Empires of the Sea - The Siege of Malta, the Battle of Lepanto (Roger Crowley, 2008)

This book was delightful in two ways. First, the baseline story - two empires with global reach duking it out via siege warfare and naval battles (using galleys) in the Mediterranean - is great. Second, the book is a different look at multiple threads read elsewhere that I've had a difficult time linking up.

Lepanto:  1571.  Just 65 years after Martin Luther; just 79 years after Columbus.

Some items:

1. It helps put Mediterranean geography in context - I've always been somewhat baffled as to the location of various islands that show up in story after story going back to Greek classics. I hadn't really thought of this sea as two separate spheres but it turns out that there is a pretty clear east/west split (running north to south from the toe of the boot - Sicily - Malta - North Africa); now I can finally keep straight (west to east): Majorca and Minorca; Corsica and Sardinia; Sicily and Malta; Crete; Rhodes; Cyprus.

2. And now I can better remember where Genoa and Venice fit, that these northern city-states surrounded Hapsburg and papal state territories, part of the reason why southern Italy is relatively undeveloped, why Italy featured cities instead of developing into a country like France or England or others.

3. Warfare that is startlingly modern - fort descriptions and gunnery positioning etc. reminded me of Verdun (described here); sophisticated cannon and other weaponry, supply arrangements, etc.

4. Yet warfare that is primitive in other ways - I didn't realize that in the 16th century naval warfare in this area was conducted via galleys - hearkening back to Ben Hur or far earlier in history. The situation had not improved about recruiting rowers; galley slaves; the disgusting conditions in which they rowed (and generally died).

5. The Ottoman siege of Malta sounded reminders to the siege of Malta in World War II, described here. Troop staging in Sicily reminded me of the Allies in World War II (described here). Same considerations of geography. etc

6. Rampant piracy - on both sides, though far more coming from the Muslim world. These folks were wrecking towns and hauling off slaves (many headed for the galleys) by the tens of thousands, with a focus on Italy, the Adriatic, Spain, France. (One can see where "the shores of Tripoli" - from the Marines' Hymn about stopping Barbary Coast pirates - could still have been an issue hundreds of years after the events in this book. And now we have Somalian pirates.) This also connected to the Vikings - the raids sounded quite similar (and southern Italy was hit up in both phases).

7. The events help put Spain in context - Moors recently ejected; but "unreliable" forced converts living oh so close to "Moorish" territory. Sounds like inquisition is in order.

8. Prescott discussed how Charles V (key Hapsburg emperor) paid little attention to Cortez; there was interest in treasure but otherwise events in the New World almost were a sideshow to events in Europe; this book puts some specifics around this. There were just a few folks sent to the New World; the bullion returned via treasure ships financed many projects and including in particular the naval warfare with the Ottomans. Cortez participated in a raid to North Africa later in life (trying to retake Algiers in 1541).

9. More context around Christianity v. Islam. This was 400+ years after the Crusades were launched. What an incredible, and incredibly ridiculous, history of fighting. Each side claiming true religion while leadership typically is pursuing far more earthly goals. And watching Christianity split with Protestant reformation. And even the Catholic domains (France and Venice) constantly cutting deals with Ottomans at the expense of Spain.

10. Vision of the Ottomans and the Hapsburgs as true world empires; only places with the $$ to put together significant armies/navies. Ottomans were so highly developed. I have this image of incompetence from all the references to the "sick man of Europe" = but that was ~300 years in the future. Ottomans were still awesome at this stage.

11. Sieges at Rhodes and Cyprus (in addition to Malta). Heroism by defenders; great stories throughout.

12. Miguel de Cervantes in the fighting at Lepanto (with Don Quixote making reference to the battle in the book). Quite the battle - 600+ ships (70% of oared vessels in entire Mediterranean in one spot); the author says the rate of slaughter (however calculated) wasn't matched until this battle in 1915. The fresco shown above shows ships in the lines of battle; compared to Trafalgar; hard to believe they could keep this many ships in order.

13. Apparently western Europe was under such pressure that finally having some success (meaning Lepanto) led to outbursts of joy; a series of famous art works by the "masters;" the story absolutely captured the popular imagination. And now there were printing presses to spread the word (and leave a huge trail for historians). The artwork at the top of the page certainly expresses a point of view as to where the religious preferences fell during the battle.

