Movie of the Week

This week,

APOLLO 13 (1995)

Starring- Tom Hanks, Kevin Bacon, Gary Sinise, Ed Harris, Bill Paxton

While this film has been lampooned and referenced for its now famous quote, "Houston, we have a problem," it is so much more than that one moment. Ron Howard's space drama is a riveting trip back in time that keeps you on the edge of your seat- even when you know the outcome. Despite being a bit technical, Apollo 13 gives you a great inside look at one of the pivotal moments in NASA history. Bored with moon missions, the American public only turns on their TVs when an accident puts the mission and the lives of the three main characters in danger.

Hanks is his usual steady self as mission commander, Jim Lovell. Hanks was actually so taken with his role that he went on to co-produce the series From the Earth to the Moon, an HBO series that picks up where Apollo 13 leaves off. Alongside Lovell are pilot and ladies' man Jack Swigert (Bacon) and family man Fred Haise (Paxton). The chemistry between these veteran actors is what drives the film as they try to avert disaster in their space capsule. Howard does a masterful job in giving his film pageantry, importance and tension in all the right spots. Going to the moon is a big deal, and we know it after watching this film.

What many praise the film for is its technical accuracy. Howard and the actors spent a great deal of time making sure that this film was as close to real as possible. It would have been easy to Hollywoodize this film and ratchet up the drama even more, and while there are a few liberties taken, they aren't enough to derail the real story. I can always watch this film when it comes on because it is part riveting human drama and part history lesson. It also gives anyone who has ever been interested in space a reason to hope that we will continue to explore and discover new frontiers.

Things to watch for-

Ron's brother, Clint Howard
Neil and Buzz
Ed Harris' awesome crew cut
The 'Spirit in the Sky'
Mount Marilyn

"We've never lost an American in space, we're sure as hell not gonna lose one on my watch."

Nazi Thesis- Part VII

This is part 7 in the ongoing series- for those of you who struggle with Roman numerals.

A key component to the Nazi personality, along with ambition, insecurity and intelligence, was manipulation. Hitler was the master of this trait, but others close to him were able to manipulate people and circumstances to forward their own goals as well as the party’s. Himmler and Heydrich were able to use manipulation to create a power base for themselves and get rid of their competitors in the SA. Goering too, had designs on power, and while he noticed “Himmler’s spinsterish face...concealed a ravenous ambition,” he was also secretly concerned with attaining a higher post for himself within the regime. 

While Himmler and Goebbels’ quest for power was well evidenced at the time, especially with Rohm’s execution, Goering played a significant role in implicating the SA head, and used it to vault himself higher in the Nazi pecking order. Goering, clearly seeing that Himmler and Heydrich were the men on the rise in Hitler’s eyes backed their SS consolidation of power by giving them control of the police in states which he administered. Now with Himmler firmly in power, Goering no longer had to worry about Rohm, and Himmler had to only report to Hitler himself. 

Deception was another a key element to the makeup of the ideal Nazi. Throughout the time leading up to the assassination of Rohm and his SA confederates, Himmler, Heydrich and Goering lied to Hitler to protect their own personal interests. These men were not above lying to their beloved Fuhrer to obtain their goals. Manipulation and deception went hand in hand, and the deception that went on in the Nazi regime was done to manipulate circumstances for the success of the Third Reich. During the war, the deception among the party elites was so prevalent that it led to widespread corruption. Each of the top Nazis was so good at deception and shady dealings that it crumbled the bureaucracy as time wore on. Hitler’s closest advisors were almost taught to lie by the Fuhrer himself. 

Not only was Hitler a master manipulator, he was also a great deceiver. He was able to create enough deception in Germany to convince the people of the Jewish threat, and that the only way to achieve his Aryan utopia was to get rid of the Jews. As time went on, Hitler and the SS heads lied more and more to the German people about the course of the war, and the fate of Jews and other undesirables.

Nazi Thesis- Part VI

Blogger was down earlier this week and it unposted this entry that I had already posted. Here, for the second time is part six in my series on the Nazi personality.

One man who Hitler trusted not to attempt to seize power was Rudolf Hess. Unlike the other top Nazis, Hess was not ambitious, and far less intelligent than Goebbels or Himmler. For that reason Hitler could treat Hess more like a friend than a subordinate. Hess possessed a duality in his personality like his comrades, but it was a different kind of duality. He had a dark brooding nature that made him look far more sinister than he actually was. While the reverse can be said of Himmler or Heydrich, Hess was the shy younger brother that tagged along with the older boys. Hitler played the role of older brother to Hess, by giving him power even though there were other more capable men in the regime, and in return Hess showed Hitler the utmost devotion. An adolescent in many ways, Hess survived the cutthroat Nazi power structure only due to his closeness with Hitler. To men like Himmler and Heydrich, Hess posed no threat, and he cooperated with their initiatives, especially the Final Solution.

By allowing himself to be swayed by the people closest to him, without giving up power, Hitler allowed for his most ambitious and ruthless subordinates to achieve great things by competing with each other for his favor. Each man carved out a niche for himself, and in many ways created his own job or jobs. Goebbels was officially the head of the Propaganda Ministry, but his influence extended into film, radio, newspapers and books. At any given time he had the power to intervene on any film being made in Germany. Hess was placated because of his secure post as the Deputy Fuhrer. Himmler, following the emergence of the SS and Gestapo, was the second most powerful man in Germany, and his rise to prominence was not opposed by Hitler. In fact, Himmler had done so much work to besmirch the SA and its leaders, that Hitler was grateful to him, and enabled his SS empire to out grow any other entity within the party. Like Himmler, Heydrich was able to make his job more vast by acquiring power inside the SS organization. Goering was also able to garner many different leadership positions; he was the head of the Luftwaffe and the head of German national parks among other things.

