As depicted by Hollywood and popular culture, Casanova was a noted womanizer who had no conscience, made a habit of fleeing from irate husbands through second story bedroom windows and was always one step from receiving his just desserts.  Casanova was a major womanizer (although the number of his “conquests” pale in comparison with today’s rock, sport and Hollywood celebrities) but he was also much more, having successfully lived in the courts of Spain, France and even Russia; he conversed with Voltaire and assisted Mozart and his librettist Lorenzo Da Ponte on the composition of Don Giovanni.  Moving from country to country (he had been exiled from his native Venice), he lived by his wits, by gambling and late in life, by his writing. 

Some of his most amazing adventures (with and without women) occurred in Venice before his exile.  Venice at the time was still ruled by a clique of powerful families who were slowly dying out.  They controlled the morals, politics and fortunes of the city and despite their lessening physical strength, kept the Republic under a tight control by means of spies and strict moral guidelines.  The nobility, both men and women, when in public wore rigid white masks (often too in private) and Venetian laws specified severe punishments for those who violated the code.  Women’s masks were held in place with a button held between the front teeth (it was therefore called the “silent mask”).  In order to protect the “honor” of the younger women, they were placed in convents, but the girls found ways to slip away from the convents and cavort with their lovers such as Casanova even in the city.  They were able to do this as the guild which controlled the gondolas insured that all members were sworn to secrecy; that secrecy provided them a sure stream of passengers who had their trysts in the enclosed areas of the gondolas.  In fact, according to a French visitor, the “nuns (in the convents) are the most attractive among all the women in Venice…(and) their costume enhanced their good looks”.

Viewing the French Revolution, he realized that his world was being destroyed and in the last few years of his life he worked for eighteen hours a day on his biography which consisted of millions of words.  He wanted to be remembered but he provided an outstanding view of his world and the circles in which he moved.  While living on the good graces of the Prince de Ligne, he died in 1798.  Yet his biography and writings lived on, first being published in 1822 in German, then in 1826 in French although those were poor versions.  In 1943 his manuscript survived a direct bomb hit by an Allied bomb and in 1945 was saved by Allied forces.  In 2010, the Bibliotheque national de France purchased the manuscript for over $9,000,000, the institution’s most expensive acquisition to date.  In death, Casanova gained the fame and honor he sought all his life.

There is a scene in the movie “Patton” where he is standing as a mass of tanks, trucks and men roll past him toward battle.  As that might fleet of metal giants roll past, he says to himself, “God forgive me, but I love this”.  By this, he means the feeling of power, the sheer force of the military as it goes to meet the enemy.  But how did that mass of steel come to be?  How did all those men manage to be housed, trained, fed, clothed and armed.  This book tells part of the story; it is a story of the might of the United States, a country late to the war and how it mobilizes its resources to provide the materials for victory.

In a mass of charts, graphs and columns of numbers, as well as an excellent overview of campaigns from the steppes of the Soviet Union, to the Atlantic Ocean, to the vastness of the Pacific, Ellis overwhelms the reader with the productivity of the American system.  The materials which overwhelmed the Germans and Japanese did not spring from the earth overnight and the strategies which finally provided victory were not designed to end a world war quickly.  Unlike the Germans, where centralization and local power struggles stifled production, the U.S. managed to harness the individuality of the average American in a patriotic and profitable way to go to war.  The Germans thought they could win, the Japanese hoped for a stalemate, but the Americans knew they could win based on their individual contribution to the war. 

In the end, logistics won out.  While the average Japanese soldier or sailor went to war with four pounds of logistics to back him up, the American went to war with four thousand pounds of logistical support.  While Hitler laughed when FDR said the U.S. could produce 50,000 airplanes a year, in 1944 the U.S. produced over 91,000 aircraft. But it was not enough to produce those planes, not enough to produce nine times the trucks that the Germans could produce, not enough to produce two to 10 times as many tanks or artillery pieces as the enemy; no, you had to keep they maintained.  While the Japanese were able to put into the air 150 planes, the U.S. was able to put up over 1500.  The Japanese had a total throughout the war of some 35,000 flying personnel (not all pilots) while the U.S. by 1944 had graduate 226,000 pilots alone and nearly 1,000,000 mechanics for all the armed forces.  In the end, the Axis powers were swamped beneath a flood of men and material that they could not hope to match.

