonderfully portrayed. The likes of Cardinal Wolsey, Thomas Cromwell, Sir Thomas More, Francis I, Charles V, King Ferdinand, Emperor Maximillian, Pope Clement VII, and Henry’s wives are all presented in an accurate manner. The diplomacy of the period particularly involving shifting alliances between England, France, the Holy Roman Empire, the German states, and the Papal states are all discussed in terms of the European balance of power and the significance of marriage diplomacy. As one reads on one must keep in mind that Henry’s actions and reputation must be seen in the context of the time period in which he reigned.

The machinations at court are vividly portrayed. The constant attempts at manipulation by many of the characters mentioned previously abound, particularly after Henry has his marriage to Katherine of Aragon annulled and he marries Anne Boleyn. This would eventually lead to a break with Rome, Henry’s excommunication, and the creation of the Church of England, with Henry at its head. With Lutheranism spreading in Germany conservative and reform factions emerge in England and Henry must deal with revolts in addition to worrying about the diplomatic games played by his fellow monarchs.

The author seems to enjoy relating life at court describing the entertainment, jousting, feasts, royal decorations and castles etc. In fact, at times she seems to go overboard which detracts from more substantive events and movements. Apart from the details of Henry’s marriages and their shortcomings in his eyes, she does relate how he stood up to Martin Luther, and writes a book in defense of the church and Pope Leo reflecting the king’s intellect and desire to be seen as a defender of the faith. As Henry ages, Wier presents a man who begins to realize the loss of his virility reflecting an explosive temper when it came to acts he saw as personally disloyal. Much of his later physical deterioration is due to infections in his legs which made it difficult for him to get around. The older he becomes, even after Jane Seymour provides an heir he becomes more and more difficult to be with. From his viewpoint the state of health in his kingdom with sleeping sickness and plague abounding he realizes that he must produce a second heir which drove him to three more marriages, two of which did not end well.

(Jane Seymour)

Weir digs down deeply into important relationships that Henry was involved with, both men and women. His anger at Anne Boleyn and Katheryn Howard are fully explained and from his perspective seem quite reasonable as both women knew how to successfully manipulate him until their pasts emerge humiliating and embarrassing him. One must wonder whether Wier is correct as she plays on Henry’s own guilt when he allows both women to be executed.

In the end I believe that Weir is correct when she writes that she hoped she has provided insights “into the mid of a brilliant, autocratic, vain, intellectual, ruthless, and romantic king who changed the face and institutions of England forever and whose memory is still vividly alive five centuries after he lived.” Whether you accept Weir’s interpretation of Henry’s life, the book is well written, an easy read, and does not get bogged down with fact after fact and dense writing offered by many historical tracts – for this she should be commended.

(Henry VIII)

COLONIALISM: A MORAL RECKONING by Nigel Biggar

May 10, 2023szfreiberger British History Leave a comment

Every so often a historical monograph produces a heated debate that places the author on the defensive for his or her views. In our current world the term “wokeness” has worked its way into discussions of what should be taught and explored about our past. The general view of those who are champions of this line of reasoning is that anything that disturbs our view of the past, places whites in an unfavorable light, and explores issues such as slavery, anti-immigration, possible racism, misogyny, etc. should not be taught in our schools. This has led to book banning, violence when school boards meetings, and politicians who like to raise the woke agenda as a tool to gain or retain political power.

In this environment enters Nigel Biggar’s new book, COLONIALISM: A MORAL RECKONING which supports the idea that the British Empire was not fundamentally racist, unequal or shamelessly violent. Bigger argues the Empire had the capacity to learn from its errors and correct them. Further, as the Empire evolved it became motivated by a sense of Christian altruism intent on preparing those who they colonized to assume self-government as liberal democracies. Progressive historians are appalled by this view of history, and it is hard to classify Biggar’s argument on a wokeness scale. Should his ideas be banished because they support a thesis that most find unacceptable, or should it be taught and discussed because of its support for the positive aspects of empire, which in the case of England outweighed any negative components.

Sadly, in the United States we live in a society that is in the grip of educational experts who support the woke agenda, individuals such as Ron DeSantis, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley and others who appear in the media daily offering their convoluted viewpoints. For them the College Board which oversees AP courses must adapt their curricula, i.e.; AP African Studies to avoid criticizing whites and exploring slavery. Further books that they find offensive must be banned, and if a school board does not conform to their views they are met with threats and at times violence.

