Happy Birthday: Oberst Claus Philipp Maria Justinian Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg (15 November 1907 – 21 July 1944) was a German army officer who is best known for his failed attempt on 20 July 1944 to assassinate Adolf Hitler at the Wolf's Lair, part of Operation Valkyrie, a plan that would have seen the arrest of the Nazi leadership in the wake of Hitler's death and an earlier end to World War II.

Graf von Stauffenberg took part in the Invasion of Poland, the 1941–42 invasion of the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa and the Tunisian campaign during the Second World War. Alongside Major Generals Henning von Tresckow and Hans Oster, he became a key figure in the German resistance to Nazism within the Wehrmacht.

On 20 July 1944, Stauffenberg's assassination attempt failed, the explosive he had placed only dealing Hitler minor injuries. The conspirators were arrested, and many of them executed, including Stauffenberg on the day after the attempt. His wife Nina was also arrested, giving birth to their fifth child Konstanze while imprisoned. Their children also included Berthold, who followed in his father's footsteps as a military man, and politician Franz-Ludwig.

In 1980, the West German government established a memorial for the failed anti-Nazi resistance movement in a part of the Bendlerblock, the remainder of which currently houses the Berlin offices of the German Ministry of Defense (whose main offices remain in Bonn). The Bendlerstrasse was renamed the Stauffenbergstrasse, and the Bendlerblock now houses the Memorial to the German Resistance, a permanent exhibition with more than 5,000 photographs and documents showing the various resistance organisations at work during the Hitler era. The courtyard where the officers were shot on 21 July 1944 is now a memorial site, with a plaque commemorating the events and a bronze figure of a young man with his hands symbolically bound which resembles Graf von Stauffenberg.

Just Finished Reading: The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine – A History of Settler Colonial Conquest and Resistance by Rashid Khalidi (FP: 2020) [255pp] 

I’ve been meaning to read something about the region for a while now (that and Ukraine!) and the opportunity to ‘couple’ this with my previous 100 Years War book seemed a good time to do it. From news reports over the years (actually decades!) and some general reading around the topic I think I have a moderately OK knowledge of what's going on in Palestine/Israel zone, but it was nice to have some gaps filled in around the history of the Balfour Declaration and the deals struck by the British with various groups in the Middle East. Essentially, we, the Brits, played off various factions against each other and promised everyone the Earth if they helped us fight the Ottomans during WW1. Naturally when the actual dust had settled, we couldn’t live up to our promises and most everyone was (at the very least) annoyed with us. 

It's a truism that whenever you see straight lines on a map you know it's a region full of conflict. Such is the Middle East, drawn up by the French and the British as they/we carved up the region between them. The British got the Palestine Mandate and they facilitated/encouraged European Jewish immigration into the region fully aware of the Zionist philosophy of many of the settlers. The increase, from a very low number (7% I think), of the Jewish population was managed by the British so as not to destabilise things and, for a while at least, they managed to do this. Things ramped up in the 1930’s for obvious reasons and increased again after WW2 ended. The British left in 1946, essentially finding it too difficult to manage, handing it back to the newly formed United Nations to sort out. Then in 1948 Israel declared independence and took control of large parts of Palestine displacing thousands of Palestinians from their homes - known as the Nakba or Catastrophe. The ongoing crisis in that region dates from these events. 

I think the first thing that impressed me about this often-eye-opening volume was that the author (or members of his immediate family) where ‘in the room’ for at least some of the events outlined. Indeed, the author himself was part of several advisory teams and had direct access to some of the major players including Arafat. The second thing that impressed me was how even handed the author managed to remain even though he and his family had been displaced from his home by Israeli forces as a child. The personal element definitely added a human perspective to the narrative of an unfolding tragedy. Another thing that impressed me was the apportioning of blame. There’s certainly enough blame (on all sides) to go around and, I thought, the author distributed it wisely. The foundational blame was laid at the door of the British – which is more than fair. The major blame is given to the Jewish/Zionist settlers – again more than fair – with a heavy side blame laid at the feet of the Americans. Lessor blame, but still significant, is laid in front of Jordan, Syria and Egypt – and the rest with organisations such as the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organisation) and Hamas [remember this was published before the October 7th attack and Israel’s response]. 