The one weak point of the book is that it does not explain how a nation which entered the war with an army about the same size as that of Belgium (the United States), was able to produce all those tanks, planes, ships, etc., when the lead time is normally eighteen months to switch production. This is especially true today with our leaders tell us that orders for munitions from our allies, such as Taiwan will take two to three years to fulfill. How is it that we do not have the ability to equal the effort of the Second World War? Has our manufacturing base been so degraded? Do we lack the techincal or financial expertise? If so, given the means available to those who oppose us, are we unable or unwilling to shift priorities to provide the protection to our homeland in these dire times?  That story, exciting is told in Freedoms Forge; it is the story of capitalists like Henry Ford, Henry Kaiser and Bill Knudsen.  Taken together these two books create the story of the might of the American system even during the time of the Great Depression.  If you are prepared to be astounded by the force of Ellis’ numbers, Brute Force is an outstanding read.  Even if you are not, it is inspiriting as it shows what is possible in a free society when there is strong and united leadership.

The author (1863-19490) was born on the Don and his father was paymaster in a Cossack regiment of the Czar.  In University (St. Petersburg), he was a close associate of Lenin’s brother who was executed for his part in the attempt to kill Czar Alexander III in 1887.  Shortly after this, the author was expelled from the University for a proclamation concerning the Czar.  Exiled, he graduated from a second, “Marxist University” while in the far north.  He then continued to write and be involved in revolutionary activities; this book was written in 1921-23.

Although a short book, it is considered a classic of early Soviet literature and was required reading by students until the fall of the Soviet Union.  It is a typical novel of the time, reflecting “Soviet heroic realism” as it tells the story of, in 1918, the march of thousands of Red soldiers with their families across the Caucasian mountains.  Poorly equipped, often barefoot and hungry, they overcome every obstacle in their march, fighting through various White detachments until they reach their own lines.  Initially they are poorly organized, but under the leadership of a steely leader (who naturally rises from their own ranks), they find increasing cohesion and they strike fear into the hearts of their enemies.

I would recommend this little book for anyone interested in seeking to find how the Soviets viewed themselves and of course, their enemies.  The Soviets are simple, salt of the earth individuals who band together to defeat the shallow, cowardly oppressors.  One reads the book and tends to roll one’s eyes, but it reflects the times and the need for heroics in a time of defeat, starvation and lack of order. 

A few years ago, my wife and I spent a month in France, starting at the Normandy battlefields and driving eastward towards Verdun.  It was an amazing trip as we covered several different wine making areas and ran across many monuments to battles and wars.  It was clear to us that France was a nation that had suffered from hundreds of years of war.  One special find was just outside of the hedgerows of Normandy on a quiet side country road.  A marker had been placed which outlined a skirmish between a U.S. infantry patrol and a German platoon backed up by an armored vehicle.  A small accidental meeting of two groups of men in which the outnumbered and outgunned Americans were pushed back by the Germans.  Some locals had decided to memorialize the long-forgotten clash so that later generations might realize that that lovely, quiet piece of land was not ruled by a hated enemy as it had been liberated at the cost American liberators.

Later during the month, further east, we ran across a beautiful museum which was dedicated to the battle of Gravelotte, during the Franco-Prussian war of 1870.  It is still vivid in my mind as it featured beautiful paintings of the battle which was the costliest of that war.  The displays were so dignified and in keeping with the spirit of the current time and gave equal time and coverage to both the French and the Prussians. What a gem of a museum!

