Book Review: The Cold War: A History by Martin Walker

Published in 1995, The Cold War: History by Martin Walker, veteran journalist for the Guardian and many other outlets, wrote a one-volume history of the era. Written at a time when the Cold War was just starting to be thought of as history, the book offers a mostly balanced overview. Walker does an admirable job of placing five decades of history into a coherent narrative, balancing many viewpoints that went into policymaking, while providing a global perspective. 

Walker is less concerned with personalities or ideology and more with economics and long-term policy outcomes. Ultimately, the Cold War was a matter of which economy performed better:

The West prevailed because its economy proved able to supply guns as well as butter, aircraft carriers and private cars, rockets as well as foreign holidays for an ever-increasing proportion of taxpayers (1-2)

A "synergy" between free enterprise and state investment in the West proved an essential in spurring economic growth and innovation, everything from massive investments in higher education after Sputnik to the construction of the Interstate highway system benefitted national security and long-term prosperity. Fostering the trading blocs of Western Europe and Japan also brought long-term dividends. The irony of Germany and Japan being the Axis Powers who waged the Second World War ended up being close Allies of the West speaks to the many contradictions and illusions of the post-war world.

An insight I gained from the book was how our perception of reality, especially when caught in the daily grind of crisis and response, can mislead anyone into short-sighted decisions. While I have little background in theory when it comes to international relations, knowing the interests and fears of the other side, and being realistic about your own objectives are critical while navigating crisis. Policies and decisions based on fear and paranoia can lead to extreme and even fatal miscalculations. Walker tracks how each side learned to coexist in the distrustful climate where disaster always loomed. 

At the Yalta Conference in February of 1945, arguably the first superpower summit, each side had their own ideas about the post-war world. The United States, under the idealism of FDR, wanted to foster democracy and ensure self-determination, guided by the United Nations. The Soviets wanted long-term security above all else after four years of bearing the brunt of defeating Germany. Allowing the Soviets satellite states in Eastern Europe was anathema to the Americans who worried the Soviets might conquer all of Europe. The clash in objectives and ideologies between the two superpowers inevitably led to conflict. 

Anti-communists in the West were convinced the Soviets were bent on world domination, while the Soviet leadership believed the West were imperialists scheming to enforce capitalism on the world. With each side believing the other wants world domination, conflict appears inevitable, and yet something else happened, in time the two sides established rules of conduct. History bears out the truth of both projections, the Soviets did force totalitarianism on Eastern Europe, while the United States often fostered authoritarian regimes under the guise of anti-communism. 

Nuclear weapons were crucial in the calculus of every crisis. Truman's decision to use atomic weapons against Japan ended the war but also moved the world into a new stage of existential crisis, the next conflict would far worse. During the brief window when America had a monopoly on atomic weapons, it pursued a policy of secrecy and leverage. Once the Soviets had their own arsenal, each side could destroy each other many times over, crisis management became a means of survival. In the many nuclear clashes of the 1950s, culminating with the Cuban Missile Crisis in October of 1962, it was essential for each side to know what they were and were not willing to concede, added with the underlying assurance neither side desired a nuclear exchange. 

The second half of the book views the latter decades of the Cold War as both superpowers discovered the limits of their power, whether it came to leveraging Allies or Quixotic attempts to achieve military superiority through fantastical technology. The age of detente which lasted through the 1970s, saw many changes, most of them positive. Both sides talked with regular frequency, engaging in arms control talks and cultural exchanges. European nations were starting to look beyond the trappings of the Cold War, whether it was East and West Germany moving towards unification, the French leading the way in creating the European Union. China began to engage, and Japan's economic achievements were the envy of the world.

Geopolitical and domestic politics led to new frictions between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. during the 1980s, as the scramble for oil and markets and heightened rhetoric threatened to rip apart the fragile peace. Yet there were signs the Soviet system was in decay, while Reagan's high defense spending led to deficits for the American economy. As Walker suggests, it might be something close to a miracle, the pressures on both nations during the late stages of the Cold War never boiled over. Reagan and Gorbachev both dismissed the hardliners in their midst and allowed the nuclear terror to dissipate - for a brief time anyway. The fall of the Berlin Wall and collapse of the Soviet served as more symbolic rather than concrete signs the travails of the Cold War were of the past; it was more of a respite and hardly an "end to history." 

