Whenever I finish a book I write down my thoughts. I started this practice a year ago to help me remember everything I’ve read. Here are a few of those thoughts from the past 3 months. I hope to publish updates a couple of times a year.

The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order by Gary Gerstle:
What is a political order? Gerstle describes it as the general consensus around the vision, rules, and methods of political, economic and social life. One of the key elements to establishing a political order is acceptance by its chief opposition. For the FDR Liberal order that came from Eisenhower in 1952. For the Neoliberal order it came from Clinton in 1992.

Gerstle makes the case that a Neoliberal order started with the collapse of the Bretton Woods system and the reelection of Nixon, both in 1972, and accelerated with the election of Reagan in 1980. But it took Clinton’s election in 1992 to lock it in. The order is defined by free market, easy money policies and unipolarity following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I learned of the “Party System” method of political analysis years ago. Gerstle’s narrative provides a useful companion.

Dynamic of Destruction: Culture and Mass Killing in the First World War by Alan Kramer:
What caused the first world war? Better question: what ended everything that came before? Alan Kramer’s Dynamic of Destruction has some surprising suggestions. The first 4 months produced the highest death rates by far. This period is known as the Battle of the Frontiers. Another is the degree of Habsburg complicity. The German “Blank Cheque” is not a total myth. But the Austrian militarists held sway over the general staff. Both empires were angling for a fight. The actual thesis of the book is that the Central Powers committed, by far, the most serious war crimes. Some of this is to be expected, as they held enemy territory while being deliberately starved by the Allies. In other words, Germans took food out of France, Belgium, and Russia to feed its own population. The Allies did not have that option. But other crimes are completely without excuse. German soldiers, politicians, and military leadership all shared a view of POWs as “Francs-tireurs”, allowing summary execution. This shared understanding could, and was, easily broadened and abused. If a partisan killed a German soldier, they might pull dozens of people out and shoot them. Whole villages were burned. At times it’s unclear if anyone was shot. Panicky soldiers heard phantom gunfire.

The concluding chapter deals with the aftermath. Kramer contends there is no overriding continuity between the wars. It was Hobsbawm that popularized the idea of a “Thirty Years War” in the 20th century. Put simply, the world wars are best understood as separate events.

The Deluge: The Great War, America and the Remaking of the Global Order, 1916–1931:
This might be the best historical narrative I have ever read. Tightly focused, illuminating, and novel at once. Tooze starts in 1916 with the Entente powers reliance upon U.S. investors, first from Wall Street, but finally from the U.S. government itself. Britain and France were bankrupt, largely due to the battles of Verdun and the Somme. From this point forward the United States is the financial power in the world. The narrative concludes with the U.K. withdrawal from the gold standard and the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931.

The Deluge covers the collapse of the old international order, whose founding can be placed in 1648, 1789, 1815, 1848, 871, or 1890, depending on the scope of the analysis. The interbellum period is the first attempt at a codified, controlled international order. Tooze argues, against traditional historiography, that with the conclusion of the Locarno treaties in 1925 this attempt was largely successful. Even the market crash of 1929 couldn’t dislodge it. It took lingering unemployment and scarce resources to finally kill it.

The Dark years: France 1940 – 1944 by Julian Jackson:
The French commitments made following the 1940 defeat probably seemed justified, even patriotic. How to move forward? The options were limited. Is an armistice a surrender or merely a truce? What is supposed to come out of it? Early on, collaboration was not a dirty word. It’s possible things could have remained that way. It was all up to the Germans. The meeting between Hitler and Petain at Montoire October 24, 1940, began the collaboration. Most Frenchmen were in favor. However, in 1942, after roundups in July (Vel d’Hiver) and the Allied invasion in November (Operation Torch) these leaders were deemed traitors. Some were enthusiastically collaborating with the occupier. But even without these actions, the mantle of governance alone began to reflect badly on them. Thereafter the resistance grew slowly from different factions with often quite divergent motives. Charles de Gaulle, presiding from England until 1944, had to handle complex issues between the Americans and British, the northern and southern resistance leaders, and the North African Free French military.

The historical interpretation of Resistance changed throughout the 20th century. At times all of France was incorporated, at other times only an elite, to the exclusion of foreigners and Communists. Several books and films changed public attitudes, including The Sorrow and the Pity. Numerous public trials occurred in the late ‘80s and ‘90s that reopened old wounds.

The Fall of France – The Making of the Modern World by Julian Jackson:
Total national defeat has a quality unlike any other. A complete loss of identity. Bewilderment. Unreality. No authority, no traditions, no community. Germany invaded Friday, May 10th, 1940. By the 15th the French leaders all but resigned themselves to defeat.

Julian Jackson explores why the defeat was so sudden and complete. French rearmament starts with the Popular Front in 1936 and production issues are rife. Diplomatically, the Anglo-French alliance was weak. And the Little Entente (alliance with Eastern Europe) is ineffective due to the unwillingness of British to commit. Much of this is lingering distrust from WWI. It’s hard, all these years later, to inhabit the mind of the leadership in1939. While the first world war was 20 years in the past, most Allied conflicts occurred during the attempts to establish peace and order. That was much more recent. Finally, military planning was hurried and incomplete. The Dyle Plan reinforced Belgium and ignored Ardennes. French reaction to the German advance was always late and halting. Gamelin became defeatist. Once Marshal Petain argued for armistice the contest was over.