(Author, Nigel Biggar)

Whether we are exploring the past by American or British historians on topics that place their perspective pasts in a positive or negative light, academic freedom and intellectual curiosity should be the gold standard of education. In both societies many feel threatened by the study of slavery, genocide against native populations, and prejudice that led to violence against non-white ethnicities. If we accept the premise of the wok curriculum our future will become distorted as we refuse to honestly evaluate our past as a means of avoiding mistakes as we prepare for the future.

Professor Biggar who possesses a Ph. D in Christian Theology from the University of Chicago finds himself in the midst of the wok debate. His new book encompasses the errors and positives as he perceives the impact of the British Empire on history. Whether you agree with his thesis or not, he deserves the right to be published and read by those who wish. Biggar’s call for a moral reappraisal of colonialism has not been met with open arms, but he argues historians have made people feel much too guilty about Britain’s colonial past. He further argues that we must recognize the good and bad related to empire and his book is an attempt to create a moral balance sheet as we study the past.

The book itself had a rocky road to publication as one publisher stalled publication for months then withdrew Biggar’s contract. Finally, when published it has entered the wokeness debate. Biggar asks eight questions which he addresses throughout the monograph:

(1) was the imperial endeavor driven primarily by greed and the lust to dominate;
(2) should we speak of colonialism and slavery in the same breath, as if they were the same thing;
(3) was the British Empire essentially racist;
(4) how far was it based on the conquest of land;
(5) did it involve genocide;
(6) was it driven fundamentally by the motive of economic exploitation;
(7) since colonial government was not democratic, did that make it illegitimate; and
(8) was the empire essentiallyviolent and was its violence pervasively racist and terroristic.

Portrait of Chinese scholar and official Lin Zexu.

(Commissioner Lin Zexu)

As Biggar answers the questions he presents what seem to be reasonable arguments, though some are difficult to absorb. He begins by arguing that we should not judge the past by the present as circumstances from previous centuries often vary from our own therefore it is difficult to morally judge the past. Once Biggar explores the concept of motivations for empire he argues there was no main British motivation for empire. But, he then argues that in many cases it was a protective tool against an enemy. For example, England had no choice but to go after Spanish colonies to protect itself as Philip II sought to destroy Protestantism. If we accept Biggar’s thesis it is clear that all territory England conquered in North America and the Caribbean was due to encroachment by foreign powers like France but in reality the motivation existed apart from protection of its own territory – the motivation was profit and money be it from the fur trade, natural resources, textiles, areas to place recalcitrant citizens etc. Biggar needs to examine the concept of trade in greater detail if we are to accept his argument. One cannot tell me that the East India Company was altruistic and were not motivated by profit. Everything they did be it improving education or health rested on the bottom line profit. One can argue that native people were backward and therefore superior civilizations had the right to rule them. But as Ruth Benedict, the noted anthropologist and mentor to Margaret Meade has argued that “all cultures are equally valid, as long as they meet the needs of the existing culture.” It is clear that certain cultures are backward according to “British” standards, but does that give them the right to oppress in the name of uplifting them for profit?

Biggar does admit that “motives can be corrupted by vices, of course, and we have already seen evidence of greed and impudence. Yet some degree of moral corruption is an invariable feature of human affairs infecting even the noblest of endeavors. Moral malice or weakness is universal, but it need not be central or systematic.” The author cannot have it both ways.

In discussing slavery Biggar argues that the British should be praised for abolishing the slave trade in 1807 and slavery in general in 1834. Hurrah, but what of the 150 years of slavery that existed previously in which they were a practitioner? What of the African slave trade or the fact that slave owners were compensated for lost slaves to the tune of 20 million pounds. Interestingly, in Africa British slave traders played rival chieftains off against each other to further the trade or the fact that freed slaves were given little once they were freed, many of which stayed with masters as a means of survival. British altruism is clear as slaves had to work (or be apprenticed) for 40-45 hours per week over a six year period to be freed! Biggar seems to forget the legacy of slavery, its profitability for a century and a half, and the impact on the lives and families of slaves as they were separated at the slave auction, but as Biggar states “involvement in slavery was nothing out of the ordinary.”

A major accusation against proponents of Empire is that of racism and prejudice. Biggar argues that it was marginal as practiced by the Colonial Office and “the empire’s policies…were driven by the conviction of the basic human equality of members of all races.” There is a myriad of statements by British officials one can refer to like that of Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour that stated that it was unimaginable to equate a man from Central Africa as equal to that of a European or an American.