14. But as it turned out, Lepanto didn't disable the Ottomans, but broke momentum and with other events, ended efforts to go on to Rome when that seemed not only possible but likely. Attentions turned elsewhere. Spain sent a fleet to England. Burning energy fighting Protestants in Holland. Ottomans supposedly focused more on Persia, did keep going up the Danube basin (for over a century).

15. Read a lot about the Templars here; they were pretty much out of business at this point but the Knights of St. John had survived and played key roles in all this, especially on Rhodes and Malta (where they went after the Ottomans kicked them out of Rhodes).

16. Andrea Doria fought in this, along with other luminaries. Charles V apparently loved having court painters show him in war-like glory, as with this example.

Cancel Your Own . . . Subscription (William F. Buckley, Jr., 2007)

This book sounded quite interesting in a couple reviews, so I read it. But I didn't find it very interesting.

Buckley is very well known as a "conservative" spokesperson. This went on for many years, starting with the founding of The National Review in 1955. He just died within the past year or so.

I'm guessing I would have agreed with many of his views, even if the term "conservative" now more properly applies to those that seek to preserve existing big government, unions, favor structures, etc. But I never saw the weekly TV show "Firing Line," and didn't read National Review. So don't have much feel for how Buckley actually sounded.

This book mostly had excerpts from a National Review feature called "Notes and Asides." Lots of clever comments, points of grammer, witty letters, communications with then-celebrities or public figures. Etc. Whatever.

Lili Marlene: The Soldiers' Song of World War II (Liel Leibovitz and Matthew Miller, 2009)

I liked this little book far better than expected. Have seen numerous references to this song in other WWII books so was interested.

A reluctant German soldier (Hans Liep) in 1915 writes a poem about the "girl waiting underneath the lantern, by the barrack's gate". The girl is a composite figure of two women in whom he is interested. He also sets the poem to music; but it goes nowhere, is buried in a compilation of his poetry. Simple, sentimental, focused on the sorrow of separation caused by war and the hope of returning to love.

In the 1930s, a new musical setting is written by a composer (Norbert Schultze) who write much of the propaganda music for the Nazis. Lale Andersen records the new version. Out of step with Nazi martial music; again it goes nowhere. Sells 700 records so they try to publicize via radio. First performance was on Kristellnacht, so received no attention; and Germany moves into war mode.

The German Army establishes a high-powered radio station in conquered Yugoslavia (Radio Belgrade). Way short on records, the station obtains a stack that includes "Lili Marlene." Radio Belgrade plays the song a few times.

And then the magic begins. Literally thousands of letters are received from soldiers in various theaters - from both Axis and Allies! The song threatens to swallow the station's other programming, so it was taken off the air. That provoked a real cascade of letters. A most successful resolution was achieved: the song was played once per day, at exactly 9:57p, just before final news and signoff.

And apparently the soldiers waited just for this, night after night. Neat stories in North Africa, where the lines sometimes were so close that one side would yell across to the other to turn up its radios so that both sides could hear their song. Both sides adopted the song and it was played daily at 9:57p pretty much right up to the end.

The leadership on both sides were troubled. Goebbels hates it - spoke to longing to come home, love; opposite of military machine. At one point he prevented Lale Andersen from performing, and at one point only instrumental versions were permitted. "Monty" also hated it - the song was both German and sentimental. But the military leadership all realized it wasn't worth crossing the soldiers on this point, and versions were released in different languages.

So what connected between this song and the front-line soldiers? Especially the British and Americans who couldn't even understand the words? I try to think about this when listening to Andersen's German version. It clearly had a power that top-down propaganda music didn't. Sounds like the song was particularly popular in North Africa and Italy; what did somebody like Irvin Bormann think of it?

The original Lale Andersen version is first below - this is the recording that the folks in North Africa would have heard, probably the most common one throughout the war.

Other recordings emerged as time went on, including by established stars like Marlene Dietrich. A version from a USO camp is at bottom (gives English translation).

Rather touching finish to the book where they describe how the reunions of certain units continue with dwindling numbers, combined attendance from German and Allied vets. And yes, these 80-somethings - veterans from both sides - sing "lili Marlene" together at each reunion.