The Nazi personality centered around a quest for power and a need to do good for the advancement of Hitler’s plans, by any means necessary. Albert Speer was one of the few Nazis who were not overly ambitious. As the armaments minister to Hitler, Speer was not as much a part of the internal power struggle like Himmler and Goering. Not perhaps as sinister as the other leading Nazis, Speer did retain elements of the Nazi persona. Speer’s connection to the party was not like that of the others in Hitler’s inner circle; he was not bound to it in such a way that he could not bear its demise. Like Goebbels and Himmler, it was the party that brought Speer success, and Hitler liked having him as a key component to his staff. More than just another lackey who sucked up to Hitler to get ahead, Speer, like Hess, felt he actually had Hitler’s respect and friendship. In many ways Speer was at odds with much of the regime, and did not buy into the strange, dysfunctional camaraderie of the Nazi regime.

Undoubtedly there were others like Speer who joined the party and never gave it their full allegiance, but he is the one who had the most access to Hitler. Speer bared few similarities to his fellow Nazis, but his appearance was, in fact a deception. At his trial following World War II, Speer claimed to have not been in on the atrocities committed in the Holocaust. While he may not have had much to do with the actual carrying out of the Final Solution, Speer was able to use the Nazi trait of manipulation to save himself from the hangman’s noose.

Book of the Month

This month,

THE WHITE COMPANY

By Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

I have an affinity for historical fiction, and that is why I highly enjoyed this book by one of the all time great authors. Known mostly for his Sherlock Holmes books and stories, one of Conan Doyle's personal favorite works was this novel about English longbowmen set during the Hundred Years War. While this book is not a literary masterpiece, it is an entertaining read and an accurate snapshot of a pivotal moment in history as England struggled for supremacy against its sworn enemy- France.

This book has a colorful ensemble of characters that harkens back to 14th Century. It feels part Robin Hood, part Canterbury Tales. Alleyne Edricson is a naive boy of twenty who leaves the abbey where he has been raised to see what awaits in the wider world. He meets up with veteran archer, Sam Aylward who is on a quest to find men for a reformed White Company, while also attempting to secure the great Sir Nigel Loring as the company's commander. The pair then encounter a hugely strong, but kind man, Hordle John, who agrees to accompany them on their journey. Once they reach Sir Nigel's estate, Alleyne becomes Sir Nigel's squire and they set off for France to join the rest of the White Company.

Conan Doyle embroiders the larger adventure with interesting subplots and humorous moments so that there is always something going on. Alleyene's brief love story with Sir Nigel's daughter Maude, and the ill-fated trip to visit the socman of Minstead are highlights among the rest. The White Company eventually reports to Edward the Black Prince and fights in the book's climactic battle at Najera. I refuse to spoil anything, but you will be taken on a great and thrilling ride if you read this book. Also, if you like this genre and these characters, make sure to read Conan Doyle's prequel- Sir Nigel. It's good too.

Movie of the Week

This week,

HISTORY OF THE WORLD- PART I (1981)

Starring- Mel Brooks, Harvey Korman, Madeline Kahn, Dom DeLuise

While this film isn't the height of Mel Brooks' cinematic work, it has some of the most memorable moments and lines of all his movies. Told in several vignettes, History of the World takes on Ancient Rome, the French Revolution and some Bible stories in hilarious fashion. Using many of his regular actors, Brooks switches from satire to goofball to slapstick and spares nobody in his quest to make his mark as he skewers humanities achievements.

Narrated by the booming voice of Orson Welles, the film begins with a look at ancient man, using the comedic talents of the great Sid Caesar, who had employed Brooks as a writer on Your Show of Shows. While the jokes in this section are a bit on the cheesy side, there are a few real belly laughs that make you grateful for Caesar's participation in the film. Following that segment Brooks does a short Biblical bit where he plays a clumsy Moses. Then the film goes into a lengthy vignette about the Roman Empire that is probably the film's strongest and funniest bit. Brooks is Comicus, a stand-up philosopher, who finds himself playing the main room at Caesar's Palace. Caesar (DeLuise) is a farting, burping treasure bathing pig and his wife, Empress Nympho (Kahn) is a nympho- go figure.

The Roman scenes are full of memorable Brooksian moments, and finish up with a great parody of the Last Supper. A big song and dance number follows, as Mel and friends make light of the Spanish Inquisition. Only Mel Brooks would dare to turn a dark chapter in human history into a hilarious, bubbly musical parody. The film ends with another long story that is set during the French Revolution. Comedy greats Cloris Leachman, Harvey Korman and Spike Milligan guest star in this segment that sees a Piss Boy (Garcon de Piss) step in to double for King Louis as the peasants attack the palace. All you need to know about this part is that it's good to be the king.

Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein are better films in almost every way, but there is enough good stuff in History of the World- Part I that it makes you wish that Mel had gone on to make Part II. Oh well, we can only sit around and think about what might have been.

Things to watch for-

A young Gregory Hines as Josephus
My favorite Golden Girl- Bea Arthur
Jesus! What?
Quicktime Harch
Hitler on Ice

"Don't get saucy with me, Bearnaise."

Nazi Thesis- Part V

Here is installment five.

Himmler was one of the most diabolical members of the Nazi party. His activities as the head of the SS made him invincible to those who opposed him. A former chicken farmer, Himmler was a very simple looking man who might have been mistaken for a banker. This normal, mundane exterior concealed the cold, ruthless and cruel man who masterminded the Nazi plot against the Jews. Like Hitler and Goebbels, Himmler was a great propagandist, and knew how to gain allies to the movement.

The dual nature of the Nazi personality is displayed perfectly in Heinrich Himmler. He joined the party at the urging of Ernst Rohm, his good friend, and later conspired with others to kill him. At the time he joined the party in 1923, very few would have picked Himmler to eventually be the second most powerful man in Germany. Himmler knew quite early that he was capable of achieving great things as a Nazi. In order to create the post he desired, Himmler would allow nothing to stand in his way. It was this characteristic that gave Himmler the edge over other men in the regime with more flashy credentials and better education.