I bring those instances up because it was with great delight that I read a very positive review of Rachel Chrastil’s new book, Bismark’s War, The Franco-Prussian War and The Making of Modern Europe.  While I was familiar with the war, it was primarily due to two biographies of Bismark, one by Alan Palmer and the other by Jonathan Steinberg, plus earlier books detailing the war.  I was therefore surprised at the direction of this book, and I could not recommend this history to anyone who does not have some background of the war. Why?  A few reasons:

1. There is little attempt to put the war in context: Most histories would provide the basics of what led up to the war, which in this case could include Bismark’s two previous wars, the downward spiral of Napoleon III government, the tensions between the southern German states and Prussia, etc. The infamous Ems telegram is mentioned but not discussed.  Given this lack of context, an uninformed reader would wonder why the title when it could have been Napoleon’s War.
2. Military equipment: Why was the Prussian Guards unit so decimated by the French Chassepot rifle and the mitrailleuse and why did the Prussians use the needle gun?  What made the Chassepot such a powerful weapon? Why was the Prussian artillery so superior to the French? How did the confusion at the start of the war on the part of the French impact their strategy? Etc.
3. Personalities: While the major players are named, the reader is expected to know the experience/personality of each, such as von Moltke, von Roon, Crown Prince Wilhelm, etc.  A bit of background would help the average reader understand the strategy and restraints on these individuals.
4. Strategy: Early on there is a brief discussion of how military strategy had been changing, based in part on the foreign observers in the American Civil War.  Unfortunately, that discussion was rather short so one is left to wonder why the lessons of that war were not more fully learned by some of the combatants. What was it about the European mind set that allowed it to ignore the terrible impact of modern weapons with their increase in range and rate of fire?  Did the Europeans view the American experience as not applicable to Europe since the Americans were amateurs whereas the Europeans were the masters of war?
5. Personal detail: Since the war was fought on French soil, it is natural that any discussion on the civilian population would be more French based but there is little discussion regarding the impact on the German population.  How supportive was the average Southern German to the war and did the mobilization of so many men negatively impact those economies?  Nearly all the personal detail was based on the French experience and given the higher literacy rate in Germany, one would expect to find more detail on the attitude of the German civilians from memoirs, news reports, etc.
6. Lastly, how was Bismark able to string together the German coalition give the general dislike and mistrust of the Prussian power, the religious differences between the northern and southern Germans and the natural inclination of many German states to surrender their sovereignty over international affairs.  That story is amazing and shows the brilliance of Bismark, but you will not find out about it here.

The author has done good research in several areas but seems to assume a general knowledge of the average reader.  I believe that being the case that most readers who possess a modem of curiosity will walk away with more questions than answers. I would like to recommend another book for the first time reader of this war: The Franco-Prussian War by Geoffrey Wawro.

 When the manuscript for this book was first reviewed by the Soviet censor, he told Grossman that the book could be published, in about two hundred years.  Grossman, a Jew who reported on the Great Patriotic War directly from the front lines while in Stalingrad, at the battle of Kursk and all the way through to the battle of Berlin, was rapidly falling out of favor with his Soviet masters.  His book broke so many Soviet taboos; it did not portray the soldiers with Stalin’s name on their lips as they fought, he specifically mentioned the murder of Jews by the German invaders (officially, the Jews were not to be singled out as special victims of the war), a Soviet scientist is self-centered and has a huge ego, etc..  Other writers, such as Babel (executed in 1949) and Ehrenburg (who worked on the Black Book with Grossman) felt the sting of Stalin’s wrath but fortunately for Grossman, Stalin died before the final reckoning.

The novel traces the usual myriad of Russian characters through their lives during World War II.  They like millions of others are caught in the struggle between two totalitarian states who have little if any regard for the “average” man.  Unlike War and Peace, there are not dramatic battle scenes (surprising since Grossman did spend so much time at the front), and in the first reading I could not grasp the general direction of the story.  Except for the egotistical scientist, many of the characters seem to move along in a rather haphazard manner. I would suggest that one keep a pad of paper handy to make notes as there are many individual characters and the names can be confusing.

I certainly do not pretend to be an expert of Russian literature, but I have found these “great” Russian novels to be overly long and missing a clear-cut story (with the exception of the three-book trilogy by Anatoli Rybakov).  Is it indictive of the Russian or Soviet mind set where subterfuge was a means of survival or is it merely a great desire to write another War and Peace? Or, perhaps it is just to my American mind set that I seek writing that is more direct and to the point. I must admit however, that I did find this novel more direct than other Russian novels, such as Solzhenitsyn’s March 1917. 