Walker packs his narrative with economic data, charting the long-term and short-term consequences of policy decisions made by all the players. Government involvement in everyday life, whether in the form of defense, education, or social services, maintained a cohesion towards social democracy, especially in Western Europe, while America began to scale back the welfare state and increasingly resort to military intervention. Ultimately end of the Cold War led to a new litany of complex problems which left many nostalgic for the old days of Checkpoint Charlie and fallout shelters. 

Although written within the fragile euphoria of the 1990s while not having access to the archives which have opened since, Walker raises perceptive questions and approaches old questions from fresh angles. 

Walker, Martin, The Cold War: A History. New York: Holt, 1995.

Book Review: Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner by Paul M. Sammon

Future Noir set a high standard for non-fiction books on film productions in its account of the Sci-Fi touchstone Blade Runner. Author Paul M. Sammon was often on set during the shoot and was familiar with all the principals involved. The book is divided into sections: the first part covers the genesis of the film adapted from Phillip K. Dick's 1968 novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, then an account of the hectic production, and lastly on the film's influence and afterlife. 

While Phillip K. Dick (PKD as fans refer to him) wasn't well known outside Science Fiction circles in the 1970s, his work was starting to gain mainstream attention. Dick's recurring themes of surveillance, corporate power, technology, drugs and reality distortion became more and more prophetic in the decades following his death in 1982. Hampton Fancher was a struggling screenwriter who bought the rights to Electric Sheep and wrote the first scripts. The story followed "Blade Runner" Rick Deckard who hunts down renegade replicants in a dystopian L.A. reeling from nuclear wars and environmental collapse. 

Fancher's screenplay went through many drafts and eventually another writer (David Peoples) was brought in to add further revisions. Authorship is a recurring theme in the making of Blade Runner, because the journey from book to screen was so complicated. Sammon gives an intricate account of the power struggles that went into the final creative decisions in which the screenwriters, director, and cast all had input.

Ridley Scott was hired to direct Blade Runner (titled Dangerous Days during pre-production) coming off his 1979 Sci-Fi hit Alien. Scott had directed hundreds of commercials for the BBC, his background in graphic design and painting gave his early films a distinct style. A common argument among film buffs is whether movie directors' matter, whether the autuer theory carries any weight. Those discussions often get tedious, and I would suggest reading Future Noir (or any good book documenting a production) to understand the actual role of a director. 

Scott was demanding and involved himself in all aspects of the production. He worked closely with the screenwriters to improve the script, he preferred the hardboiled detective aspects of the story and wanted the setting to be a futuristic megalopolis, as if Los Angeles and San Francisco had merged into one city. With his background in design, he worked closely with technicians to develop the visual style. It was common for many directors to focus only on working with the cast and outsourcing the technical aspects, but Scott was part of a new generation of directors like Coppola and Spielberg who were involved in the technical and artistic aspects of filmmaking. 

Sammon provides a scene-by-scene summary of the arduous process of the production. Scott initially wanted to film at night in gritty parts of New York City, but it was logistically impossible. Instead, the L.A. of 2019 was filmed in a studio backlot which became known as "Ridleyville." Designed by Syd Mead, the neon cityscape became its own ecosystem, the set started to smell and sound like an urban wasteland. The all-night shoots took a toll on cast and crew, Scott's commanding personality bred resentments with many. The post-production process was just as complicated with all the effects work and yet more changes to the script, such as the last-minute decision to include narration, much to the chagrin of Harrison Ford. 

Released in June of 1982, Blade Runner struggled at the Box Office despite a lucrative marketing campaign. Audiences found it alienating, fans of Ford were not happy to see him playing a morally compromised protagonist. The market was overloaded with Sci-Fi in the summer of '82, as has been written about at length. But the film would find its audience on the home video boom of the 1980s. In the early 1990s a new cut of the film was released on Laserdisc, just as its influence on the Sci-Fi genre was apparent with films like Strange Days, Dark City, and The Matrix all owed much to Blade Runner. 

Future Noir provides a detailed and probing chronicle of how films were made during the 1980s. Revealing interviews with the cast are included in the appendix. 