Himmler represents the great duality of Nazi leaders- a fertilizer salesman who became head of an empire. What he lacked in education and experience, he made up for in desire and ruthlessness. In these respects he was just like Hitler. Hitler prized individuals like himself who would stop at nothing to gain their objectives. This may be the reason that the Nazi personality had such an ambitious nature. Heydrich, Goering and Himmler were all prime examples of ambitious Nazis. Their lust for power called for them to eliminate the competition within the party, SA head Ernst Rohm was that competition. Rohm, forever wanting to create an SA police state, was targeted by these three for elimination. Himmler and Heydrich created reports in their departments to give Hitler the idea that Rohm was a threat, and that he needed to be dealt with.

Himmler (left) and Rohm

Showing the unquenchable thirst for power that is indicative of the Nazi personality, Goering, Himmler and Heydrich through their intervention signed Rohm’s death warrant and snatched up as much power as they could in the wake of “the Night of Long Knives.” No Nazi would allow anyone or anything stand in his way, whether it was a fellow Nazi, political opponent or a racial subordinate. While many might see this maniacal ambition as a horrible flaw, Hitler prized this quality above all, and encouraged his inner circle to jockey for position within the regime. All the while, however, Hitler knew exactly how to use them without giving up any control.

Nazi Thesis- Part III

Here's part three of my undergraduate thesis on the Nazi personality.

Like Hitler, those who joined the party in the early 1920’s were social outcasts, many of whom had fought in World War I and felt the sting of defeat like Hitler. Angry and lost, many ex-soldiers had no direction following Germany’s humiliating loss, and in the Nazi party they found structure and a forum in which to vent their frustrations. Hitler, as the leader of the party, was able to appeal to the discontent of the masses, and tapped into their anger to fuel the Nazi ideology.

The ideas that Hitler promoted were to enable the German people to right the wrongs that World War I inflicted on them. Even though the Weimar Republic was doing well prior to the Great Depression, the Nazis had a grander vision of the German nation, and Hitler was the master of the plan. In the early days the plan was only known to a small number of angry workers and veterans.

Joseph Goebbels

A man who saw eye to eye with Hitler and the ideas he promoted was Joseph Goebbels. Goebbels, first seeing Hitler at his trial in 1924, identified with him and saw the person that he believed could make his idea of a “just world” a reality. Like many of his generation, including Adolf Hitler, Goebbels was tormented by the loss of the war, but as he investigated the Nazi party, he began to see a ray of hope for himself and the German people. Born as a proud Prussian, Goebbels, like Hitler, felt he had something to prove all his life, and sought to vent his frustrations outwardly. Although the chip on his shoulder was different than Hitler’s, Goebbels had one nonetheless. Born with a deformed foot, and always seen as a sickly boy, Joseph’s misfortunes were seen by his parents as a punishment from God. His deformity, the source of ridicule and pity, Goebbels was a withdrawn sad youth who loved to read and write, and be alone with his thoughts.

Unlike Hitler, Goebbels did find some success prior to joining the party. Goebbels received a doctorate after writing a dissertation which included such themes as, “love of the Fatherland,” “spiritual greatness,” and “enthusiasm.” All of these ideas would be used by Goebbels in his eventual role as the Nazi’s chief propagandist. Neither Hitler nor Goebbels knew what they were creating as they joined forces, but each sought to find success in a world that had tried to keep them down in various ways. 

Over time, Goebbels used his skills to get himself as close to Hitler as possible, seeing him as the unquestioned force behind the party. In effect, Goebbels had become what Hitler had originally thought for himself, and now it was Goebbels’ job to pave the way for Hitler and soak up as much reflected glory as possible. The 1920’s were a period in which the party was gaining momentum, with Hitler speaking and Goebbels creating propaganda. 

The Depression made the people of Germany more receptive to radical ideas, and at the same time the Nazis hoped to become more mainstream, in order to gain power in the government. All of the party’s work paid off in 1930, as the Nazis won 107 seats in the Reichstag, becoming the nation’s second largest political party. The Nazis were now officially on the map, and men, like Hitler and Goebbels, who had been marginalized were now being taken seriously and gaining popular support. There were now others who had been left out in the cold that were coming to warm themselves in the glow of Nazism.

Nazi Thesis- Part II

Here is part two of my undergraduate thesis on Nazi Germany. I got an A on it.

With the arrival of war in 1914, Hitler, a failed artist, could see himself finally making an impact on the world, as his mother had told him he would. Feeling nationalism in his bones, Hitler enlisted in the German Army, and thus began his path of destiny. The war was integral in molding Hitler into his future self, as Ian Kershaw wrote, “the First World War made Hitler possible.” During the war Hitler and Germany became one. Hitler felt all the highs of success and all the lows of defeat as if he were Germany personified. (Later in his life he would assume that role completely.) With the surrender in 1918, Hitler and Germany hit rock bottom together. His own emotions, so tied to his adopted nation, Hitler sank into a deep hate-filled depression. Having reveled in the god-like half of his personality during the war, Hitler now felt lost and insecure, as if Alois himself had voiced disappointment at his son’s actions.

Hitler (far left) with his fellow soldiers and a dog

So disgusted with the pain of defeat, Hitler began to indulge the bitter, insecure half of himself, and made strides to right the wrongs of the war. Like many at the time, Hitler blamed the Jews for the loss of the war. Fear and hatred consumed Hitler at this time, and he took a shine to a group that felt much the same way he did. Already, European society was rife with tension, and the war had only served to create a larger divide between Jews and Gentiles. In his early years Hitler was not an anti-Semite, but as he became exposed to racially driven prejudice, Hitler became obsessed with the Jews, and their betrayal in the war. The party had anti-Semitic overtones before Hitler’s arrival, but it was he that molded them into a rabidly anti-Jewish group. It was due to his post-war hatred that Hitler discovered his talent for speaking and laying blame at the feet of the Jews.