Biggar also argues that violence was never a major component of the Empire. I would point to the Boer War of 1899-1902 and the use of concentration camps as a tool to defeat their perceived enemy. The Opium Wars cannot be seen as nothing but violence against a government that sought to slow or eradicate the Opium trade. Commissioner Lin’s demands of 1839 may have been off putting for the British ruling class, but it was a plea, perhaps in wording that came off as superior, but it was designed to protect the Chinese people from drugs which the British used to gain a favorable balance of trade. What of the Sepoy Rebellion of 1857, was not that violent. Perhaps the Amritsar Massacre of April 1919 would come under the heading of extreme violence when British General Dyer ordered his troops to open fire on an unarmed crowd of men, women, and children trapped in an abandoned walled garden during a Sikh festival. I would also point to the Mau Mau rebellion of the 1950s against British rule and oppression – the result was war crimes committed by both sides. What about the 1956 Suez War where the British attacked Egypt because Gamal Nasser, a nationalist Arab leader had the temerity to seize the Suez Canal. If one reads the comments of Prime Minister Anthony Eden and Foreign Secretary Selwyn Lloyd at the time they are more than just tinged with racism. Biggar has been praised for setting these examples in their proper historical context, but that does not take away from the British attitude towards those who disagreed with them and their use of violence.

(Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser)

For liberal imperialists, the “backwardness of non-Europeans, justified colonialism.” Liberty and equality were the prerogatives of the privileged societal elites. In addition, Biggar implies that the Empire was acquired by a series of accidents. Once achieved it was designed to civilize the colonies, and train them for self-government. If this is so why was the period of decolonization so bloody? The bottom line is that the study of British colonialism is morally complex, so why is his thesis so simplistic? I agree with Kenan Malik’s view of Biggar’s work which appeared in the February 20, 2023, edition of The Guardian where he argues “Biggar’s real concern is not with the past but with the present. Denigrating colonialism, he claims, is an ‘important way of corroding faith in the west.’ Yet, in seeking to challenge what he regards as cartoonish views of imperial history, Biggar has produced something equally cartoonish, a politicized history that ill-serves his aim of defending ‘western values.’ After all, to rewrite the past to suit the needs of the present, and to defend people’s rights only when politically convenient, is hardly to present those values in a flattering light.”

Just remember the old joke” “Why doesn’t the sun set over the British Empire?” “Because you can’t trust the British at night!”

(The British Empire)

THERE WILL BE FIRE: MARGARET THATCHER, THE IRA, AND TWO MINUTES THAT CHANGED HISTORY by Rory Carroll

May 5, 2023szfreiberger British History, Irish History Leave a comment

Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 1987.

(British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher)

A few weeks ago, former President Bill Clinton visited Northern Ireland in commemoration of the 25^th anniversary of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement that mostly ended the violence of the period known as “The Troubles” that had prevailed since the 1960s. Clinton’s administration helped negotiate a multi-party agreement between most of Northern Ireland’s political parties, and the British-Irish Agreement between the British and Irish governments. To this day the agreements have been held with a minimum of violence, but decades of ill-will between all sides and the January 2020 Brexit Agreement has created a series of obstacles which at times makes the situation tenuous.

For years, the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and its splinter groups resorted to violence to achieve an independent republic free of British rule. One of the most violent attacks occurred on October 12, 1984, with an assassination attempt against Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. The attack perpetrated by the IRA is detailed in a new book by Dublin journalist Rory Carroll, THERE WILL BE FIRE: MARGARET THATCHER, THE IRA, AND TWO MINUTES THAT CHANGED HISTORY. The monograph offers an in depth account of the attempted assassination, as well as the manhunt it precipitated. Carroll’s work also presents insights into how the perpetrators behind the attack were caught.

Thatcher had been staying at the Grand Hotel in the English seaside resort of Brighton for the 1984 Conservative Party Conference when a timer bomb exploded in the early hours of October 12. While Thatcher and her Cabinet ministers escaped with their lives, five people were killed in the blast, and over thirty were injured.

(Patrick Magee)

The IRA claimed responsibility for the bombing the next day, threatening further assassination attempts in their statement: “Mrs. Thatcher will now realize that Britain cannot occupy our country and torture our prisoners and shoot our people in their own streets and get away with it…..Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always. Give Ireland peace and there will be no more war.”

The above quote according to Carroll rattled Thatcher who became convinced she would be successfully targeted in the future. It appears she was deeply troubled despite the aura of the “Iron Lady” that she tried to project.