Two YouTube Influencers Discuss the Vexing Problem of Why Young Men No Longer Read

Today we're going to have a real meeting of the minds. We have You Tuber extraordinaire J. Turner who's built a large following on his platform through his passion for philosophy, literacy, and finding the perfect mattress. Joining him will be fellow YouTuber who goes by Fortinbras Stallworth, a man of many interests and passions ranging from Anime to pondering the great philosophers as he sips craft beer. Both hold PhD's in philosophy and, coincidentally, both wrote their dissertations on Kierkegaard. Also, they are recent (and enthusiastic) converts to Roman Catholicism, bespectacled, bearded, in their "early 30s."

A transcript of their discussion:

J. Turner: Thanks so much for agreeing to have this discussion with me on a topic important to both of us - the crisis of male literacy.

Fortinbras: Thanks for inviting me on J. 

J. Turner: So, let me start out by asking you, when did you become aware of the crisis of literacy and masculinity?

Fortinbras: Well, I go to the gym every morning at 5am to lift. I always bring a book with me, and I noticed I was getting funny looks from the other guys sometimes. One day this dude approached me about why I always have a book. I explained I try to read whenever I get a free minute, he chuckled and walked away. It was then I knew we had a crisis of male literacy on our hands.

J. Turner: I had a similar experience, I go to the gym in the pre-dawn hours and noticed none of the other guys were reading. They were all watching sports highlights on their phones. I'm like, why are they not using their free time to read the great books? I mean, the data is clear, we got a crisis on our hands. I decided that day it would be mission to lead all young men to the great books. Sounds like we both had out epiphanies at the gym! 

Fortinbras: So I was in line to vote last year and reading Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman on my phone and I was like, wow, he predicted all this! We're living in it! Everyone's just addicted to a never-ending stream of micro entertainment. Wasn't it ironic I was waiting in line to vote?

J. Turner: Totally. So, I know many young men watch your channel and come to you for advice on reading. What are you hearing from them?

Fortinbras: Everyone's obsessed with productivity. Young men are under intense pressure from peers and family to always be busy - and always be making money. It's a rough economy out there, and men simply don't see reading as worth their time with the exception of books on business acumen and becoming alpha. 

J. Turner: The young men I talk with say similar things. And when they start reading books they either go for Blood Meridian, Crime and Punishment, or Infinite Jest. They view books as things to be conquered. But when they start reading those books they quickly stop. 

Fortinbras: (laughs) There's also all the distractions. Men have unlimited access to video games, sports, and porn of course. It's just hard to fit in books amid all those distractions. 

J. Turner: Technology is to blame for all this. You can forget about all the other social issues of 2025, young men not reading poses the greatest threat to the future. Where will we find great men if they are not reading the great books? 

Fortinbras: You raise a great point. I lose sleep over this, a generation of men not familiar with Chaucer, it's an unspeakable tragedy.

J. Turner: Funny you should mention Chaucer. In my first year of graduate school, I took a life-changing seminar on Chaucer. I mean I went on this intense reading journey learning everything I could about Chaucer, learning everything I possibly could about the man and the time period. I partied a lot too, but I cannot emphasize enough how much reading all those books on Chaucer shaped me as a scholar and the proud man I am today. I bet you had a similar experience. 

Fortinbras: Oh yes, I was studying abroad at Oxford and I in a seminar on C.S. Lewis and and Tolkien, I started reading everything I could about Middle Earth. At one point, I even though I was on middle earth. I'm fluent in all the languages Tolkien invented, even invented some of my own. 

J. Turner: Anyway, let's pause for a short break.

J. shows a video of him bouncing around on his huge mattress. It was a gift from his sponsors. Yes, the mattress does cost $10,000 but it's worth every penny. You'll never have a bad night of sleep if you purchase this mattress. The video ends with him in his pajamas frolicking with his cat on the mattress. 

J. Turner: Welcome back, my wife films all my commercials. It was all her. She also does my hair and makeup. Anyway, back to the crisis of our times, men and literacy. The world's future really depends on young men reading. Fortinbras, what's some practical advice to get men reading?

Fortinbras: Well, I tell guys to just read something fun and carve out just 20 minutes. Reading something fun is the key.

J. Turner: That's the trick. I hope they can realize the amount of pleasure a book can provide. And there's no feeling like conquering a massive novel. Wrapping your hands around and caressing the book after finishing is a feeling like no other.