As a speaker in the beer halls on behalf of his party, Hitler was able to synthesize the two sides of his personality, the angry, bitter side, and the ambitious, successful side, into what he eventually used as the Nazi demagogue. While Hitler’s two sides were meeting, the party was undergoing its own synthesis, as two of its major cornerstones were laid, propaganda and racial prejudice. Initially, Hitler was using his speaking ability to pave the way for the next great German leader, but as he gained notoriety, Hitler began to think that perhaps he was the man who could lead Germany into a new era of prosperity. The god complex had taken over, and Hitler saw his destiny before him as the Fuhrer of the Nazi party.

Nazi Thesis- Part I

One Year Old Adolf Hitler

I serialized my undergraduate history thesis on the Vietnam War on this blog last year, and now I will serialize my second undergraduate thesis on Nazi Germany. This main focus of this thesis is the nature of Nazi culture and what defines the personality of a Nazi. I hope that this will be informative and thought provoking. Here now is part one.

The Nazi regime was arguably the most oppressive and terrible in the history of mankind. It has come to symbolize the very essence of evil. Adolf Hitler and his closest henchmen formed the nucleus of an evil empire that sought to dominate the world through war and racial purification. Something about the Nazi ideology appealed to each of these men at a very base level which made them endeavor to do all that they could to forward the movement. No two men within the regime had the same life story, and each had their own path that drew them into the Nazi inner circle. While there are more differences than similarities in the lives of the Nazi leaders, each man had some void to fill in his life, and for all of them the party helped to fill that void. 

Hitler, perhaps, had the largest void to fill, and that is why he and the Nazi regime became one entity, and why when he died the Nazi movement could no longer survive. Those closest to Hitler became so wrapped up in the Nazi philosophy that none could survive without it. The key question to ask is, why was this? What made all of these men so dependent on Nazism? What sort of men were these, and why did they resort to such horrific means to obtain their goals? It was because of the Nazi personality, and it had the ability to take many forms, and affect people in different ways. 

Among the traits inherent in the Nazi personality- deception, manipulation, ambition, ruthlessness, insecurity and fear. These attributes were displayed to varying degrees in Hitler and his elite, and each man had a duality about his character that shaped his life. In order to comprehend the whole, the parts must be examined individually.

It is necessary to examine the leader of the movement to truly begin to brake down Nazi psychology. Adolf Hitler, the first child in his family to survive infancy, was pulled in two directions as a child that greatly affected the course of his life. Hitler’s father, Alois, was a strict disciplinarian who foisted great expectations and criticism on his son. An insensitive and domineering man, Adolf both hated and feared his father. This treatment by his father gave young Adolf an inferiority complex about himself and his abilities. The treatment his mother gave him more than compensated for his father’s coldness towards him. Klara Hitler doted on Adolf as he was the first of her children not to die in early childhood. The love that Klara Hitler gave Adolf was so unconditional that out of her treatment he was given a superiority complex. These two halves of Hitler’s personality came to make up what is in many ways the Nazi personality, fear on inadequacy and failure, coupled with a strong sense of god-like superiority and greatness. Each critical decision in Hitler’s life would be dominated by these two sides of his personality.

Top 10 Authors

I've read a few books in my time, (in between issues of MAD Magazine) and as such, I have been influenced by them. I saw this list on Facebook, and decided to steal it for my blog. Here now is a list of 10 authors that have somehow made an impact on me in one way or another.

WINSTON CHURCHILL

Not only was he arguably the greatest leader of the 20th Century, he was a prolific writer. His memoirs of World War I and World War II stand out as the definitive accounts of the two wars from someone who was there, on the scene. I have read them both, and while long, they paint an amazing portrait of life in the thick of world conflict. Churchill's memory for the facts is only surpassed by his skill with the written word.

WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE

As a former Theatre major and actor, I cannot help but put Shakespeare on this list. His plays are the stuff of legend, and I have been in, seen or read most of them. There is a reason he is still relevant in today's world- his works are timeless.

J.K. ROWLING

Sure, this may seem like a cop-out pick, but I really think that Harry Potter's creator belongs on this list. With her books about a teenage wizard, she helped me to find joy in reading again. After being forced to read so many books in high school, I had given up on reading for pleasure- until my aunt gave me the first two Harry Potter books. That was it, I was reading for fun again after that.

C.S. FORESTER
Forester is here because of his thrilling historical fiction starring British sea captain Horatio Hornblower. The Hornblower series is one of my all time favorites, and really engrosses you with details about life on a ship during the Napoleonic Wars. For a history major, there are few more fun authors out there than Forester.

ARTHUR CONAN DOYLE
Of course he is known for his Sherlock Holmes adventures, which I love, but I also like one of his other great creations- The White Company, which is the story of English Longbowmen during the 100 Years War. It is a gift when an author can transport you to another place and time with such detail, and I have always felt that Conan Doyle does this superbly.

ROBERT BLY
I have only read one of his books, but it made an instant impact on me. The book in question is Iron John, a book about men, and why they are the way they are. It is a fascinating read that draws on mythology, science and psychology to help men understand themselves and how to overcome issues that can stem from childhood and society. It was an eye opening read that made me more self aware.

EDWARD ABBEY
His love of the outdoors and respect for the natural world is what puts Abbey on this list. Through books like The Monkey Wrench Gang and Desert Solitaire, Abbey makes his audience feel more in tune with the environment, and really care about what humanity's role is in relation to the wild, specifically the desert in the American West.