Lale Andersen - 1938:





Marlene Dietrich, USO camp version in English:

Frankenstein (Mary Shelley, 1831)

The author was from a then well known literary family; had a quite unstable and unusual married life. She hung around with folks like Lord Byron. These two plus some other literary types were stuck in a rainy spell while on extended holiday near Lake Geneva, and challenged each other to write ghost stories as a diversion. "Frankenstein" grew out of this effort.

Gothic, strange, quick read, enjoyable. Not sure of the take-away, but at a minimum (as an old commercial put it), clearly it's never a good idea to fool with mother nature.

Three long narratives are included from slightly different perspectives - the tale of the narrator; who then hears Frankenstein's tale directly from Frankenstein; and the narrator then hears the monster's tale from Frankenstein (with a finishing flourish direct from the monster).

Awful things happen throughout. It's not hard to see how this became widely read, and transmuted into various pop culture formats.

By the way, I hadn't realized how the monster had learned language etc. (not having had a chance at a formal education). Among his learning opportunities, the monster had access to three books - one of which of course was Goethe's "The Sorrows of Young Werther," the massively influential book described here. The monster apparently sympathized with Werther's version of being "romantic."

History of the Conquest of Mexico (William H. Prescott, 1843)

Absolutely fascinating. This detailed history (900 pages) was released in 1843, so quite the different perspective than a current writer might take. I'm not sure how much has been debunked by subsequent scholarship but would be pretty confident that most of the book has survived

I always like the stories of different cultures coming into contact, though usually I run into this in the context of the African explorations. Prescott notes many similarities while emphasizing the differences as well. Many similar values and religious concepts; some not so similar. I much liked one of the appendices, which was a letter from an Aztec mother to her daughter (who was moving into adulthood). Other than the subservient tone toward the male figures (which wouldn't have been out of place in contemporary Europe), it read exactly like sound modern advice - sophisticated, measured, etc.

The author tells the unbelievable tale in delightful prose, very scholarly yet completely engaging. Prescott had pretty much lost his eyesight, so had to have many of the source materials read to him by others; he composed text on some sort of device for the blind. This book (and one on the Peruvian conquest that I definitely read) helped him become quite famous. We travel occasionally through Prescott, Arizona, which was the territorial capital and named for this author.

The Cortes story is pretty well known in broad strokes; this book provides the detail that makes the broad-stroke version all the more unbelievable. Some items:

1. Prescott provides immense detail about the various tribes, including why so many were willing to help Cortes against the Aztecs.

2. The characterization of Montezuma is compelling. The circumstance of the Quetzalcoatl story is uncanny. I didn't know Montezuma hosted the Spaniards for literally months.

3. The characterization of Cortes - he seemed to have pretty much incredible leadership ability (not to mention physical strength and stamina). I really didn't know anything about his post-conquest adventures (none came close to matching that success though were also very difficult).

4. Cortez has a handful of men in a land full of enemies, no maps, no knowledge of much of anything - and burned his ships so there was no turning back. There is plenty reason why that action became so famous.

5. The noche triste - and subsequent difficult retreat from Mexico to the land of their allies - this was quite the adventure. The canals and causeways made for difficult urban fighting. (I was just reading that the first poem ever submitted by Robert Frost for publication was based on this event - he was captivated by Prescott's book.)

6. Impressive that Cortes survived this, the intrigues of his fellow Spaniards, and returned to take the city. The actual reduction of the city was quite a process - ended up basically knocking down all buildings other than temples etc. that were too large to be worth the effort. and filled in the canals to give freedom of movement for cavalry, cannon, etc.

7. And then came slavery (in all but name), disease, etc. for the survivors. And some form of religious conversion.

8. Prescott had some interesting observations about the motivations of the conquerors, that they were almost a throw-back to the "knight errant" construct that already was obsolete elsewhere in Europe. But Spain was a throw-back in general; interesting course of development with Islamic presence so different than elsewhere in Europe.

Like so much history I read - but applicable to this one in particular - the story lines are more compelling than fiction. A novelist who tried to write this stuff would be ridiculed.

In Other Rooms, Other Wonders (Daniyal Mueenuddin, 2009)

This is different than my usual reading, and I enjoyed it a bunch.