Fortinbras: I get so many emails from depressed young men who feel like the world hates them, if they only knew the power of books! (raises his fist Darth Vader style)

J. Turner: Same, we must save them. You know, don't get me wrong, I've always considered myself a hip guy. I was listening to Arcade Fire before anyone knew of them. I was obsessed with quoting Nietzsche at parties. I have an even more radical solution. Let's reconsider compulsory military service. That's the kind structure and discipline these young men need. 

Fortinbras: Never knew you were a military guy. Did you enlist?

J. Turner: No, but I've read a lot of military history! I've done extensive studies on Greek and Roman military strategy. An entire room in my house is filled with volumes of WWII history. I'm quite confident I could command armies based on my extensive reading and mastery of the board game Risk.

Fortinbras: You see, that's a good selling point to young men. Read military history and you will become a master of the universe - and conquer the world. 

J. Turner: Exactly. Back to my point about compulsory military service. Don't call it a draft, call it Manly Reeducation Mission (MRM). We'll get Rogan and Friedman on this. Elon's on my speed dial; he'll love the idea! I have it on good authority that the powers that be in Silicon Valley and DC are giving the idea serious consideration. 

Fortinbras: Will women be included in this new cultural offensive?

J. Turner: Absolutely not. Women are well adjusted and are running the world now, in fact being around confident young women is harmful to the psyche of these restless young men. Young women face nothing like young men must endure these days. But anyway, we'll also have compulsory reading programs. It will connect a new generation of men with the traditions of their true legacy. In addition, they will be forced to attend church services and bible study. Is there not a more powerful book than the Bible?

Fortinbras: You know, 10 years ago I would've laughed at that. I was a non-stop with drinking and partying, my "secular" parents never bothered to give me religion. My two sons will be heavily encouraged to experience the full force of the TRUE church that's brought so much clarity to my life. They WILL NOT lead the life of partying, girls, and drinking that corrupted me as a young man. Not that kind of fun for them. They will be getting strict moral and spiritual instruction.

J. Turner: Same, I also had way too much fun as a young man and now I regret all of it. Fun, won't be in my kids vocabulary unless it involves serving the church and broadening their minds.

Fortinbras: I feel it, we are going to save this generation of broken young men through discipline, service, and religion. 

(Pause for another break, J. reads ads for sports gambling and vitamin supplements - these sponsors bring in tons of revenue)

J. Turner: So, to conclude our discussion. Young men have way too much freedom. That's the problem. Banning porn should also be on the table. Discipline and routine will lead to books and the literacy crisis will be solved.

Fortinbras: I agree, limiting freedom is the answer. It may not be popular, but social media can persuade anybody to do anything - and convince them it's freedom. We've read the entire Western canon. We're part of the Kierkegaard brotherhood. We're the authorities. I've devoted thousands of hours to books. How could I be wrong? 

J. Turner: I want to thank everyone for watching. Come see us next week when we discuss "The Case for Restoring Feudalism. What the Medieval Mind Can Teach the 21st Century Mind." 

Book Review: John and Paul: A Love Story in Songs by Ian Leslie

The Lennon-McCartney partnership remains the most intangible aspect of The Beatles. Ian Leslie's study of their deeply intense relationship and the creative explosion they unleashed on the 20th Century attempts to uncover the secret alchemy they shared. While many biographies have been written on Lennon and McCartney, few have focused solely on them alone. As Leslie observes our culture struggles with making sense of close emotional connections between men so for nothing else the book is a deep dive into their music and conflicting personalities. 

Leslie takes a chronological approach starting with then they met as teenagers and forged a close friendship, learning guitar and writing songs together. Their collaboration was unconventional in terms of songwriting because they both write lyrics and composed music. They would bring their songs to each other and revise them. For example on "She Loves You" they switched the lyrics from first to third person, adding further dimension to what was a standard pop tune. In the early days they were simpatico, both bringing the best out of the other. As the Beatles hit the highest reaches of fame imaginable, their friendship became more complex and competitive - until it exploded. 

Now a half century since the Beatles ended, we're still captivated by the music, but even more so by the mysteries surrounding the band despite the volumes written about them. Leslie sheds some light on the Lennon/McCartney songwriting process, often reading their songs as an ongoing dialogue between them. Yet one wonders if any definite answers are too elusive. 