At times Carroll writes like a novelist creating a political thriller. He takes the reader through each step that leads to the assassination attempt. He describes the important personalities involved, the background history that led up to the attempt to kill Thatcher, the process the IRA and it’s England Department went through in developing their strategy, the actual construction of the bomb, the explosion that destroyed the Grand Hotel, and the investigation that followed. In each instance Carroll writes clearly and is able to draw the reader’s interest as if the story were fiction, but as we know it actually occurred.

Thatcher deplored the Irish Revolution that sought a “free state.” Despite the approach by police against any Irish demonstration, treatment of prisoners, and an overall policy of discrimination, Thatcher focused on her plan to revolutionize the English economy and tried to ignore her Irish problem. Her view was that the IRA, Provos, England Department or anyone who supported the cause were criminals and should be treated as such. They were no longer political prisoners. The labeling of the IRA as “criminal” was hated by its leadership because they needed to be considered as a political problem for its own legitimacy against British colonialism.

(Gerry Adams)

The use of hunger strikes by the IRA became an effective tool to raise awareness of the cause. In October 1981 after a prison hunger strike that resulted in the death of Bobby Sands who was elected to Parliament while imprisoned, reflected public and worldwide support. Ten would starve to death and according to Carroll, Thatcher refused to budge. Three days after the hunger strike ended, the government granted de facto special status to H-Block prisoners, but it was too late as a boiling rage convulsed the republican movement. Marchs turned into riots and it “congealed into a hatred of Thatcher, a visceral, personal hatred no British leader had evoked since Oliver Cromwell centuries earlier.” For Republicans, Thatcher was a murderer and revenge was the operative word.

From this point on Carroll describes how the IRA/England Department went about trying to secure their revenge. In doing so he develops a series of mini biographies of the important characters. Of course, Thatcher is discussed from a number of angles with an analysis that takes the reader inside 10 Downing Street and her thought processes. Peter Gurney, a fifty year old “expo” of the Explosive Section of the Metropolitan Police Anti-Terrorist Branch provides insights as to how “bomb” experts went about tracking down a given bomb and how to defuse and use it in an investigation. David Tadd, the Head of Fingerprinting at Scotland Yard’s Anti-Terrorist Branch plays a key role in identifying the bomber. Joe Cahill, an IRA fundraiser who successfully raised money and equipment among American Irish gangsters like Whitey Bulger and Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi. He excelled at donor relations, fiscal management, and gun running. Patrick Ryan, a former Catholic priest was the linchpin of the IRA’s global supply network who laundered money and smuggled weapons that kept the Provos in business. Gerry Adams, the Sinn Fein leader who tried to develop a political strategy along with the use of violence. A prominent character who Carroll can not reach a conclusion as to his culpability for the assassination attempt. Detective Chief Superintendent Jack Reece, the Head of Sussex Criminal Investigation was in charge of capturing the bomber was out of his league as his experience was crime and domestic issues, not terrorism and bombings. Lastly, Patrick Magee, one of the IRA’s best operatives and the man who put the bomb components together, planted the bomb at the Grand Hotel, and then escaped.

Carroll does yeoman’s work in setting the scene for the assassination attempt, describing in detail Magee’s bomb preparation. Further he explores Thatcher’s obsession with her speech at the Conservative Party Conference at the hotel, and the actions of numerous participants at the conference and what their expectations were.

(Peter Gurney)

Carroll’s reconstruction of the bomb blast and its path through the hotel detailing the impact and damage to people and property is surreal. Carroll goes on to recreate the investigation narrowing down leads and possible evidence which led to Roy Walsh, a.k.a. Patrick Magee employing a registration card and a palm print as the key to identification.

Carroll has written a meticulous account of the Brighton bombing. According to Sean O’Hagan in his The Guardian review the book is a “deftly constructed narrative punctuated by dramatic moments that often seem determined by the fickle hand of fate as much as by rigorous planning, intelligence gathering, and dogged adherence to a cause. Elsewhere, Carroll’s prose possesses the steady, accumulative thrust of a police procedural drama, particularly as the investigation into the bombing gathers pace and the search for the perpetrator intensifies. Magee was caught after a frantic pursuit through Glasgow and served 14 years in prison before being released under the terms of the Good Friday agreement. In an interview in 2002, he said: “I regret that people were killed; I don’t regret the fact that I was involved in a struggle.”