A Supposedly Fun Thing I’ll Never Do Again: Essays and Arguments by David Foster Wallace:
There’s no clever way to describe a collection of magazine articles. I’ll just mention my favorite, “Shipping Out”, where Wallace takes an assignment for Harper’s Magazine to board a luxury Caribbean cruise liner. That was laugh out loud reading, which means genuinely funny. Such a pity, Wallace. His writing is so lyrical and flowing. His voice comes pouring through and I forget I’m reading at all. Just hanging with an interesting fellow. Pity.

The Phoney Victory by Peter Hitchens:
Peter Hitchens said he wrote this book because modern UK leaders use Churchillian language to justify new wars of choice. Anyone who dissents is labeled an appeaser, a modern-day Chamberlain. However, a closer look at the events of 1939 paints an entirely different picture. Not only was Churchill often wrong, but he was also ill-motivated. Conversely, Chamberlain was responsible for early rearmament and prudent compromise. Hitler was the enemy, without question. But while sometimes you thrust, other times you must parry. Hitchens contends Britain made a rash guarantee to Poland out of vanity. An attempt to maintain a sense of relevance when the military situation did not support it. War with Germany was coming, but why draw the line with Poland? Why not Czechoslovakia or Austria in 1939, or the Rhineland in 1936? Many say they should have. Hitchens says the were right not to.

Everybody loves WWII counterfactuals. But this is not really a “what if” history. Most people think Germany should have been stopped a year or two earlier. Hitchens believes a year or two later. From what I can tell, he is the only person who believes this. But he has his reasons. Very interesting.

Micah Clarke by Arthur Conan Doyle:
An elderly man writes to his grandchildren about his boyhood and participation in the Monmouth Rebellion of 1685. I’m reminded of Patrick O’Brien’s Aubrey / Maturin novels. The dated language and nautical references are everywhere, showing 17th century England to be a peasant and seafaring country. Protestantism acts more as a creed than religion for the insurgent fighters. Anger and resentment are rampant. They have been wronged, but more importantly, the King is a fraud and a liar. What is the lie they can’t forgive? He is a closet Catholic. A papist. The Duke of Monmouth will set things to right. The novel begins with a first person narrative from Micah, reminiscent of David Copperfield.

Monmouth is not described as a great leader. In fact, he’s seen as a vain and shallow man, whose equivocation costs the rebellion dearly. In hindsight, Micah sees the failure of the revolution as foreordained. The time had not yet come. God was not on their side. For that, they would have to wait another 3 years.

Boomers by Helen Andrews:
Helen Andrews evaluates six influential individuals from the Baby Boomer generation. This isn’t a particularly charitable book. Nor is it consistent. Mid-20th century life seems to have changed more from the efforts of WWII generation Liberals than from New Left Boomers. It wasn’t until the 1980s that Boomers began to mark their territory.

Her chapter on Steve Jobs confused me. He doesn’t appear to have the Boomer qualities she detests. In fact, it’s Tim Cook, Jobs’ successor, who possesses the savior complex. Jeffrey Sachs, the second subject, fits her bill much more closely. He has spent his life advising foreign countries on their economic potential. Andrews clearly admires some of these people, while simultaneously deriding their “Boomer” qualities. At times I felt Andrews engaged in grotesque generalizations rather than measured reflection. Can’t say the title of the book was misleading, but I do not recommend this one.

The Boomers:

Steve Jobs
Aaron Sorkin
Jeffery Sachs
Camille Paglia
Al Sharpton
Sonia Sotomayor

The War We Never Fought by Peter Hitchens:
The war on drugs is a fictional piece of pro-legalization propaganda. In the UK in 1970 a Parliamentary Act was passed which de facto de-criminalized drug use and possession. Little was known about THC in the mid-60s. In fact, the compound had just been isolated. It is likely mental health issues often result from chronic use, but health concerns are consistently downplayed, while comparisons to alcohol are ever present. The efforts to curb tobacco use are effective in ways that could be used to decrease marijuana use.

Tyranny Inc. by Sohrab Amari:
Private life in the modern world contains coercive forces that require attention and regulation as urgently as within the public, or governmental, sphere. The United States has a legal and political history of attention and regulation of corporate entities. However, since the 1970s a market-oriented ideology began to emerge that eventually became the consensus among elite lawmakers and influential pundits. This elite consensus explains some of the divisive, incoherent, and turbulent politics of the past 15 years.