The writer is from Pakistan; he puts together eight stories with quite a bit of overlap among the characters. It centers around a wealthy landowner named K.K. Harouni; he is now quite old and has gradually been selling off ancestral lands to cover failed ventures, high expenses, etc. The stories pick up various members of his family, but also focus on domestic servants, his key overseers, an electrician working on his properties, etc. Some of the family members are back and forth among London, America, Pakistan, etc.

So it speaks to the transition from feudal(?) Pakistan to very modern times, and it speaks across the social classes and geographies. All of which works very well. The last story is mostly about an old man who built a box-house that he could take with him when he moves (final move is to work on a Harouni property), nice and very sad.

Birthday gift from the Reghabis. Nice.

The Battle for Spain - The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939 (Antony Beevor, 1982)

I have been very interested in learning something about the Spanish Civil War because it comes up so often in other things I'm reading.

There are a number of most interesting story lines that are part of the military action, such as:

1. The fascist powers of the day (Germany and Italy) expending great energy on behalf of Franco and the nationalists. The Nazis correctly perceived this war as a great opportunity to test military equipment and tactics; no doubt this was very helpful in the early days of WWII.

2. Stalin and the Russian communists expending great energy on behalf of the republican government. But not as effectively as the Germans. Stalin's interest was in seeing that the Spanish communist party was positioned to take over the leftist coalition after the civil war; he didn't wish to provoke Hitler. It seemed that the communists - one of the largest parts of the coalition - burned so much energy on internal politicking that might have been better turned toward the military. (And odd that Stalin entered into an alliance with Hitler, if short-lived, very quickly after the civil war ended.)

3. A "non-intervention" policy by those countries that might have been thought to be interested in supporting republican Spain - leaving it pretty much alone except for Russia and the folks mentioned in the next paragraph. Places like England and the US were scared off by the large communist streak in the republican coalition, not to mention the US Catholic lobby. Over time, the republican cause lacked resources.

4. Yet the republican cause was viewed by idealists around the world as noble, to the point where "international brigades" with thousands of participants showed up to fight fascism. Amazing. But at this point in the 1930s, the Stalinist purges and excesses were not all that widely known, and unions, communists and socialists were not in disfavor (worldwide depression, etc.)

5. And a big chunk of the celebrity artists and writers were in support of republican Spain. Ernest Hemingway probably most prominent among them. For Whom the Bell Tolls is a great story, set entirely in the Spanish civil war.

6. The Guernica bombing.

7. Spanish vets show up on both sides in WWII, and it's easy to see why they would have been in demand. Republican types fought with the Russians; nationalist types helped the Nazis. There is a strong character in David Robbins' novel about Kursk - a Spanish civil war vet who was a tank expert. Etc.

8. I hadn't realized Franco was so tight with Hitler and Mussolini, or that he was running a first-class dictatorship right up into the 1960s. Retribution after the war apparently was just awful.

The book was quite good, though so detailed that I just blew through much of the military descriptions. I liked Beevor's Stalingrad (summarized here) better.

Click to enlarge:

Killing Pablo (Mark Bowden, 2001)

This book was a birthday gift from KHG. It focuses on a 16-month effort to capture (though the goal turned simply to killing, once they figured out imprisonment was hopeless) drug kingpin Pablo Escobar; the effort succeeded in December 1993. The book also gave lots of background information about Escobar's rise to power in Colombia.

The story simply feels unbelievable - but apparently it all happened.

It seems impossible that one criminal (admittedly with a well-paid, loyal organization) could exert such control over an entire country. Seems he had a pretty simple system in dealing with people - (a) they could do what he wanted and be paid handsomely, or (b) they would be killed. Also seems he left no doubt that he would enforce the system - stunning numbers of murders of judges, police, anybody in the way. Accordingly, huge numbers of folks selected (a). The organizational reach was unbelievable - politicians, judges, police. He had intelligence about almost everything that was going on.

Particularly telling was his negotiated "surrender" leading to "imprisonment" in a luxe facility he built for himself (before eventually escaping by slipping through a cordon of hundreds of soldiers who somehow "didn't see" him). What a deal.