In the end Thatcher escaped death, most probably through fate and a great deal of luck. It is interesting to ponder what might have ensued had the assassination attempt been a success. Perhaps there would be no Brexit and England would not have tilted to the right domestically and economically, but we will never know for sure.

*Sean O’Hagan. “Killing Thatcher by Rory Carroll review – meticulous account of the Brighton Bombing, The Guardian, April 23, 2023.

Margaret Thatcher speaks to the press for the first time after being elected Conservative Party Leader.

(British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s press conference)

THE REVOLUTIONARY: SAMUEL ADAMS by Stacy Schiff

December 9, 2022szfreiberger American Revolution, Biography, British History Leave a comment

(Samuel Adams)

What criteria should be used to determine if a person can be labeled a “founding father?” We all know that John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington and a host of others qualify, however each has their own foibles and when examined they may detract from their reputations. Do other members of the American Revolutionary generation qualify? If so, whom? In Stacy Schiff’s latest work, THE REVOLUTIONARY SAMUEL ADAMS the author makes the case for the cousin of John Adams to join this elite company. Schiff, a Pulitzer Prize winner is also the author of THE WITCHES OF SALEM, 1692, A GREAT IMPROVISATION: FRANKLIN, FRANCE, AND THE BIRTH OF AMERICA, and biographies of Cleopatra, Mrs. Vladimir Nabokov, and Saint-Exupery. Schiff explores the birth of the American Revolution in Boston and the artful and elusive instigator and master of misinformation whose contributions made it all happen – Samuel Adams.

Adam Gopnik in his review of Schiff’s work in The New Yorker, October 31, 2022, characterizes Adams’ role in the revolution as almost invisible, “but his fingerprints are everywhere. He shaped every significant episode in the New England run up to war. Yet how he did it, or with what confederates, or even with what purpose – did he believe in American independence from the start, or was it forced on him by the wave of events, as it was on others? – is muddied by an absence of diaries or letters or even many firsthand accounts.” It is a credit to Schiff that lacking documentary evidence she constructs her book “from a pleasant tapestry of incident and inference. She has a fine eye for the significant detail and knows how to compose that lovely thing the comic-comprehensive catalogue.”

After reading Schiff’s narrative it is clear that Samuel Adams should be labeled the “instigator-in-chief” of the American Revolution. Adams was an opportunist, a purveyor of half-truths, but in the end truly idealistic. Schiff explores Adams’ role in the American political theater of the day as he “employed unreliable rumormongering, slanted news writing, misleading symbolism, even viral meme-sharing” – all of which was evident from the outset of his revolutionary role. He inaugurated the American tradition of show-business politics but was also a realist realizing that his goals could not be achieved without colonial unity.

(British Governor Thomas Hutchinson)

Schiff’s focus centers on a few major events and significant personalities. The author does an exceptional job in these areas as she dissects the Land Bank Committee, the Stamp Act, the Boston Massacre, the Boston Tea Party, and the growth of the Committees of Correspondence, and what transpired at Lexington and Concord. As far as individuals, she sets Adams against Governor Thomas Hutchinson and General Thomas Gage who also served as Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Other influential figures include Dr. James Warren, John Dickinson, Thomas Paine, James Otis, John Adams, Thomas Cushing, John Hancock, Paul Revere, and Benjamin Franklin.

Schiff’s approach is chronological as she follows Adams’ actions from 1751 through the onset of revolution. It is not a traditional biography as Schiff zeroes in on Adams’ “words” and his ability to rile the British and bring about an inclusive colonial network that pushed against Britain’s attempt to control the colonies and use them as a “monetary source” in order to pay for its large debt dating to the French and Indian War.

Adams’ radicalization stems from the 1751 Land Bank Committee whose currency policies and trade imbalance increased the debts of many Boston residents including Samuel Adams. Adams would develop the Boston Gazette in order to disseminate his views as a result, and ironically he was appointed a tax collector in 1758. In her discussion Schiff provides an excellent description of pre-revolutionary Boston and the Massachusetts Bay Colony in general.

Up until 1764 Adams personal situation consisted of debt, loss of family, the collapse of his malt business, fighting with creditors, etc. But 1764 would become a watershed year in his career as an agitator for less British control of the colonies because of the imposition of the Sugar Act as London sought increased revenues from colonies undergoing tremendous economic growth. That summer Schiff points out that Adams marriage to Elizabeth Wells was as significant as British actions as her ambitions and strengths mirrored those of her husband.