Beatles fans love to debate everything, but especially which side of Lennon/McCartney carried more weight. Of course, John will always be the cooler answer for obvious reasons. Lennon mobilized his dry wit to challenge power structures and in his most inspired moments spoke eloquently of peace and an enlightened humanity. He was the pure artist who pushed the Beatles forward.

Then there's Paul who just made it all look so damn easy with his good looks and happy go lucky persona. Paul willed songs out of thin air, as we saw in the Get Back documentary. He could write a song about anything, whether it be comic book characters, hack writers, even a love song for his dog! Lennon had no time for such material. Or so the mythology goes. 

By 1965, John and Paul were living separate lives. When not touring or recording, John mostly lingered at his country estate outside of London, while Paul lived a Bohemian life in the city, keeping up with the latest in technology and staying keyed to the music scene. His output began to outpace John's, as power dynamics in the band started to shift. The release of "Strawberry Fields" and "Penny Lane" in late 1966 for Leslie marked the apogee of their partnership. 

As the Beatles entered their late phase in 1968-69, John and Paul were going in different directions personally and artistically. The more they drifted apart, the more passionately they tried to keep the band going. Leslie reads Paul's "Hey Jude" and "Oh Darling!" as being directed at John. John was more direct about his feelings for Paul on songs like "Glass Onion" and "Don't Let Me Down." Throughout the '70s they frequently exchanged barbs, John often being more direct, his acidic "How do you Sleep?" being the most egregious example. 

They only saw each other a handful of times after the breakup. John lived an erratic life post-Beatles. He got involved in activism, fell in and out of his marriage with Yoko, and followed Paul's career closely. Paul had formed Wings, which had amassed a string of hits by decade's end. Leslie portrays John as jealous of his bandmate's success and still holding on to petty grievances. They would speak on the phone, but sometimes those calls turned into bitter arguments. When a deranged fan killed John outside his apartment the world lost something that it's never quite recovered from.

The book begins with the scene outside Paul's studio when he briefly addressed the media the day John was killed, his flippant answers and annoyed tone struck many as cold. In hindsight it's one of the most heartbreaking moments ever caught on camera. The two of them had lived many lifetimes together and it all ended that day. Leslie poses the right questions and offers much grounded analysis, but the magic remains in the music. 

Book Review: The Hot Zone: The Terrifying True Story of the Origins of the Ebola Virus by Richard Preston

The Hot Zone was a major bestseller in 1994, a non-fiction potboiler about an Ebola outbreak that occurred in late 1989 outside of Washington D.C. Richard Preston's writing is pop science at its best, engaging in the science of virology combined with a knack for narrative and structure (based on his New Yorker articles). Preston spares no gory detail on what Ebola does to the human body, such as liquifying human organs. It's also a book about how institutions respond to a potentially devastating crisis and how quickly things can go south. A natural follow-up to Michael Crichton's classic "bio-thriller" The Andromeda Strain, The Hot Zone also takes on a new resonance in the post-Covid era.

Preston begins and ends the books at Kitum Cave in Kenya, the spot where the Marburg and Ebola viruses possibly originated, a beautiful and terrifying place. Written in the context of when the virus that causes AIDS was discovered to have come from monkeys, Ebola had similar origins. The earliest cases of Ebola occurred in the late 1970s in Congo and Sudan, but they were contained. Meanwhile, the spread of AIDS commanded the attention of the West. 

By the 1980s the U.S. Government had their own samples of Ebola and were studying the virus, using monkeys as test subjects. The book follows scientists who worked with viruses on a daily basis in "spacesuits" trying to unlock their secrets. In late 1989, a facility that housed test monkeys saw many become sick. It spread like wildfire through the facility, and many of the workers had been in close contact with the monkeys. If the virus had become airborne, the world might be facing an emergency. 

Without revealing too much, there was obviously no major Ebola outbreak in 1989, a virus with a 90% kill rate. The actual story of the containment is not without drama, raising as many questions as answers. There were turf wars between the Army and CDC, and a serious effort to block out the media to avoid mass panic. The scientists and the military acted with good sense, even bravery at times, from preventing the unthinkable. But as the book illustrates, these situations move quickly and can quickly spiral out of control.