There was a Harrison Ford movie some years ago based on some popular novel where the story line was built around an Escobar figure. I thought it was pretty hyped up. I was wrong, the real-life guy had far more money and influence.

All this is a bit unsettling thinking of the drug violence in Mexico and elsewhere; also the incredible challenge of running honest politics in countries with this kind of heritage. (But that might get me started on U.S. politics.)

But you know what? There is some room for optimism. There were some honest folks that took PE down, and I'm guessing that took courage in quantities most of us couldn't even imagine, and very few are ever called on to show.

Good book.

From Here to Eternity (James Jones, 1951)

Another book that I never would have planned to read. But actually was looking forward to it after The Thin Red Line.

I also wouldn't have thought of the author (James Jones) - as anything special. But the book is just excellent. Not much at all about WWII - instead, Jones writes about the army in Hawaii in the last years building up to 1941.

I have zero direct experience with the Army, especially as it existed in the 1940s. But I'm convinced Jones had a gift for supplying the reader with snippets of understanding how some of this must have felt.

This is why I read.

For example, he writes poignantly about the loneliness and rootlessness of so many soldiers; this perhaps was even stronger in the years following the Depression. Strong scenes of a man (Pruitt) carrying his few things in a couple bags, moving into the bunk area, set up a couple things on the locker - and you've completely moved with all your stuff. And lonely among a room full of soldiers.

I think he also "gets it" in the way he writes about the unique camaraderie that develops in spite of (or probably because of) the shared Army experiences, miserable though so many may be. I liked the part where the soldiers fell into a shared work routine when "digging in" in one of the more serious field exercises as WWII neared. I think Jones liked big chunks of Army life.

He also "gets it" when it comes to writing about music. Pruitt - who is just a great character - is a talented bugler. Something that would seem mundane to me, but Jones insists that those who listen to the buglers multiple times a day can tell the difference. Pruitt leaves the bugle corps for Pruitt-ish reasons, but gets the chance to play Taps one night at the base. What a great scene, as Jones describes what's running through Pruitt and his listeners almost note by note. I really liked where Jones had a soldier step out of a bar during the middle of the song and say to a friend - as if winning a bet - that he knew it was Pruitt. It somewhat reminded me of Proust's efforts to describe music in words - the writers know it's ultimately impossible but make a great run at it.

Pruitt was a strong character; he realized he loved the army despite everything, and recognized he was destined to be a 30-year man. He was a good athlete (boxer); sharpshooter; musical (trumpet); tough, smart, uneducated. But he had developed a code of behavior from growing up in poverty in Kentucky coal mines and years on the lam in the Depression. His code was at cross-purposes with a long Army career. The second major character was Warden, and much of the story revolves around their interconnected story lines.

In fact there were lots of well-developed characters (which is a benefit of a really long book). You can look back at the list of folks - the Malloy, Karen Holmes, Maggio, Andy, Stark, Warden, Bloom, Galovitch, Holmes, Alma, Pete Karalson, and on and on - you felt that you knew them all. There were many scenes where they are talking through their thought processes, very interesting. Also many scenes where they focus on Army diversions such as wine & women.

A terribly sad scene was finding the Re-enlistment Blues on the seat of the car; coupled with Warden checking out Pruitt's belongings and just sitting there for an hour. In fact, the book consistently leaves me feeling something like wistful, though I don't exactly know why.

I've never seen the movie and there's no way it could cover this territory. It's well-reviewed, and hopefully it's good on its own terms.

I also had no idea this book was on The Modern Library's list of top 100 20th century novels (#62).

Paris: The Secret History (Andrew Hussey, 2006)

This book had been well-reviewed, but I was a bit leery because of the title (if a book is being marketed on the basis of "secret," it's probably not very serious). And I would say the book isn't great, but it certainly is extremely helpful in lining up all the things going on in Paris since Roman times. Much worth the time to read it.

This is particularly useful in sorting out all the changes from the Revolution through WW II.

Not to mention terms like the "left bank" - didn't realize older maps often had west to the top. The university history was stronger than I knew.

There was some discussion of Knights Templar, consistent with the discussion in this book.