Schiff’s insightful commentary is on full display with the issuance of the Stamp Act in 1765 as Adams argued that London’s actions actually benefitted the colonies as it awoke in them their desire for the rights and privileges of Englishmen and helped unite the colonies. Further, it would spawn the creation of the Sons of Liberty.

Throughout, Schiff develops the back and forth between Adams and Hutchinson. The British governor believed that Adams was the devil and was responsible for everything that went wrong during his reign from the destruction of his house to the dumping of tea in Boston Harbor. The author provides the letters, articles, and speeches of each highlighting her extensive research. Schiff also does admirable job delving into personalities, viewpoints, and actions of members of the Massachusetts Legislature and their overall relationship with the crown. Governor Francis Bernard, who preceded Hutchinson in office, Otis, Adams, Cushing, Hancock, and the role of others are all stressed.

John Singleton Copley Art Print featuring the painting General Thomas Gage by John Singleton Copley

(British General and Governor Thomas Gage)

Schiff concentrates on Boston and all the major events that took place in the city, but also how these events affected Philadelphia and New York including their response. Adams’ most important creation may have been the Committees of Correspondence which can be considered an 18^th century “twitter” which allowed the colonies to communicate with each other and be kept up to date with the latest news and movements or as one reviewer described as “a patriot espionage network.” Adam’s action helped unify the colonies, with major help from London whose imposition of the Townshend Acts which imposed new taxes on paper, paint, nails, and tea in 1767, the Quartering Act which stated colonists had to house British troops, British troops firing on Boston citizens in 1770, the Port Act, and blockading Boston after the Tea Party in 1773 made Adam’s task that much easier.

Periodically, Schiff shifts her focus to Adam’s writing style and strategy. Words came easily to Adams, who could “turn a small grievance into an unpardonable insult before others had arrived at the end of a sentence.” It was the golden age of the printed word with six newspapers in Boston alone. One of Adam’s most effective tools was the use of “pseudonyms” be it Vindex, Candius, A Chatterer, A Son of Liberty, over thirty in all which was quite successful and allowed Adams to seem as if he were everywhere. Other tools in the toolbox included lies, facts, imagery, comments by royalists, and of course his creativity, i.e.; exploiting vocabulary by applying words such as inalienable and unconstitutional.

Schiff’s research provides a roadmap into Adam’s thoughts. She dissects his arguments and admires his ability to create havoc and develop support for his cause throughout the colonies against London. In each instance she explains the actions and opinions of major events as they develop and how the important personalities coped with them. One of Schiff’s strengths is her ability to discuss the role of each player in any situation. A case in point is whether the Boston Tea Party would have occurred without his leadership.

(John Hancock)

It is clear from Schiff’s narrative that Samuel Adams was the prime mover in prodding the colonists from loyalty to rebelliousness against England in less than a decade. The text deals very little with Adam’s pre-revolutionary career and post-revolutionary life zeroing in on a 15 year period from 1764 on. As historian Amy Greenburg writes in her October 22, 2022, New York Times Review, arguing that lessening Adam’s role in the revolution was a mistake and “Stacy Schiff redresses this oversight by celebrating the man who “wired a continent for rebellion.” There is a lot to admire about this rabble-rouser. He was utterly incorruptible; colonial authorities tried to buy him off with public office (“the time-honored method”), but Adams could be neither bribed nor intimidated. He cared nothing for personal gain, and, in his own words, gloried “in being what the world calls a poor man.” He was deeply idealistic, had great personal equanimity and was a gifted orator. He promoted public education for women long before it was fashionable. He was a tender father to his two children and, although his financial mismanagement forced his wife into manual labor while he was at the Second Continental Congress, he was also a loving husband. Readers are reminded more than once that Adams abhorred slavery, and when offered the gift of an enslaved woman, he insisted that she be freed before joining his household. Schiff paints a vivid portrait of a demagogue who was also a decorous man of ideals, acknowledging Adams’s innovative, extralegal activities as well as his personal virtues.” After digesting Schiff’s arguments, It is clear that Samuel Adams deserves to be labeled as part of that august group of “founders.”

(Samuel Adams)

THE SPLENDID AND THE VILE: A SAGA OF CHURCHILL, FAMILY, AND DEFIANCE DURING THE BLITZ by Erik Larson

April 6, 2020szfreiberger British History, World War II Leave a comment

Standing out of the flames and smoke of surrounding blazing buildings, St Paul's Cathedral during the great fire raid in London.