JOEL LONG
My good friend and poet Joel Long is an inspiration to me both as a teacher and an author. His words are written with such care and passion that they leap off the page. One morning I woke up and was inspired to write some poetry of my own because Joel's words were swimming in my head, having heard him read his poetry aloud the night before.

MALCOLM GLADWELL
I have never been able to read anything by Malcolm Gladwell and not have my mind blown. He writes about things that are seemingly so simple with such complexity and depth that he uncovers details most people would never see. His books, as well as his New York Times articles, cover such a wide variety of topics that something he has written that will speak to just about everyone.

IAN FLEMING
I cannot stress enough what Ian Fleming's work has done to inspire me. All you need to know is that James Bond is who I would be if I could be anyone else. No, his writings are not the most sophisticated or complex, but they are fun and harken back to a time when spies and Cold War political intrigue ruled the world. It would be a much less exciting, sexy and dangerous world if Ian Fleming had never penned his Bond novels.

Book of the Month

This Month,

THE LAST STATION

by Jay Parini


This 1990 novel about the last year of Leo Tolstoy's life was recently made into a very well received film. I have not seen the film, but the book is definitely worth your time. I had very little knowledge about Tolstoy before reading the book, and while it is a novel, it draws heavily on true accounts and journals from the main characters. The characters and their personal stories are what drives the narrative. Parini deftly switches the storyteller in each chapter, so that the reader is aware of the feelings, thoughts and agenda of the major players in Tolstoy's life. Sofya (the Countess Tolstoy), Bulgakov (Tolstoy's idealistic secretary), Chertkov (the devoted leader of the Tolstoyian movement), along with Tolstoy's doctor and daughter make up the book's narrators. Every one of these characters yearns for the great man's attention and confidence throughout the book, and some do better than others.

The real conflict is between Sofya and Chertkov, who are at odds over what will become of Tolstoy's works once he is dead. Chertkov and his many followers hope to elbow Sofya out and convince Leo Nikolayavich to sign over the rights to his writings to the public domain, so that the people can enjoy them, and so that profit cannot be made from them. It is a core tenet of the Tolstoyian movement to reject personal property. Sofya, on the other hand, wishes to keep his writings private so that her family can survive on the money they generate. Caught in the middle of the conflict is the Count's new secretary, Blugakov, a young Tolstoyian who is recruited by both Chertkov and Countess Tolstoy to spy on the other. He ends up finding that his loyalty is to Tolstoy himself, and not to the factions on either side.

This book is at once a study of political dealing, a snapshot of pre-revolutionary Russia, a love story and a portrait of a great author. If you allow yourself to get lost in the world that Jay Parini creates, you will find an engrossing story that takes you right up to the end as Tolstoy arrives at the last station.

P.S. My girl Helen Mirren is in the movie.

Movie of the Week

This week,

THE GREAT ESCAPE (1963)

Starring- Steve McQueen, James Garner, Richard Attenborough, Donald Pleasance

Few movies are more fun to watch than this one. Based on a true story that inspired a popular book and then this film, The Great Escape is a rousing adventure about British and American POWs in a German camp during World War II. Unhappy with many escape attempts by their prisoners, the Germans put all the best escape artists in one super camp to keep a very watchful eye on them. It isn't a stretch to guess what happens when all the top escape artists get together- they plan to escape.

Leading the escape is British Squadron Leader Roger Bartlett (Attenborough) who is also known as 'Big X.' Under Bartlett's supervision each aspect of the escape is planned out to the nth degree, as the prisoners work to free 250 men. Among the fabulous cast of characters are Henley (Garner) who serves as the Scrounger, helping to obtain anything the men may need. There is also Cavendish, the Surveyor, Danny (Charles Bronson) and Willy who work as the Tunnel Kings, Sedgewick (James Coburn), the Manufacturer and Blythe (Pleasance), the Forger. Working on his own is Capt. Hilts (McQueen), whose many escape attempts land him in solitary confinement and earn him the nickname of 'Cooler King.' Menacing the prisoners is Kommandant Von Luger, who thinks any escape attempts from his compound are futile.

The Great Escape is full of great action, suspense, humor and various story lines about the many aspects that go into the massive escape effort. The film can really be divided into two halves, the prep work before the escape, and the aftermath of the escape. Both sections of the film are great, but the tone changes from suspenseful and expository to action packed. Even though the film seems tame by today's standards there is a great sense of tension during the actual escape as the Germans threaten to discover it. I always get sweaty palms during certain scenes even though I know the outcome. Also, the action scenes are as good as anything in today's action films. I am speaking mostly of Hilts' skillful motorcycle riding as he evades Nazi pursuers.

If you have an appreciation for the action genre or World War II, this film will satisfy on both counts. McQueen's reputation as an action star was cemented with his work as the 'Cooler King.' The Great Escape serves as a who's who for stars from this time period, and even the minor roles are filled by superb actors who bring a sense of camaraderie and realism to the film.

Things to Watch for-

Elmer Bernstein's iconic musical score
Flying Officer Ives (aka The Mole)
Tom, Dick and Harry
Potato vodka
Ya vas lyublyu

"I was trying to cut my way through your wire because I want to get out."

Book of the Month

This Month,

MR. MIDSHIPMAN HORNBLOWER

By C.S. Forester

This is the first of eleven books about Horatio Hornblower, an officer in the British Navy and his adventures during the Napoleonic Wars. While this is the first book in the chronology of Hornblower's career, it is actually the sixth one written by author C.S. Forester, who also wrote The African Queen. Unlike the other books in the series which deal with one long narrative over the course of the book, this one is episodic and features ten separate vignettes about Hornblower's early career.