History is full of “what ifs”, “near things”, and “almost”.  In Hitler’s American Gamble by Brendan Simms and Charlie Laderman, the authors discuss the various scenarios had Hitler not declared war on the United States after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

What makes this book more interesting than one would expect is that the authors follow the fears, thoughts, actions and discussions of the Roosevelt, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Churchill, and various Japanese officials on a day-to-day basis from December 7^th until the German declaration of war on December 11^th.  They point out that serious questions were raised during that four-day period and that contrary to popular history, it was an agonizing time for Churchill.  While he may have been buoyant to those around him, he had numerous concerns about the actions the Americans might take and how it would impact the British.

For four days, Axis, Soviet and British leaders held their breath and pondered the American course.  Concerns included:

1. Would the U.S. begin to scale back Lend Lease support to the U.K. and the Soviets to rearm themselves against the Japanese?
2. If they did, by how much and would that help the Germans at a time when the U.K. especially were just handing on in the Battle of the Atlantic, North Africa, etc.?
3. As Roosevelt only called for a declaration of war against Japan, and with a seriously damaged U.S. navy, would support in the Battle of the Atlantic be scaled back?
4. For the Japanese, their concern was whether Hitler would honor his pledge to declare war on the U.S. and thus force the U.S. to divert some of its immense industrial strength away from Japan and towards Germany.
5. With the sinking of the British warships Repulse and Prince of Wales, not only Singapore but also Australia was in grave danger and the British were fearful of a Japanese thrust into the Indian Ocean towards India.
6. Roosevelt believed Germany to be the greater threat but how to enter the war against Germany when most Americans were either isolationist or calling for revenge against Japan?
7. Aware of the industrial might of the U.S., Hitler knew that sooner or later Germany and the U.S. would fight one another directly, so was it better to declare war now when Japan could divert some of the U.S. strength or stay out of the war and force Roosevelt to zero in on Japan?
8. For the Soviets, who had a non-aggression pact with Japan, would the U.S. cut back on the munitions, supplies, trucks, food, etc., that was vital to keeping the Soviets in the war and would Japan break its pact with the Soviets and attack, creating a two-front war for Stalin?
9. Churchill knew that without increased U.S. aid, he would have to cut back military aid to Stalin to stay in the battle with Germany.  If the U.S. did not declare war on Germany, the future for the Empire was bleak at best.

Fortunately for the world, on December 11^th, Hitler honored his pact and declared war on the United States.  Now Churchill fully believed that the war was won as the U.S. was fully committed to a world war.  Hitler still believed that he had the time build from his European conquests the industrial might to counter the eventual direct struggle with the U.S. and that it was better to begin the fight now rather than wait until the fully industrial might of the U.S. could be brought to bare on Germany.  For Japan, who managed to seriously underestimate the potential might of the U.S., they believed that they could create the defensive zones and exploit the areas they had so easily conquered. And, for Stalin, he had proof that Japan would focus on the U.S. and the danger of a second front was avoided.

In some ways, this book reads like a novel in that the day-to-day questions, routines, discussions, etc. of various leaders takes the reader into the mindset of leaders on a day-to-day basis.  It is an excellent history both for someone who seeks to capture the days and for more advanced amateur historians as a fine reference point. 

For 105 days, the small and ill-equipped Finnish army held off the full might of the Soviet Union.  Outnumbered in men, tanks, artillery and aircraft, the Finns were able to cut off, surround and literally slaughter several Soviet offensive thrusts in the northern part of their country.  Striking silently on their skis, the Soviets who were confined to the few roads had little opportunity to bring their superior firepower to bear.  In the end, entire columns of Soviets along with their trucks and tanks, were found literally frozen to death.  With each new defeat however, new masses of men and materials were thrown into the fight.

It was an amazing fight for a country that had gained its own freedom from the Czar only some twenty years before, especially as the nation had fought a civil war between the Whites and the Reds which left the nation divided.  Suddenly, the nation had to fully unite or simply be overrun.  Fortunately, they found a strong if controversial leader in Baron Carl Gustav Mannerheim.  Mannerheim had been instrumental in defeating the Finnish red forces but was an experienced soldier.  He wisely used his forces and was able to switch his forces to key points to blunt the Soviet attacks.