(The bombing of London during the WWII “Blitz”)

Living at a time when leadership seems to be severely lacking with a president who enacts his personal agenda seemingly on a daily basis when people are dying is eye opening and ultimately a tragedy. In times like this it is important to examine historical leadership that is grounded in fact and strength of personality. Leadership during times of crisis is of the utmost importance be it a pandemic, wartime, economic or weather-related catastrophes. The public needs to rely on someone to step up and provide honest and factual information with direction to mitigate people’s anxiety and provide hope for the future. Examining the aerial atrocities committed by the Germans during World War II over London, Coventry and other English cities in late 1940 and early 1941 is a case in point. Winston Churchill the newly appointed Prime Minister would rise to the occasion through his wisdom, wit, and force of personality and provide the British people a degree of solace. Erik Larson’s latest book, THE SPLENDID AND THE VILE: A SAGA OF CHURCHILL, FAMILY, AND DEFIANCE DURING THE BLITZ successfully captures Churchill’s role and the courage of the British people in that moment and builds upon his series of historical narratives that ranges from hurricanes, murder in Edwardian London, a serial killer in Chicago’s World Columbian Exposition in 1893, the sinking of the Lusitania, to the rise of the Nazis.

In his current work Larson explores “the year in which Churchill became Churchill, the cigar smoking bulldog we all think we know…and showed the world what courage and leadership looked like.” Larson has produced a workmanlike synthesis of events, policies, and personalities of the time period though he does not add a great deal that is new for historians. What Larson does accomplish is a synthesis of information and sources focusing on many individuals that seem to fall through the cracks in other historical monographs.

Wikimedia Commons

(Sir Winston Churchill)
Larson’s grasp of the most salient historical points is evident for all to see. Churchill’s obsession with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s thoughts serves as a background to most of Churchill’s actions. Churchill is fully aware that England cannot defeat the Nazis without American equipment and financing and finally their entrance into the war. Larson describes the political and personal machinations of FDR and Churchill in traditional fashion as he labors through the Destroyer-Base Deal and Lend-Lease as the United States slowly become more and more of a belligerent. Larson’s description of the visit of Harry Hopkins, perhaps FDR’s closest ally and friend to England for four weeks in January, 1941 is a case in point as Churchill rolled out the red carpet to flatter and convince Hopkins to support American aid to England and encourage the eventual entrance of the United States into the war.Everyday English citizens are presented through their daily lives and travails as they confronted by the German “Blitz.” In addition, Larson takes figures like “Jock” Colville, Churchill’s reluctant private secretary and drills down exploring aspects of their lives in detail. In Colville’s case the unrequited love he pursues in the name of Gay Margesson, a student at Oxford, supplemented by his important role by Churchill’s side. Others explored include Pamela Churchill who had the unfortunate task of being married to Churchill’s son Randolph, an alcoholic, gambler, and philanderer. Mary Churchill, the prime Minister’s eighteen-year-old daughter provides an interesting perspective of an upper-class youth through her diary entries. More importantly Larson pursues the role of Max Aiken, better known as Lord Beaverbrook, a newspaper magnate who performs miraculous work increasing British airplane production at the newly created Ministry of Aircraft Production as well as serving as Churchill’s closest friend and alter ego. Frederick “Prof” Lindemann , an Oxford Physicist assesses the world with “scientific objectivity” who Churchill brought into government to deal with German technology and efforts to counter the damage it caused. The marriage of Sir Harold Nicholson, Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister for Information and his marriage to the writer Vita Sackville-West receives a great deal of attention. Churchill’s bodyguard Detective Inspector Walter Henry Thompson provides numerous nuggets of information. Mass-Observation diarist Olivia Cockett chronicles many of the horrors resulting from the German onslaught. There are of course portraits of the military types like Major-General Hastings “Pug” Ismay, the Military Chief of Staff and political figures such as Lord Halifax, the Foreign Secretary, who is then shuffled off to Washington as ambassador to remove a political threat to the Prime Minister’s leadership. Characters abound and Larson has the knack of providing just the right amount of detail to make them interesting in of themselves for the reader.