First cafes (coffee rather than ale or wine) supposedly in the 1660s. Fancy restaurants appearing in late 18th century (including chefs of aristocracy looking for work after the Revolution.) Haute couture as wealthy mimic ex-royalty. Haussmann changing the look of the city; open boulevards, wrought iron railings. All sorts of leading ideas, regular turmoil, etc.

(Skipping some): Revolution, Directory, Bonaparte, Restoration, 1830 (Louis Phillipe - bourgeois king), 1848 (Napoleon III), 1870, Communards, etc. It's odd to think how much happened in such a short space of time; most folks would have lived through multiple stages.

Our Man in Havana (Graham Greene, 1958)

A light read but entertaining. I didn't realize this had been made into a movie with Alec Guinness.

Greene pokes fun at the intelligence community, much of which "fun" was quite on point as far as I know - inter-agency rivalries as well as rivalries among ostensible allies. Somehow that allowed a vacuum cleaner salesman to become a highly-touted intelligence source in 1950s Havana - despite the low quality (to be kind) of the intelligence being supplied. I liked it.

The Road to Serfdom (F.A. Hayek, 1944)

The author is referred to constantly in articles I read yet I had never had occasion to pick up any of his works. This book was a Christmas gift from Luis. I like that the book included a collection of related materials as the book has been published and republished in recent decades.

While our politicians lurch around passing inexplicable laws, I wonder if they could also adopt a law requiring each politician and government regulator to spend say 10 minutes each morning reading this work before they set about wreaking havoc.

Hayek was moved to write the book while observing England - in the late 1930s - repeating many of the factors that led to the rise of National Socialism - and Hitler - in Germany. His observations are remarkably relevant to America even now. He was concerned that central planning and control would necessarily stunt innovation and productivity and, in turn, freedom - the road to serfdom.

It was interesting to read someone with his perspective explain how the collectivists co-opt the terminology of freedom - all the way to the point that the term "liberal" is completely removed from its 19th century meaning.

He acknowledges that unfettered capitalism can't exist anymore, and that capitalism itself is full of faults. That doesn't stop him from convincingly making the case for the concept that free individuals will come up with practical solutions during the course of their normal interactions in a way that no government regulator can ever do.

Watching our leaders in action these days confirms this point of view. Watching the pack bray at AIG in today's news also calls to mind Hayek's observations (not to defend AIG - moreso that this involves populist rabble-rousing to deflect attention from the AIG bailout blunders). Unfortunately we are going through a set of conditions in which what seemed like an already ridiculously large government is going to expand by several orders of magnitude. Under what circumstance will Washington give up the control it's taking in banking, automobile industry (including suppliers as of today), healthcare? - and the list goes on. More sectors to lose dynamism in exchange for expending their energies seeking government favors. Aarrgh.

Fathers and Sons (Ivan Turgenev, 1861)

I liked this. Turgenev writes an accessible story of what later became characterized as a "generation gap." This occurs with each generation but doubtless is more pronounced at times of social upheaval - in this case, the run-up to the "liberation" of the serfs, etc.

Bazarov is the strongest character - refers to himself as a "nihilist," leads around Arkady and others. Their homes are relatively close by so they together visit each set of parents after graduation. Bazarov's father is a military alum; Arkady's a traditional gentlement, trying to cope with the new relationships with the serfs, deal with his beloved wife's death, run his dwindling estate. Arkady's father lives with his somewhat-dandy brother, Pavel - who is a neat character. Turgenev writes a number of nice scenes, including Arkady courting Katya.

I guess the Russian novelists were heavily politicized, apparently because there were few other developed outlets for expression. On the surface, this might seem to be an insightful story of generations coming to understand one another a bit. But I read that the book also prompted strong reactions across the political spectrum, with leftists thinking Turgenev was glorifying conservative values, and conservatives thinking he was glorifying "nihilism" (whatever that might mean, I think even Bazarov would have had trouble explaining).

The Sorrows of Young Werther (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1774)

I've wanted to catch up with this short book ever since going through a biography of Goethe. He wrote this when just 24; it perhaps represented an earlier stage of Sturm und Drang, though Goethe may not have even agreed; it seemed to be published just when the world was waiting for it.

