Comedy in a Minor Key (Hans Keilson, 1947)

English translation only in 2010, so this is but recently available.  And well reviewed.

Simple, short story ("novella") about a married Dutch couple (Wim and Marie) who agreed to hide a Jew (known as Nico) in an upstairs bedroom.  They don't really run into serious problems while doing so, though the author does a great job helping us understand what all that might have felt like - the effect on the hidden; the effect on the hiders; the tension associated with little things like dealing with the cleaning lady, the milkman, visiting relatives; listening to the bombers fly overhead on their way from bases in Britain to targets inside Germany; dealing with Netherlands policemen who can be more or less helpful to the Nazi occupiers; etc.  Wim and Marie were simple, kind, people.

Then there is a problem - Nico dies (he wasn't in great health and caught pneumonia).  Disposing of the body led to a situation that involved a complete shift of perspective for Wim and Marie, one that gave them a glimpse into what had become Nico's world.

Which I think is very helpful to think about.  (This type of shift probably could happen, beneficially, more in my day-to-day life if I keep my eyes open.)

This book offers another instructive perspective on what I would tend to characterize as "peripheral" players in WWII-era Europe.  But really, what's peripheral about these characters??

Things like this must have happened in Luxembourg?

1945 - The War That Never Ended (Gregor Dallas, 2005)

This was a very helpful companion to Tony Judt's work; both focus on the end of WWII in Europe with an eye toward political repercussions in the immediate postwar era (though Judt's book then discussed developments all the way up to 2005).  These books are useful to me because I don't know much about this topic - have read lots about the war and the battles, while these end-game maneuverings had far more significant long-term consequences.

Retouched?  Woman looks odd.

One essential message is that postwar Europe - notwithstanding rhetoric - was defined by movements of the armies and, in particular, where the armies stopped.  As Judt noted - wider gaps in the Balkans, meaning freer play among local warring groups which has continued pretty much until this day.

Thoughts:

1.  More discussion than I've read anywhere else about France - the collaborators, the way the French themselves mistreated the Jews amongst them (not that this distinguished the French from other countries), the Communists jockeying for position (not that this distinguished the French from other countries), de Gaulle, etc.

2.  More discussion than I've read anywhere else about Poland - just awful.  In general, it was a very bad thing to be anywhere near the movements of the German and Russian armies.  Poor Poland - the treatment of its large Jewish population, the "uprising", the destruction of Warsaw, the irrelevance of the government-in-exile.

3.  As Judt discussed well - the weird way that time almost stopped for countries trapped behind what came to be known as the Iron Curtain.  These were in central Europe historically - now it became known as "Eastern Europe" - isolated, different.

4.  The wide swath of Western apologists for Communism.  Yes, Russia was a key ally; and socialism/Communism features awesome-sounding slogans and hadn't yet been thoroughly discredited - but still, it took some willful blindness to overlook what had been happening in Russia.  Lots of folks were believers, or at least found it convenient to believe.  Folks like Orwell saw through it (which made this all the more interesting), as did Churchill; most did not. 

5.  The Nazis were amazing killers - the ramp-up in Jew-killing was impressive - but they were amateurs compared to Stalin.  This book discusses the use of slave labor, prison camps, etc.

6.  Beveridge and the birth of the welfare state in Britain - promises that can't be kept, but they certainly sound appealing.

7.  How the back-and-forth of the armies drove "resistance" movements or "partisans" - or "traitors" for that matter.  As German army swept eastward, many defecting Russians; some partisan Russians pressured Germans from behind.  As Russian army pushed westward - process reversed itself.   

Lots to think about.  A minor criticism - I didn't find the book particularly well organized - it jumps around.  That being said, I'm not sure how one could better organize all these threads.  It's a complex set of circumstances that defies simplistic organization.

Plutarch's Lives, Vol. 1 (early second century A.D.) (The Dryden Translation, 1683)

This has to be the very definition of a "classic."  Written in the 100s A.D.; read by everyone claiming to be educated over the centuries (OK, in the west, that is); on every bookshelf where folks could afford to own books; this edition happens to be the Dryden translation (though updated) that introduced Plutarch to English speakers in the late 17th century.  750 pages, so it took awhile to work through at the gym.  Well worth it.

I think it is neat that someone like Montaigne was so fond of the book (in late 16th century).  Not to mention the fictional Cecile in one of my favorite books; her father had Cecile read to him from Plutarch in the evenings (and the Quebec nuns thought this might why be she didn't turn out to be quite as pious as they had hoped) (early 20th century book set in late 17th/early 18th century). Shakespeare used it for "Julius Caesar" and "Antony and Cleopatra".  Etc. - the only source for much information from classical times (if not always consistent and accurate).

Plutarch's three-part method for the "parallel lives" is famous - he selects a leading figure from Greece and provides a short biography, then a biography of a leading figure from Rome, then a brief comparison of the two. (Even if they don't always match up all that closely.)

A few thoughts:

1.  He is interested in the character of the "biographees" - how this helped or hurt them in the long run; hoping this would be didactic for the reader.  Then there is a famous passage in the midst where he allows that the extended consideration of character issues as he writes the biographies is at least as value to him personally as to his intended audience.

2.  The traditional Roman virtues were breaking down, but he does continue to emphasize how successful leaders were circumspect in offering the appropriate sacrifices, obtaining (and following) interpretation of dreams, omens, etc.; augury is presented as incredibly important.

3.  The virtues of thrift; the many leaders that succumbed to avarice; how even virtuous leaders often were brought low, often by schemers back home while the leader was off on some successful military campaign.

4.  Biographies go all the way back to Theseus and Romulus and other figures from legendary times.

5.  I'm always struck by the sophisticated analyses of human nature and political structures in these classical writers - our politicians, not to mention the electorate, could get some useful perspective from reading these things.  In the biography of Lycurgus, for example, a great discussion of monarchy, dangers of popular opinion, strength/weakness of a senate-like body.  As in this book in the context of Athens - much discussion of populism, masses against elites, voting oneselves handouts (with consequences), debt relief (where interest exceeded principal owed).

6.  All the famous characters from antiquity are here, too many to list.  Solon.  Themistocles (ships v. Persia, later banished), Alcibiades, Pericles, Marcus Cato (self-control, austerity).  The story (in the biography of Flaminus) of the shout of joy (by Greeks upon restoration of their city) that caused crows to fall down dead, with Plutarch's speculations on the "why."  Pyrrhus ("one other such [victory] would utterly undo him").  Cimon.  Lucullus fighting all over Asia (and his soldiers tiring as Alexander's had).

Shouldn't be missed.  More readable than expected.  Even the dated translation works well.