If Churchill was obsessed with FDR, Adolf Hitler was obsessed with Churchill. In Larson’s accurate rendition of the Hitler-Churchill enmity, the Fuhrer did not want to go to war with England at first. He wanted to negotiate a deal that would be somewhat satisfactory to Churchill to end England’s adversarial role toward Germany so he could concentrate on lebensraum, living space is the east against Russia. When Churchill refused to comply, Hitler unleashed the German Luftwaffe led by Hermann Goring against England to knock them out of the war. At times a cartoonish, despicable, and insidious figure, Goring did all he could to raze English cities like Coventry to create the terror that would force the English people to remove Churchill and replace him with a more pliable figure. Hitler and Goring could never quite comprehend why Churchill refused to give up based on the physical and psychological damage they inflicted on the English people. Larson provides a fascinating aside to Goring’s terror bombing of civilians in his ravenous pursuit of cultural artifacts anywhere he could steal them. With Churchill’s obstinacy remaining constant, Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s Deputy Fuhrer hatches a plan to achieve peace with England. Larson does his best to break down the myths of Hess’ attempted flight to Scotland to try and negotiate England’s exit from the war delving into the latest material available.

Larson is successful in explaining Churchill’s historical significance as he describes his speeches and physical appearance throughout London and other areas refusing to kowtow to Nazi bullying and bombing. He demonstrated “a striking trait: his knack for making people feel loftier, stronger, and above all, more courageous.…he gave forth a confidence and invincible will that called out everything that was brave and strong,” as his voice became a reassuring wellspring of hope and resolve. Churchill was an expert at mass psychology, and he knew just how to hearten his downtrodden people and lead them to ultimate victory, even as so many people lived in shelters that were crumbling or pursuing an existence in the London Underground.

Goering Lounging In Chair

(Hermann Goring, Head of the Luftwaffe)

Larson is successful in reaching his stated goal of “hunting for stories that often get left out of the massive biographies of Churchill, either because there’s no time to tell them or because they seem too frivolous.” Larson writes with verve and the character formation of a novelist. He seems to leave no rock unturned in seeking out the intimate lives of his characters so they can provide a feel for what England is experiencing between May 1940 and 1941. He find’s vignettes that are a treasure. For example, Churchill constantly critiques the writing of his Cabinet and military figures correcting grammar and demanding brevity. Deeply personal aspects garner Larson’s attention exemplified by his comments on Churchill and Clementine’s life in the bedroom, which was separate and as far as intimate relations, it took place only upon an invitation from Clementine!

As with any historical monograph there are always suggestions for improvement. According to Gerard DeGroot in his February 28, 2020 review in the Washington Post in Larson’s case it may be fair to argue that Churchill is given too much credit for saving England when English factories and workers produced the Spitfires and Hurricanes that consistently outperformed their German counterparts. Further British workers, male and female were much better mobilized than in Germany. In addition, the idea that England acted alone is an overstatement when the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish contributed greatly as did members of the vast empire including Canadians, Australians, Indians and South Africans who all did their part. One also cannot forget the 145 Polish pilots who fought in the Battle of Britain, in addition to the 88 Czech, and 30 pilots from Belgium. One must also not forget that other parts of the United Kingdom were also bombed – cities like Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast were also severely damaged. Churchill needs to share the limelight a bit more than Larson offers.

Though Larson has not written the definitive account of Churchill’s first year as Prime Minister he has written an evocative description of what life was like for the English people during the period. One cannot go wrong hunkering down with Larson’s narrative particularly at a time of extreme crisis and discomfort. I was scheduled to hear Larson at the Music Hall in Portsmouth, New Hampshire at the end of March, however due to the pandemic it was cancelled. I fervently hope it can be rescheduled.

Doc's Books

A window into Doc Freiberger's library

British History

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

CRIMEAN QUAGMIRE: TOLSTOY, RUSSELL, AND THE BIRTH OF MODERN WARFARE by Gregory Carleton

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

(Captain James Cook)

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

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

THE ISLAND OF EXTRAORDINARY CAPTIVES: A PAINTER, A POET, AN HEIRESS, AND A SPY IN A WORLD WAR II BRITISH INTERNMENT CAMP by Simon Parkin

THE KING’S PLEASURE: A NOVEL OF HENRY VIII by Alison Weir

COLONIALISM: A MORAL RECKONING by Nigel Biggar

THERE WILL BE FIRE: MARGARET THATCHER, THE IRA, AND TWO MINUTES THAT CHANGED HISTORY by Rory Carroll

THE REVOLUTIONARY: SAMUEL ADAMS by Stacy Schiff

THE SPLENDID AND THE VILE: A SAGA OF CHURCHILL, FAMILY, AND DEFIANCE DURING THE BLITZ by Erik Larson