Thomas Mann writes: "The world at once took possession of The Sorrows of Young Werther and it took possession of the world . . . It seemed as though the public in all countries, secretly and without their own knowledge, had been awaiting this very book by an unknown young man from a German imperial city; that this book with revolutionary, liberating power emancipated the fettered yearnings of the civilized world. Napoleon, the iron man of destiny, had the French translation in his knapsack through Egyptian campaign. He claimed to have read it seven times."

It was published in all the main languages worldwide; sparked perhaps the first mass marketing push (Werther cologne, clothes, endless similar); and made Goethe famous.

Yet today I think we would all find the protagonist simply ridiculous. Which makes it all the more interesting to think why the book was an unquestioned blockbuster - in commercial and artistic impact, plus in its effect on folks' thinking. Perhaps things were quite ripe for a reaction to rationalism, but go figure . . .

900 Days - The Siege of Leningrad (Harrison Salisbury, 1969)

Another World War II story that - if one were to write it as fiction - would be dismissed as simply too much to believe.

I had heard a bit about this siege in other reading, but it hadn't really hit home what was going on. I know it's difficult to measure these things but I would tend to believe statements that this was the worst disaster to befall any large modern city. Soviet Russia tried to suppress the goings-on after the war; the author had great familiarity with Russia from various connections, so could piece things together.

The beginning of the story is pretty well known - Stalin refused to believe his erstwhile ally, Hitler, was preparing to invade Russia notwithstanding endless clear evidence to the contrary. This led to all sorts of problems for Russia and, in particular, Leningrad. Preparations for war with Germany would have been considered "defeatism" by Stalin - so local authorities were limited in making preparations.

The Nazis had great early successes and effectively encircled the entire city. A large lake to the northeast (Lake Ladoga) was the only remaining route during the winter of 1941-42 (after it froze). It seems that the Nazis could have stormed the city and wouldn't have needed a siege - except they prioritized taking Moscow and diverted heavy armor at a critical moment. They then decided to settle in for the winter and starve the city into submission (while shelling and bombing constantly).

This winter also was supremely cold. Bad news in a city lacking fuel.

Food supplies dwindled rapidly. The author reports the ration for factory workers in November was cut to as low as 125 grams of "bread" per day (250 grams for factory workers). (Do the math, it's 454 grams per pound.)

And the "bread" on which folks tried to survive was an awful mix of flour sweepings, cottonseed cake, reclaimed flour dust, "edible cellulose," salt, etc.

What was going on for the general population in the winter of 41-42? (I focus on this because the remainder of the 900 days - while bad - wasn't as bad.)

1. A city of 3.5 million that was eerily quiet - no fuel for vehicles, streetcars, etc. Factories and stores closed - no goods, no power.

2. No heat in dwellings - in a bitterly cold winter.

3. Hunger made folks too weak to do much of anything - how could anyone function on a few ounces of marginally nutritional "bread?"

4. The survivors recall how children's sleds became the mode of transportation - you could haul your water, your relatives that were too weak to walk, your corpses.

5. Folks started dying in droves. Thousands per day in '41-'42. Everybody was repeatedly affected - estimates of losses reach one million persons, most of whom simply starved to death. Not imaginable.

6. Bodies everywhere - no smell because of super cold. Corpses stay in houses for weeks (too much effort required to remove them), lay on streets (folks just walked on by, what else was there to do?); many gathered up for mass graves.

7. Part of the eerie quiet: no dogs or other animals. Poignant stories of folks killing (and eating) longtime family pets.

8. Part of the eerie quiet: few children in the streets. Many were dying; others not allowed out much due to rumors of cannibalism, that children were preferred as yielding more tender meat. (Women supposedly better than men in the cannibal hierarchy, except perhaps soldiers who benefited from larger rations.)

9. And there was cannibalism - meat patties trading on the black market at Haymarket Square; some Leningraders that simply looked "too healthy" for the rations received.

10. Life with ration cards - reissued on the first of every month with no chance of reissue if lost; those that lost their card early in the month didn't have a chance without charity from others. Or theft. Black market trades - family heirlooms for half a loaf of "bread."

11. Yet a sense of camaraderie; some of the Stalinist repression lifted; some performances go on; lectures; Shostakovich composing while the shells fall; saving Hermitage treasures; etc.

Wow. I suppose it was heroic, but it's not easy to classify driving off the Germans - after almost three years - as a "win" when you lose one million people.