Preston observes at the end:

In a sense, the earth is mounting an immune response against the human species. It is beginning to react to the human parasite, the flooding infection of people, the dead spots of concrete all over the planet, the cancerous rot-outs in Europe, Japan, and the United States, thick with replicating primates, the colonies enlarging and spreading and threatening to shock the biosphere with mass extinctions. Perhaps the biosphere does not "like" the idea of five billion humans. . . The earth's immune system, so to speak, has recognized the presence of the human species and is starting to kick in. (406-407)

There's something Lovecraftian about the idea of ancient particles waiting to be unearthed that will bring a horrifying end to humanity, a final reckoning making a mockery of humanity's own hubris. While the Covid pandemic never became an extinction level event, it did provide intelligence on the state of the species. We remain distrustful and irrational but also creative and adaptable to unexpected challenges. We've barely begun to process the long-term effects of the pandemic. Perhaps the viruses are superior to us because they are free of politics, their sole purpose is survival and they've proven quite adept at it when compared to the newcomer primates. 

In 2025, The Hot Zone would be derided in some quarters as deep state propaganda, especially since there's a total crackpot in charge of Health and Human Services who believes letting Bird Flu spread is the best solution, while slashing staff at the CDC. At its heart the book is a tribute to the personnel putting their lives on the line to prevent the spread of disease. At its best, the book is a nostalgic look back at the 1990s when science had yet to become so polarizing. 

There was a bidding war for the movie rights even before the book was published, the film was to be directed by Ridley Scott, with A-list stars Robert Redford and Jodie Foster, but the project collapsed. In 2019, the National Geographic TV network aired a mini-series based on the book to mixed reviews. 

Book Review: Fascism: A Warning by Madeleine Albright

Fascism: A Warning by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright provides a history of fascism and explains its recent resurgence for a popular audience. Written in response to the early Trump administration, Albright combines political memoir with historical analysis, drawing connections to current events and government actions that should raise concern. The book's main purpose is educational, directed towards readers who did not live through the 20th Century. 

Albright defines a Fascist as:

someone who identifies strongly with and claims to speak for a whole nation or group, is unconcerned with the rights of others, and is willing to use whatever means are necessary - including violence -to achieve his or her goals. In that conception, a Fascist will likely be a tyrant, but a tyrant need not be a Fascist. (11)

During the rise and eventual election of Trump in 2016, pundits and the political class were reluctant to use the F-word towards MAGA and acted like it was "normal populism." Albright deserves credit for writing honestly about Trump when few from the establishment were willing to say so. Albright also places MAGA within the context of global politics, comparing America with Hungary, Poland, and Turkey. A chapter on the rise of Vladimir Putin places the Russian leader as the setting the template for modern authoritarianism. 

The early chapters focus on the rise of fascism in the 1930s recounting the rise of Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco, focusing on the methods they used to attain power. There are many definitions of fascism from a theoretical perspective, but the signatures remain the same: nationalistic, subservient to a charismatic leader, demonizing minorities for a country's ills, militaristic in rhetoric and foreign policy, and silencing all critics through intimidation. Many scholars have argued Fascism arose in the 20th Century due to industrialism and democracy's failure to adapt. Just as in the 21st Century, democracies have struggled with adjusting to technology and the post-industrial world, leaving many behind who are angry and open to accepting a dictator. 

The book is most effective when explaining how 21st Century authoritarians have turned to more subtle tactics. They utilize social media to provide their followers with their own truths, outflanking legacy media outlets and demonizing experts. All faith is placed in the leader. Trump's ability to build a coalition of Christian nationalists, Tech Bros, and traditional conservatives mocked all the conventional wisdom of the pundit class. 

Albright passed away in 2022, so she did not live to see the reelection of Trump. The political establishment has failed to deal with him, they've been outflanked at every turn. Biden's antiquated brand of post-war liberalism failed to break the MAGA fever. Neither does Albright acknowledge the mixed legacy of the foreign policy establishment or take some responsibility for the conditions that led to Trump. 

Warnings from denizens of American politics are useful from an educational perspective, but it will take new methods to defeat the new fascism. I'm susceptible to WWII nostalgia like anyone else, the democracies managed to build the alliances to preserve their ideals, but those were strategies of a different time. For democracy to survive it will require courage and creativity - if it's not already too late. 