For the most part, Finland fought alone.  Volunteers were being raised in Sweden and Norway, despite the potential problems Sweden could have with the Soviet Union.  France made moves to put together a professional force to help and funds were raised in the U.K., but in the end, there was little real help, especially considering that only a couple of previous months, the Germans had invaded Poland and the Baltic states were swallowed by the Soviet Union. 

Numbers finally told as the Soviets concentrated their forces in the Southern part of Finland were the ports and roads were more friendly to the Soviets level of expertise.  Although the exact numbers will never be known, it appears that the Soviets lost some 400,000 killed, wounded, and permanently crippled, while Finnish losses were around 70,000.

With the end of the war, the Finns had to give up certain territories which Stalin felt was key to the protection of Leningrad as well as some ports and fortifications.  When the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, the Finns joined the Germans but only advanced as far as their old borders.

The war showed Stalin that his military suffered poor logistics, tactics, misapplication of force and a ruined officer corps.  Of course, Stalin was the one who ruined his office corps with his purges of the military (some 40,000 officers were killed, arrested, or put into camps).  Stalin quickly tried to reorganize his army and even release numerous officers from the camps.  Those officers were more forward thinking that Stalin’s clique and many were key in successful actions later against the Germans.

Can one draw a parallel between that war and Putin’s current problems in the Ukraine?  One of the largest differences is the terrible corruption which exists in Putin’s time as opposed to Stalin’s army.  Stalin’s army was not as corrupt, it merely suffered from the paranoia of its commander, Stalin, and the commissar system of command.  Another difference is that Finland never received the level of support from other nations.  In many cases, the only way for the Finns to survive was to turn around captured Soviet tanks and artillery as opposed to the billions of dollars which has been showered on the Ukraine (although at a pace that negates some of its usefulness). In the end, it is a story as old as man; beware they who have that lean and hungry look.

As we are growing up, we have a tendency to either ignore or tune out the stories and experiences of our parents.  We think their ideas are so old fashioned, or that their experiences do not impact on our lives, little realizing that their stories and memories are in reality subtle learning tools for us to lead better lives.  Later, when they are old and we have families and real lives of our own, we sometimes ask them about some memory or story they mentioned years ago, but with failing memories or sadness caused by those stories, they may be reluctant to dredge them up.  We then are sad and realize that experiences in their lives will be lost forever and that someday, we shall be like them, trying to remember the good and trying to keep their sorrows and mistakes buried.

This book was written by a woman whose father (Waclaw=Walter) was 19 when Poland was invaded by the Nazis and Communists.  Barely two weeks into cadet school, he was captured by the Soviets and like 3,000,000 other Poles, was shipped off to a gulag camp in Siberia.  Along the way, tens of thousands died from malnutrition, disease, beatings or simply giving up.  But he was lucky, for unlike tens of thousands of Polish officers, he was executed in the forests of Katyn, hands tied by a bullet to the back of the head and thrown into mass graves (over 10,000 were executed by two executioners!).

When Germany invaded the Soviet Union, the Soviets offered to release some of the Poles so they could fight for Stalin against the invaders.  Another young man, standing next to Irena’s father, after surviving years of cold, hard labor and beatings said that he would not fight for Stalin and was immediately executed with a shot to the head, splattering brains and blood on everyone around.

Finding his way to Iran over several months (no money or food was provided to the men on their journey), he was nursed back to health by the British army and enlisted in the Polish Corps which was to fight in Italy.  He fought in the battles at Monte Cassino, Ancona and Bologna and at the wars end managed to emigrate to England as going back to Poland would have been a sure way to be executed as a spy.

He was not able until about 1966, and still at risk, to go back to Poland for a visit, to see his mother (his father had died), the girl he had dreamed of throughout the war, to see the farm on which he had grown up on, etc.  All the while, despite the continued nightmares of the gulag experiences, he never really spoke of his earlier life and it was only when Irena was a grown woman did you begin to gradually pull the story of his life from him, bit by bit.

