Mr. Zilahy was the most popular Hungarian writer of his time; wrote three novels tracing the Dukay family, a fictitious Magyar family in the Austro-Hungarian Empire through to the takeover by the Communist after World War II.  This book covers the time after World War I through about 1950.

The novel contain a very interesting in insightful study of the Magyar nobility of the time, from their belief in their superiority over their Romanian subjects, their resentment of their German neighbors and their inability to recognize their soon to be realized inability to adapt to a rapidly changing world.  Proud and haughty, they refused to work with the Austrians (the Magyars and Austrians were the two major power holders of the Dual Crown, Austro-Hungarian Empire aka Habsburg Empire) and would block even military budgets over which color knots their officers could wear on their sabers. The book is also filled with interesting historical facts (the belief that Cleopatra’s true source of power was the amber ring and how this led to the founding of Budapest and a rush by women for amber), etc.

Few novels are well written, but Zilahy was successful in weaving an interesting web of actual history with fictional character development, with many experiences drawn from his personal experiences. You feel that you are cast back into that time; the characters are vivid, the situations interesting and you have a cast if personalities to remember long after you have finished the book.  Well worth a read.

I have read biographies of Mussolini and military books, trying in vain to find out why Mussolini was so adored by his I have people.  Hitler, Stalin, Mao, I could understand as they tapped into the needs of the people, promised them what they desired and delivered on many of the promises (although at a huge, terrible price).  Mussolini, aside from killing off (or their fleeing to the US) the Mafia and making the trains run on time, seemed to stagger from one disaster to another.  It must have been the pomp and uniforms that kept many people enthralled and we need to remember that FDR and Churchill both had favorable opinions of the Italian dictator for quite a while.

Both of these cigars are ones that I go to for a serious smoke, with a nice cognac (my current favorite is Pierre Ferrand, 1st Cru) or scotch (a 12 year old Yellow Spot is nice). They are steady and reliable and each has their own strengths; they are well made, develop a firm whitish ash and produce a beautiful plume of smoke while not dropping any ash.

It is dangerous to draw parallels in history, but there are certain trends and facts that seem to run through history. In this excellent interview from the Wall Street Journal of Gary Saul Morson, a professor of Russian history at Northwestern University, he points out the role of the “intelligentsia” during the Russian Revolution and in today’s protests. The concept of “the right side of history” or “an idea whose time has come” is believed by the highly educated who see themselves as the movers of history, the only ones able to lead the lower classes. They believe they are the movers because they are the “intellectuals” and “know” what is best. For over 50 years we have been governed, since the Kennedy Administration by the “best and the brightest” and we have gotten to a point where Freedom of Speech has become passe on the liberal left. https://www.wsj.com/articles/violent-protest-and-the-intelligentsia-11591400422?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1

DeGaulle was a major figure for almost two decades in post-World War II Europe.  After being the lone voice for a free France after its collapse in the face of the German invasion, he managed against all odds to create a movement which was often at loggerheads with the very forces (the British and Americans) who paid for, fed, equipped, and supplied his small forces (most of French rescued at Dunkirk had decided to return to France rather than stay in the U.K. and continue the fight).  He was egotistical, dogmatic, tightly controlled, and he shaped Europe more through his inactions than through his actions. 

Orwell was a keen and brutally honest observer of poverty which he experienced firsthand during the early 1930’s.  His descriptions of poverty and the struggle to survive in two of the most famous and richest cities of the world read more like something from the Middle Ages as individuals scurry from place to place hoping to find a meal, a crust of bread or a place of shelter.  In fact, one is tempted to keep looking at the copyright date to make sure it is not a work of historical fiction set in some dark, dismal land and time.

Hopefully, we have turned the corner on the current pandemic in the sense that we are beginning to deal with it on a realistic basis; one which will allow us to get back to a greater or lesser extent of “normality”.  But what have we learned from this latest challenge in our lives?  Let us look at some lessons which hopefully, shall help us have a better life in the future.

During the past decade we have seen a deterioration not only in our political discourse, but also in our sense of the validity of our election process. Demands for recounts, legal action in response to an election, claims of voter suppression, international conspiracies, changes in the Electoral College and more have made many Americans tired and disillusioned with the election process. The politicians seem to look for ways to get around election results which reject them and their programs. It was suggested to Richard Nixon after his loss to JFK that he demand legal action due to the late results from Illinois which all but cost him the Presidency, but Nixon refused because of the harm he believed such action would cause the country. Today’s politicians do not seem to have such qualms or concerns about the moral fiber of the country. The attached article, while pointing out the actions of one political party should make us think of the cost to all of us when politicians of any party seem to lack faith and confidence in our Constitution and our political process. We need to demand that politicians of either party put the welfare of our nation above their own personal quest for power. The first step in such a movement though is for each of us to accept that our side may not always win, that we may not always agree with the political agenda of the winner or agree with the winner’s policies or personality and get on with life. Fortunately there is another election in just a few months! If you do not agree with the outcome of an election, don’t pout and stamp your foot, but work with a sense of purpose and dignity to insure that your candidate and agenda will be viewed as better for the nation as a whole. As you read the article, forget the party being cited and instead think of the impact of actions like those cited have on our sense of national identity and unity. They should make you cringe. No one likes to lose, but we need to restore a sense of dignity and belief in our electoral process.

This classic of political writing features essays by some of the brilliant intellectual minds from the 1930s through the mid-1950s.  The studies include those of Arthur Koestler, Ignazio Silone, Andre Gide, Richard Wright, Louis Fischer and Stephen Spender.  All had joined (some for only a few days) their local Communist parties and all had rejected it for a variety of reasons.  Each sought to find a solution to the problems they faced, such as the fall of Capitalism (often predicted, none accurately yet), artistic freedom, someone to stand against Fascism, the end of racism, etc.  Each found that while the theory was supposedly “scientific”, the practical application of the theory in fact worked against the solutions they sought and were run by humans with the same emotions, fears, etc. that have always existed

Published in the United States in 1943, this interesting novel the decline of the French intellectual class prior to the outbreak of World War II.  Not all of the characters are French, for we also find a Soviet Ambassador, paranoid and corrupt, an elderly Russian Revolutionary who is only a seeking a quiet exit from a life and efforts that he has come to doubt and a young Soviet secretary who loves to buy Paris clothing but keeps trying to convince herself that life in the Soviet Union of 1938 is better and happier than Paris.