Book Review: Commander and Chief: FDR's Battle With Churchill, 1943 by Nigel Hamilton

Commander in Chief is the second volume of Nigel Hamilton's study of FDR as a grand strategist, the first volume The Mantle of Command focused on the aftermath of Pearl Harbor and the key decisions made by the Allies in 1942, specifically FDR's determination to open a second front in North Africa which led to a confrontation with his generals. As the title suggests, the middle volume takes a close look at FDR and Churchill's clash over war strategy through 1943, specifically whether the Allies were best served by focusing on the Mediterranean front with the eventual goal of overtaking Germany from the south or by opening a front in Western Europe through a cross-channel invasion. Churchill favored the former, while FDR advocated for the latter. 

Hamilton's objective with the trilogy was to compile a narrative of events from FDR's perspective. Much of the discourse around the grand strategy of the war was shaped by Churchill's own six-volume history, which remains invaluable, but must also be recognized as biased and self-serving. From FDR's mindset, recognizing the immediate threat posed by Hitler, while at the same time realizing Stalin was also a monster but an essential ally if the Third Reich would ever be defeated. He worried about the USSR and Germany reaching an armistice that would split the alliance and forever decide the fate of Europe.

But the immediate concern was Churchill's insistence on taking the fight to Hitler through Italy, an idea supported by many in FDR's inner circle. The argument for the Mediterranean strategy was that a cross-channel invasion of France was too risky, Hitler's Atlantic wall would decimate any attempt to land a major invading force. History was on Churchill's side since there had not been a successful cross-channel invasion since 1066. The Dieppe raid in August of 1942 was a small-scale attempt at an amphibious invasion of France by the Allies that ended in disaster. Churchill argued for hitting weak points across Southern Europe to weaken Germany with far less casualties and eventually more leverage in shaping the fate of Europe before the Soviets swept across the entire continent.  

FDR saw it differently and had to play a complicated game of keeping the alliance together while never losing sight of the main goal. He was wise enough to realize preparations for a cross-channel invasion would take time. Many of his generals had favored an attempt in 1942, and many pushed for 1943. From FDR's perspective the situation was far more complex. His military advisors felt landings in North Africa served little purpose in defeating the Axis powers, but FDR saw the importance of engaging German armies to gain experience that would prove pivotal when the time was right for D-Day. Similarly, the July 1943 invasion of Sicily provided experience with amphibious operations. By mid-1943, FDR decided the time for peripheral strategies was over and the invasion of France must move forward the next spring to bring a swift end to the conflict. 

The imperative to ease pressure on the Soviets by forcing Germany to fight on two European fronts cannot be overstated. Churchill fantasized about moving into Italy as a launching point of securing the Balkans. But these "pinprick" operations on the periphery were a way of avoiding the difficult task of defeating the Germans where they were strongest. With the Allied war aim of unconditional surrender, the end could only come with total capitulation, best achieved by landings in France. Churchill also underestimated how fiercely the German army would resist, the Wehrmacht did not collapse after the landings in Italy, and it took the Allies months to secure Rome. By the end of summer 1943, FDR's plan for a cross-channel invasion prevailed, it was the riskiest but surest way to end the war.

Hamilton also lets the reader see things from the German perspective in 1943, although the Soviet invasion had stalled and they had retreated in North Africa, Hitler and the top leadership believed they could drive a wedge into the alliance; confident their domination of Europe was permanent. They welcomed more attacks on the periphery of Europe since they had shorter supply lines and less to lose, and were also confident a cross-channel invasion by the Allies would meet with swift defeat. With fantasies of super weapons and a belief in their national fate, the German leadership in 1943 still saw many paths to victory (or stalemate) despite the recent setbacks. 

Even during the war's darkest moments FDR was planning for the post-war world. He envisioned the United Nations and the end of colonialism (another sore spot with Churchill), creating the structures that would lead to a long peace. If Churchill was the ultimate frenemy, Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King was a close confidante who kept records of his meetings with FDR. I can't imagine what FDR would think of an American President antagonizing Canada (apologies for the contemporary reference.) He also had a gift for recognizing talent, he supported Eisenhower even through his shaky performance during Operation Torch. 

While hundreds of studies have been written on the Second World War, Commander and Chief is a clear-eyed view of 1943 and the challenges facing the Allied leadership. Hamilton's sense of narrative is dramatic, and he avoids pushing personal agendas or engaging in armchair generalship. He sticks to the facts and presents readers with the complexities facing leaders at the highest levels during a pivotal moment of world history.