This little book is a sobering look at the mostly unknown brutality that millions endured at the hands of the Soviet Union as they attempted to destroy the will of a nation instill a system of government in which the individuals only purpose was to serve the all powerful state.  The idealism of the early 1920’s had been long crushed by the slaughter of the kulaks, the collectivization of the farms and the bloody purges of the Party and military.  Poland, like the other countries of Eastern Europe were given to the Soviets by Churchill and Roosevelt (one did it from practicality, one from personal indifference).

If nothing else, after reading this book, you may sit down with your parents and gently listen to some of the stories and lessons their offered when they went in one ear and out the other during your youth.

French President Charles de Gaulle once said, “The State is a harsh mistress”.  He may have said that thinking about the French members of the long-range recon groups who were left behind to wither and die as France left Viet Nam.  Living with the locals, fighting without resupply against the Viet Minh who were relentless in hunting them down, they pleas and curses asking for support finally tapered off as the last were killed in unknown and unremembered hills and valleys.

So, it was after the Allied victory of World War II.  Former enemies, including known war criminals were suddenly provided shelter, jobs, and safety in many of the victorious nations.  The United States, Canada, France, the Soviet Union all began to recruit German scientists as the new lines of the Cold War were being drawn.  Much of the recruiting was done secretly in the United States by military officers who were concerned that the new missile technology and secrets of biological warfare could not be left to the Soviets who, aside from plundering a conquered Germany, was abducting every scientist they could find. 

In Operation Paperclip, Jacobsen provides a detailed history of the various forces who struggled with the physical and moral choices which had to be faced.  There were those who believed that having defeated the Nazi war machine, that enlisting the scientists who worked on missiles, nerve/poison gasses and who had in fact committed war crimes was beyond the pale for the U.S.  Others viewed the victorious Soviet Union as the next great enemy, once which had shown that the difference between them and Nazi Germany was at best, minimal.  It was a time of moral questioning and a time of future planning.

Infighting between the CIA, the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, State Department, and the FBI continued for years with the CIA showing its ability to operate outside of normal channels and continue to pursue its own policies. Some of the arguments against the use of German scientist were moral, as is today arguments of using medical results from the doctors at the concentration camps.  Some were political as a growing Germany resented their best scientist being employed by other nations.  In the end, thanks to the space race, reality won the day as the competition between the U.S. and the Soviet Union became hardened.

This is not only a history, but also a morality play, one which could have been used when ethics classes were not so political.  It is well written, and it would be easy to understand how the reader could have a difficult time balancing the morality of the program vs. the fears and beliefs of those years.  Indeed, the State is a harsh mistress.

In August 1914, the Imperial German Army won a total victory over the Imperial Russian Army which had invaded East Prussia.  Total losses for the Russians were about 250,000 (78,000 killed and wounded) while the Germans suffered only about 15,000.  For the Germans, it was a revenge for their defeat 500 years before at the Battle of Grunwald at the hands of the Poles and Lithuanians (a Slav is a Slav) and gave the homeland something to cheer about after the losses in France, while for the Russians, it showed the failure of the reforms within the Russian Army that had been in process for decades.  When the French Ambassador to the Tsar offered his condolences for the Russian losses, the Tsar is reported to have said that he was glad to have fulfilled his obligation to this French allies.

Solzhenitsyn provides an interesting look at the battle from the standpoint of several characters including a staff officer who is privy to various headquarters.  As such, he sees the inability of the Russian Army to have a united strategy (there were two Russian armies whose generals had not met to create a strategy and whose commander represented the worse stereotype of Russian commander who owed his rank to his favor at the Russian Court).  Moving from one HQ to another, we see the lack of maps, poor logistics, almost lack of communications and general stupidity among the officer corps (especially above the field level), condemn the mass of Russian peasant soldiers to futile attacks and brave defensive actions which only led to further confusion and the eventual defeat of the Russian armies.

As with all novels with Russian characters, the names can be confusing and the book is not an easy read, but it does provide the reader with a good feel for the fog of battle.  It offers a good overview if the reader is not familiar with the battle and will leave the reader with a feeling of wonder at how the Russian army was able to survive the First World War for so many years.