The entire series, and indeed this book, are fabulous works of historical fiction. Hornblower's adventures are set against the backdrop of real events, and paint a very accurate portrait of the late 18th and early 19th Centuries. When we first meet Hornblower, he is a seasick new midshipman who is coming on board his first ship, the HMS Justinian. It is hard from the first story to see anything of the great commander that Hornblower will become in the later books. He is a sad, withdrawn and pathetic officer who struggles to feel at home in the navy.

It isn't long, however, until he is transferred to the HMS Indefatigable under the command of his great mentor, Captain Edward Pellew. Under Pellew's watchful eye we see Horatio distinguish himself in some fun and dangerous adventures. Among the more exciting reads are the chapters entitled, Hornblower and the Cargo of Rice, Hornblower and the Man Who Felt Queer, and Hornblower and the Examination for Lieutenant. Despite some adverse circumstances, poor decisions by the young officer and a liberal dose of dumb luck, by the end of the book it is clear that Hornblower is going to become a great commander that will be the stuff of (fictional) British Naval legend.

If you are at all interested in the Napoleonic Era or the British Navy, the Hornblower books are a great read. I prefer them to the Master and Commander series by Patrick O'Brian because they are much less heavy on the terminology of ships and seamanship. While to O'Brian books are great, the Hornblower books are more about the characters and the adventures and do not require reference books to get through them. Ahoy!

Vietnam Thesis- Part XIII

Here is the conclusion of the series taken from my undergraduate thesis.

No war before or since Vietnam has unleashed such doubt about the U.S. government. The soldiers who fought were given what was thought to be every advantage available, but that turned out to be wrong. For America, Vietnam was a pivotal juncture in the Cold War, but for the Vietnamese it was just another war in series of attempts to gain independence. The United States had forgotten its own roots when it entered Vietnam in force in 1965. “This time we were the Redcoats and the Viet Cong were the Minutemen,”said William Bentley of the war; “Not a reversal of roles we should ever emulate again.”  The consequences of that role reversal became clear as the troops came home and enlightened the civilians. 

Ideals had trumped military might, and the men in charge could not see why; the soldiers could, however. The only real victory that can be agreed upon by everyone who lived through Vietnam is that prisoners of war were set free from the clutches of the North Vietnamese. Other than that one thing, the peace in Vietnam was not “with honor” as Nixon had promised.

The South Vietnamese were able to hold out for two years, and then in April 1975 Saigon fell to the communists. It was the final insulting chapter of the war, as the South Vietnamese finally collapsed without the aid they had come to depend on from the United States. Of the horrific end of the war CIA, agent Thomas Pulgar said, “It’s like a goddam circus parade gone haywire! The elephants have moved out in front and everybody else is stumbling through their shit.” The vivid imagery in that quote defines how absolutely awful the Vietnam war was handled by the government. Even someone like Pulgar who had ties to the government saw that the handling of the war was a complete fiasco by the end. Very few elements had gone the Americans’ way, and the fall of Saigon was just one last mishap. 

The images that the war evoked in people’s minds were so horrific and damaging that criticism and analysis became indicative of a nation trying to make sense of a wasted effort. The soldiers felt that their work had been for naught, but just trying to do what was asked of them, even though it was not the best course of action, should have been enough to absolve them. The United States should not have gone to war in Vietnam without more planning or better strategy, or they should not have gone at all. 

Richard Barnet concluded about Vietnam that, “The United States cannot make the world safe for America by seeking to shape the political and economic development of other countries...for the attempt will exhaust both our treasure and our spirit.” Vietnam did exhaust the American spirit, and cost many young vital spirits in the process. The soldiers knew that nothing could win them the war, and nobody listened. Hopefully, that will change as we work to free another nation from tyranny and attempt to fight ideals instead of people.

Movie of the Week

This Week,

A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS (1966)

Starring- Paul Scofield, Robert Shaw, Wendy Hiller, Orson Welles

As a nod to my Halloween costume this year (I'm being Henry VIII) I am highlighting a great Oscar winning film that tells the story of Sir Thomas More and his struggle with Henry VIII over divorce and the king's ultimate break with the Catholic Church. Written by Robert Bolt, who adapted it from his successful play, the story portrays More as the ultimate man of principle- beloved by the common folk for his conviction and loyalty to his values and religion in the face of death. Scofield's work as More is top notch, and it garnered him an Oscar for Best Actor.

While the film takes some dramatic license with the facts, it is quite accurate overall. Henry VIII (Shaw) is upset at the fact that his wife Catherine of Aragon has been unable to provide him with a male heir, and so he wants a divorce. Unfortunately for the king, it is not up to him, but rather the Pope to grant the divorce. Henry's Chancellor, Cardinal Wolsey (Welles), urges More to help him let Henry out of the marriage. More refuses and Wolsey dies, disgraced by Henry who is still married to Catherine. More succeeds Wolsey as Lord Chancellor, but angers Henry when he says his conscience will not allow him dissolve a marriage that he feels is valid.

More is also up against the ambitious Thomas Cromwell (Leo McKern) who wants to gain power and take More down for his actions. Henry VIII, tired of waiting for the Pope to grant his divorce, creates the Church of England with himself as the head. He then marries his mistress Anne Boleyn. More refuses to recognize the union and is imprisoned in the Tower of London for treason. More is eventually put on trial where he boldly sticks to his principles. For that he is ultimately beheaded.

The story is a powerful one and is  masterfully executed by Director Fred Zinneman and his first rate cast. It is no wonder that this is still held up as the quintessential film about More and Henry VIII. Scofield was made a popular actor for his work as More and became forever tied to this role. See this film for the history, the performances- especially Scofield and Shaw, and the fact that it is way better than The Tudors.

Things to watch for-

A young John Hurt
The great score by George Delerue
A cameo by Vanessa Redgrave as Anne Boleyn
The epilogue

"I know a man who wants to change his woman."

Vietnam Thesis- Part XII

Part twelve in the ongoing series.

