Napoleon by Emil Ludwig
wfzimmerman’s review: “A treasured book from childhood; a romantic history of Napoleonic long on emotion and short on analysis.”
New York: Modern Library Books, 1953 (1953), Hardcover
Entries Tagged as ''
Mrs. Miniver by Jan Struther
wfzimmerman’s review: “I was thrilled to find this at a garage sale. The movie has a lot more about the war in it! As far as I can tell, there are only two short chapters that deal explicitly with the war. The rest of it is about English daily life.”
Harcourt Brace & Co, NY (1940), Hardcover
tags: first US edition
THE COMPLETE CARTOONS OF THE NEW YORKER: too unwieldly, no CDs
Review of: The Complete cartoons of the New Yorker
I was really disappointed by this book. As the reviews on Amazon hinted, it is in fact too big to be easily readable. Tragically, the library does not circulate the CDs with the book. I love NEW YORKER cartoons, but I couldn’t even force myself to flip through this.
Versailles and the Global War on Terror
Many histories of World War II begin with the Treaty of Versailles, which defined the peace terms for the end of the First World War. If we compare the end of the First World War with the end of the Cold War, the collapse of Germany in 1918 was in many ways quite similar to the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. In both cases ,the collapse was sudden. In 1918, as in the longer period from 1979 to 1989-1991, the military situation swung first in favor, then against the interests of the declining empire. By November 1918, the Germany army and navy, though still not negligible in power, were being run out of the areas they had occupied at the peak of their aggression. Similarly, by the end of 1989, although the Soviet Union still possessed a formidable military, it was clear that it would no longer be able to dominate the Warsaw Pact. The ultimate collapse was a moral one.
As we look at the terminations of these two great global struggles with Versailles in mind, one crucial difference becomes apparent: there was no treaty to end the Cold War. It simply ended, marked perhaps most clearly by three events: the fall of the Berlin Wall, the success of the American-led coalition that reversed Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, and the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States in December 1991. To be sure, it’s not at all clear that the absence of a treaty is a bad thing. Many historians have blamed World War II on the harsh terms imposed on Germany at Versailles.
I take a more austere view; I believe corporate and individual responsibility are rightly allocated to the agents who made irrevocable choices for direct action, namely, the German people and Hitler. To say “the nasty peace terms made them do it” is to blame the victim … just as to say that “American policy made Osama blow up the World Trade Towers” is to blame the victim.
If we look at what’s happening in today’s Russia, it tends to argue against the historical argument that a more lenient set of terms at Versailles would have prevented the resurgence of German nationalism in the 1920s and 1930s. Even with an avalanche of international good will and a far more favorable financial situation than the Germans enjoyed, the “revanchist” forces in Russia still aren’t happy about losing the Cold War! Leaving his merits aside, Putin does seem to command a solid national consensus that supports his earnest efforts to re-establish Russia’s role as a great power. It is easy to imagine a “Weimar Putin” who might have led Germany in a similar direction.
The other major difference between Versailles and 1991, of course, is that the Treaty of Versailles did include most of the major powers who had participated in the global struggle. I learned while researching this book that China was the only country which opted out of Versailles – could that have happened in 1991? Could that happen today? In a word, no … which is a backhanded compliment to the life’s work of someone that Americans don’t like to praise, namely, Mao Tse-Tung, the bloody-handed nation-builder of the People’s Republic of China, which hasn’t taken much crap from the international community since November 1950.
The “settlement” terms reached in 1991 essentially called for a much-weakened and territorially shrunken Russia, not unlike post-WWI Russia, with America as the sole hegemon of the New World Order, extending its military reach throughout the globe, including the Middle East and the heart of Islam. It has now become apparent, of course, that a major weakness of the 1991 settlement was that it utterly failed to address the concerns of a politically significant and militarily capable group of players: Islamic terrorists. Indeed, one might say that America is so self-absorbed that we outdid even the “vindictive” French at Versailles: we imposed harsh peace terms on an enemy without even being aware that we were doing it! For it is well documented that the mere presence of American soldiers on Saudi, and now Iraqi, soil is one of the most inflammatory issues to the other side in the global “war” that we are now engaged in.
(more TK)
Not as great as expected
Review of: Worldchanging : a user’s guide for the 21st century
I had high hopes for this $75 megabook which has received rapturous reviews. Unfortunately, the experience of reading it was a bit marred by the fact that the library removed the dust jacket for my circulating copy.
Judging the book strictly by the interior, this is the only book I ever remembering seeing with the name of the design firm on the cover, and to be frank I don’t think they added enough value to deserve that. The layout is not that exotic — rectangular grid with half-page or quarter page color photos. I see much more beautifully designed book interiors every day in my son’s library of Dorling Kindersley dinosaur books.
On the substantive side, there are many interesting ideas in here, but I found that on subjects where I know the literature, they made unwarranted assumptions, and on subjects where I don’t know the literature, not enough of their ideas were good enough. For example, they state that humans appropriate 50% of net primary productivity. I just read the 1982 Vitousek article that established this proposition, and their estimate of (then) 40% of NPP rests on the assumption that humans divert substantial percentages of NPP from other “natural” uses. Excuse, me, we’re natural! The NPP appropriation numbers are impressive enough –20% or more even with conservative assumptions — that they don’t need to be exaggerated.
Conversely, on a subject I found interesting — “money” and worldchanging — there was a credulous argument that socially responsible investing beats other portfolio strategies. Unfortunately, it doesn’t. What *does* beat the market, as the New York Times recently reported, is inside information — fund managers who had “old school ties” to corporate insiders averaged 20% returns on those companies as opposed to 11% for managers who didn’t have old school ties.
Not a bad read, but not worth the investment unless it’s as a gift for someone who likes feeling “green” more than feeling rigorous.
only a few good songs on here
Review of: The very best of Sheryl Crow [sound recording] by Crow, Sheryl
I only liked a few of Sheryl Crow’s songs here — mainly, the big crossover hits. The rest of the stuff leaves me cold.