France On Trial by Julian Jackson:
In August 1945, Marshal Petain, the hero of Verdun in 1916, was sentenced to death for “Indignité nationale”. Was he simply a victim of bad timing? Other French leaders, including Francois Mitterrand, appeased and collaborated but were not subjected to prosecution at all. In June 1940 he said he would “Make a gift of himself” to France and bear responsibility for the surrender. That resonated in 1940, but appears to have become a galling insult to those who suffered the 4 years of occupation and Vichy. After the verdict French historians and intellectuals settled on a compromised interpretation of events, which stated that France had a dual nature. Petain on one hand, de Gaulle on the other. This consensus lasted until the publication in 1972 of Vichy France: Old Guard and New Order by Robert Paxton, when the fate of French Jews was highlighted. During the Petain trial the focus was mostly on resistance fighters.

Catastrophe by Max Hastings:
Hastings focuses on the July Crises and the first 3 months of war. His contention is the Austrians were primary movers in the crises. The Germans also sought to exploit the assassination of Ferdinand. The possibility of Russian complicity is touched upon (not enough. I’m curious). The French and British are status quo powers, interested only in maintaining dominance in their respective domains.

This is a very English interpretation of the war. British participation in WWI was justified and inevitable. The enormous losses were necessary. The length of the war was necessary. Hastings doesn’t believe the war could be shortened or avoided, other than to accept German hegemony in Europe, which he believes would have been intolerable.

Hastings almost seems like an apologist for British leadership. Not quite. Field Marshal John French (he’s English) is singled out as incompetent. The Austrian foreign minister Leopold Berchtold is shown as lacking in leadership as well. Conrad and Moltke are singled out for warmongering.

The Balkan Trilogy by Olivia Manning:
Guy and Harriet Pringle take a position at a university in Romania in September of 1939. The war just started and things are in flux. Guy is entitled and arrogant. He and Harriet are in danger, yet he is certain of his position.

The atmosphere in Bucharest is like Savannah Georgia in Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil. The ethic mix is indecipherable to a foreigner. Guy and Harriet are lost in the terrible first weeks of the war. Of all the characters they meet, Yakimov is the most interesting. Weak, dishonest, Yakimov is an insufferable blowhard. It gets much worse as he struggles to maintain his position. Eventually, he begins to betray his friends to the Germans.

After Romania falls to the Germans Harriet and Guy escape to Greece. Employment there is not a certainty, and Guy spends much of his time fighting with the wretched British legation figures who abandoned Romania. Meanwhile, Harriet can no longer ignore Guy’s selfishness and looks for affection elsewhere. When the Germans eventually arrive the Pringles make a desperate escape to Egypt with the remaining legation officials.

War by Timetable by AJP Taylor:
The mobilization of armies in the July crisis is discussed in detail. These plans were irreversible in a way I had not previously imagined. Austria wants to punish Serbia for the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand but found the only plausible way to mobilize against the Serbs was to fully mobilize against Russia as well. Mobilization did not mean war, except in the case of Germany, where once the trains were in motion the shooting war began as well.

All The Kings Men by Robert Penn Warren:
Willie Stark is a man in constant motion. His body man Jack is the narrator. Robert Penn Warren depicts Willie as a man whose motives are personal and fierce. He exploits a vacuum in Louisiana politics. Jack, however, is a conflicted man with no principles or scruples. When asked to find “dirt” on Judge Irvin, a childhood mentor, he acts without hesitation. Warren attempts no disguises here. Willie Stark is clearly meant to represent Louisiana Governor Huey Long.

I read All The Kings Men knowing it is beloved by many, many influential writers. But I can’t spend multiple chapters reading the inner thoughts of a character. Writers from Warren’s period frequently attempt a Faulkner-level breakthrough. It bores me. While the plot is riveting, what a character had for breakfast is just tiresome and pointless. Call me semi-literate, call me vulgar, but things do have to happen to keep my interest. Luckily, when things begin to happen in All The Kings Men, they happen with terrific force. Willie Stark’s psychology doesn’t interest me. But what he does when cornered reveals everything you need to know about him.

Europe’s Last Summer by David Fromkin:
Analysis of July Crisis. It’s only 37 days from June 28th to August 4th. The speed of the catastrophe must have seemed breathtaking to the participants. Fromkin makes a fine point about different motives between Austria-Hungary the Germans. The Austria-Hungary wants to end Sebia as a political and military threat. Germany wants to crush Russia before its military buildup can be completed. Both want to contain the scope of the fighting, but the confusion around national interests allows mistakes, misunderstandings, and finally loss of control.

The July Crisis is one of the most investigated events of modern history, yet there is no film depiction. Strange. The Rohm putsch, or the “Night of the Long Knives” is another story begging for dramatic interpretation.

Washington Goes to War by David Brinkley:
Journalist David Brinkley describes the rapid growth of Washington D.C. from 1939 until the end of the war in 1945. After the country joined the war effort in 1942 Washington evolved from a mid-size southern town into a modern, cosmopolitan city. Over 70,000 people moved into the city every year of the war. This placed enormous strain upon the residents. Housing was in short supply. Race relations were terrible. Food and gas rationing frustrated everyone involved, from residents to the politicians and administrators. People would go to any lengths to get extra fuel. Nothing it seemed, not even food, mattered as much as gas for the car.