To respond to the Easter attacks, President Nixon resumed bombing of North Vietnam in April. In doing so, Nixon made a statement that the U.S. would not fold in the peace talks by being bullied. In July peace talks resumed with the Northern government, and by October Nixon’s top advisor, Henry Kissenger, stated, “Peace is at hand.” While this statement ended up being true, and with fewer American troops in Vietnam every day, the end of the war came for the fighting men, it would, however, not be as easy as signing a treaty. The bombings continued throughout the fall and winter of 1972, after Nixon won re-election in November. In January 1973, the peace talks came to a close, with the U.S. agreeing to pull completely out of Vietnam, knowing that their ally would eventually fall to the North.

The U.S. government did not have to admit defeat in the war because of the nature of the agreement, but defeat was obvious among those who had served in Vietnam. As Charles E. Neu put it, “The war had seared the consciousness of an entire generation, and altered the mood of the nation.” For those who made it home after the active American part of the war was over, life was very different than before. All the sacrifices that the soldiers had made went unappreciated and many resented them because of the reminder they gave of America’s first military loss. Future Senator John Kerry said of his homecoming, “You begin to see a lot of instant insanity and brutality that I don’t think anybody prepared you for, and then one day...you land back in the United States of America. And nobody cares and nobody wants you to be in uniform.” It is sad to think that the men who had done all they were asked to do got little to no recognition for their efforts. 

The “warriors were blamed for the war,” as well as the government who made them fight, but it was not fair to lump those two groups together when assigning blame. Even after a majority of the men came home, the war was still being misunderstood by the government and the public who could not grasp the realities of what Vietnam was like. “The people who had been my closest friends really knew nothing about Vietnam,” said Marine James Hebron, “They were only interested in what the war was like in terms of their preconceptions of what war was about.” The only viable option was for the men who had fought was to educate the world about how wrong the Vietnam war was, and how unprepared the U.S.A. was to fight it. 

Vietnam was not like World War II; it did not have a clear objective or an obvious enemy. In many ways the veterans became the enemy to the nation as they tried to make sense of the mess that Vietnam had made of the country.

Vietnam Thesis- Part XI

Map of the Easter Offensive

Part eleven, kids.

Amid waning morale and skepticism from soldiers, the first major test of the South Vietnamese army came in early 1971 with an invasion of Laos. The U.S. armed forces were relegated to protecting the ARVN from the Vietnamese side of the border. The offensive known as Lam Son 719, was a complete disaster for the South Vietnamese. After 46 days in February and March, it was clear that the South Vietnamese could not sustain another attack of that sort. Young South Vietnamese people struck back at the Americans, angry that they were now turning their backs on them. U.S. commanders, worried about attacks from Vietnamese civilians and the lack of motivation among their own troops, saw the need to end the war, no matter what. 

This idea of abandonment had long been entertained by the regular GIs, but now it was beginning to sound like an option to the commanders as well. It was evident in that Nixon’s approval rating was sliding as was opinion on his handling of the war. Everyone involved smelled the stench of death on the South Vietnamese, and saw that there was no way to persuade the American troops to continue to die in large numbers. Knowing that very little could be done to secure victory, the Nixon government went to work in 1972 hoping to at least secure peace. Apparently, the complaints of soldiers had finally reached the ears of the men in power. 

In an attempt to move the peace process forward, Nixon unveiled an eight point plan in January of 1972. In response to Nixon’s new plan, the North Vietnamese launched an all out attack on the ARVN and remaining U.S. forces in March. This was done to help give the North an upper hand in the peace process, and to pressure Nixon who was facing the presidential election in November. As with the Tet Offensive before it, the Easter Offensive caught military leaders by surprise. It is not surprising, however, that this lack of information about the attack made troops angry at their superiors. W.R. Baker, who was stationed in Da Nang during 1971 and 1972, wrote that, “The "intelligence failure" during the Easter Offensive was less a failure to collect intelligence than it was a failure to exploit obvious indicators.”

Every slight advantage that the U.S. had during the Vietnam war had been systematically taken away by the enemy, either through their cunning or our inability to take away their edge. After the Spring of 1972 you would be hard pressed to find any man in Vietnam who still fully supported the war.

Co-opting the Past

It has become popular for people all over the political landscape to use history as a way to forward their agenda. This is not a new phenomenon, in fact, it is as old as the nation in which we live. Sadly, people have never been able to accurately portray the past in order to influence the present. Hindsight is always skewed, either to make the past look better or worse than it actually was. As a historian, I am appalled by how misinformed the general public is about their past. Many seek to relive prior eras that seem closer to our nation's core values and founding principles. Tea Partiers constantly invoke the "salad days" of the American Revolution and the great leaders of that time in their rhetoric. Yes, George Washington, John Adams and Co. were some of the greatest leaders we have ever known, but let's not forget that slavery and political strife were defining aspects of that time period. I hate to burst the Tea Party's bubble, but the late 18th Century wasn't like living in the Disney Cartoon- Ben and Me.

Also, let's dispel any of the rumors that the 1950's and early 1960's were so much better than the current decade. Women and African Americans, not to mention Homosexuals were all completely marginalized, mistreated and kept from being equal with straight white men. Anyone who wants to go back to the Leave It To Beaver world is forgetting these facts, as well as the fear of Communism that inspired McCarthyism, the Bay of Pigs threat, the Civil Rights Movement and the start of the Vietnam War. If you wish to invoke the past- invoke the reality of it, not the childish fantasy.

In addition to this, does anyone actually know about Adolf Hitler? Every time you turn around someone is comparing our current leaders to Hitler. I spent a majority of my undergraduate work studying Nazi Germany, and even though times are bad, I am 100% sure that the America of 2010 is nowhere near as bad as the Germany of 1944. Stop being ignorant and using the Hitler analogy when you make a political argument, please. Hitler's regime bares no comparisons with Obama's administration- no matter how many little mustaches you paint on his upper lip. I realize that sometimes it is common to exaggerate something to make a point, but unless any of our politicians in Washington engineer the mass extermination of a race of people, the Hitler comparison is not viable for any of them.

As a rule, it needs to be understood that no era, decade or century was perfect. Instead of trying to recapture bygone days, our country needs to look to the future. Times have changed too much to go backward, and the past should serve only as a lesson to learn from the mistakes we made. It isn't 1776 or 1955, it's 2010.

Vietnam Thesis- Part X

Part ten in my ongoing series on Vietnam.

ARVN forces were now baring the brunt of the casualties and action, including the operations in Cambodia. The incursion into Cambodia was labeled a success, with the U.S. and ARVN troops destroying V.C. supply lines and necessary materials. Also, it allowed the Americans to be replaced with ARVN soldiers along the border, now that the threat had been effectively neutralized. The success of the operation in Cambodia did come with a price, as protests in the United States led to deaths at Kent State where National Guard soldiers shot four students, and at Jackson State College where two people died. Some soldiers also were not happy about the short-lived escalation of the conflict, and saw the increasing ARVN deaths as a bad omen that the NVA and Viet Cong would have their way with them as soon as the U.S. had gone home.

The GIs had stopped caring as a result of Vietnamization to a certain degree. They knew that the Vietnamese could not survive without their help, but the way the war had played out so far made many unable to sympathize. William Kalwas wrote in late 1970, “I begin to realize the futility of it all...so I participate as little as possible in all things army.” This growing apathy among U.S. soldiers during 1970 can be evidenced not only in comments like these, but in the rampant drug use in the American ranks. To dull the pain and disillusionment felt about the way the war was going, many men turned to illegal substances. 

In 1965 47 soldiers were found using drugs, and by 1970 the number had ballooned to 11,000. Of every one soldier caught using drugs it was said at the time by military intelligence that five others went undetected by the armed forces. U.S. soldier Fred Hickey said, “The majority of people were high all the time.” If a war were going well, would so many soldiers be turning to drugs? No, said the statistics of the time, as not only marijuana was available to GIs, but heroin and opium as well, with one third of the men stationed there thought to be addicted to heroin or opium. It is impossible to ignore facts like these when examining the Vietnam War. The U.S. government, while aware of these issues did not take them into account when asking men to die for their country. Drug abuse was symptomatic of things not going well, and in order to escape the harsh reality of war and of failure U.S. troops sank into a haze of smoke and altered perceptions.

Drug abuse was not the only thing affecting the performance of soldiers in Vietnam. Discipline had been on the decline ever since the initiation of Nixon’s withdrawal policy. Senior officers were increasingly met with opposition from their men, and in some cases it amounted to violence. “Fragging” became commonplace, as men killed or attempted to kill their commanders in the field. In 1970 alone, there were 2,000 fraggings. This violence and refusal to obey orders shows that the soldiers had no will to die for the cause, and saw the U.S. leadership as greatly flawed. Men were not ashamed of standing up against a superior if it meant saving lives rather than going to almost certain death, “The captain said ‘I told you to get your squad together and get out there...I just pulled out my .45 and pointed it to his head. I said, ‘Before I go out, sir, I will blow your...brains out.” These types of stories are haunting, and paint a grim picture of the chain of command in Vietnam of the 1970’s.

Vietnam Thesis- Part IX

Lon Nol

That's part nine for those of you that struggle with Roman numerals.

If 1969 had seemed like a step in the wrong direction to the soldiers in Vietnam, 1970 was going to see the consequences of that step. Bringing units home under Nixon’s policy was good for those men, and bad for the army in general. The draft and the fixed tours of duty men served impacted the war in a negative way. Being forced to serve only one year, if the soldier lived, was nice on an individual basis. However, the light at the end of the tunnel for draftees was the end of their tour, not the end of the war. By fixing the tours of duty to one year, there was no motivation for men to fight the war to win; it was to fight the war in order to stay alive. The enemy, on the other hand, was in the war for however long it took.

Unlike the North Vietnamese, the U.S. soldiers were not all volunteers, and this coupled with a lack of solidarity in the military as a result of one year tours made U.S. victory uncertain for the first time in the nation’s history. Conflict over service was rampant in the U.S. like never before, “I couldn’t make up my mind. I feared the war, yes, but I also feared exile...I feared ridicule and censure.” Even though this quote is from a novel, Patrick O’Brien perfectly captures the dilemma of so many men who could not, and yet still did fight in Vietnam. The U.S. government did not understand this dilemma, and pressed on as if it did not exist. The price of ignorance would prove to be high, and success would not come, even with the promise of a new opportunity.

With a change of power in Cambodia in March of 1970 came a chance for Nixon and the war effort to make real strides toward victory. The new leader, Lon Nol, was more supportive of the U.S., and that allowed for a U.S. and ARVN “incursion” into a country which had been harboring Viet Cong soldiers and spies throughout the war. Having not been allowed over the border into Cambodia, the U.S. military’s hands were tied in pursuing much of the enemy force. Nixon had now given his men the opportunity to chase the Viet Cong into its hiding place and eliminate them. By doing so, many men saw a chance to take care of the enemy once and for all and win the war.

The war was being widened temporarily in order to shorten the length of American involvement. In a letter to his hometown paper, Gregory Lusco wrote, “We cheered Nixon when he sent troops to Cambodia- we are praying we’ll also see Laos.” Lusco, like many other men were happy finally to be allowed to fight in Cambodia, but like other operations deemed successes by the U.S. the Viet Cong received advanced warning about the U.S. offensive, and moved into Western Cambodia. At each turn the enemy always seemed to catch a small break.