Despite the author’s knowledge and narrative skill this was a difficult read – especially with the ongoing ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Palestinian people. Rather ironically in the concluding chapter the author muses on possible futures for the zone – from the perspective of 2020 – and states that one possible ‘solution’ for Israel would be just that, except he said that such events were very unlikely due to the cost in lives and the amount of adverse world opinion. How wrong he was on both counts. If you see the images of starving children and a devastated urban area and wonder how this possibly came to be, then this book is a very good place to start. Highly recommended although it might end up depressing you more than a little. More to come on the history of this troubled region. 

[My next scheduled read was the first book of a triple deep dive into Geopolitics. But after reading this I decided I needed something fun and fluffy - so that's coming soon. Then onto Geopolitics!]

Just Finished Reading: The Shortest History of The Soviet Union by Sheila Fitzpatrick (FP: 2022) [230pp] 

I remember, back in the very early 80’s, sitting in an A Level Law class when the teacher asked us all a question. She was a typical Middle Class ex-hippy, and I liked her a lot. She asked us if we were worried in any way by the fact that the Soviets were pointing nukes at us and that we could all be dead with a few minutes notice. After a few others had expressed their opinions, I said that sure we KNEW that we all could be dead by the push of a button somewhere in Moscow, but it wasn’t anything to lose a night's sleep over. Such is the callowness of youth I guess... But there was something else too. I had been born into the Cold War, grew up in it and ‘matured’ in it. When the Soviet Union dissolved completely in December 1991, I had spent a little over 30 years with the possibility of nuclear annihilation always present. After a while you just get used to it. 

Spending almost half of my life with the Soviet Union as an ever-present force in the world has made me moderately obsessed about the Cold War world in particular, but with an almost equal fascination with the 1917 Revolution that started it all off. I’ve mentioned before here that we had a student teacher who covered the Revolution in GREAT depth for about 6 weeks one term, and it was DEEPLY ingrained into my brain for decades afterwards. It's a very interesting story and has helped to shape the world ever since. Obviously, as you might imagine, that’s exactly where this excellent fast paced history started its journey.  

With a successful Revolution under his belt, Lenin and his fellow Bolsheviks consolidated the hold on Mother Russia – after a brutal Civil War and much upheaval – with Plans and a rather unhealthy dollop of misplaced Marxist ideology. Needless to say, this was rather less successful than hoped and Lenin’s successor – Stalin – decided that only drastic measures would do. What followed was, by any measure, brutal resulting in millions of dead – peasants, workers, soldiers and intellectuals. It’s hardly surprising that the initial attack of the Wehrmacht in 1941 (Operation Barbarossa) was SO successful as there were so few talented people left to oppose it. 

The death of Stalin in March 1953 changed everything and the sigh of relief across the USSR must have been quite something to experience. When Nikita Khrushchev finally took the position of premier in 1958 things had already begun to relax and the Soviet economy entered its era of extended growth. It was, albeit briefly, a good time to be a Communist. I was too young to remember the Khrushchev era (or the Cuban Missile Crisis he gave to the world), but I do remember Leonid Brezhnev who was Premier until November 1982. I remember that, at times, the Cold War got VERY cold indeed and the RAF was intercepting Russian bombers probing our air-defence system on a regular basis. Things were, to say the least, tense.  

But by then the writing was already on the wall – both figuratively and no doubt in reality. The Soviet economy was in terminal decline and frequent changes of leaders from Yuri Andropov to Konstantin Chernenko (who only last a year in post!), to Mikhail Gorbachev (who EVERYONE remembers as the guy who ended it all almost by accident) didn’t really help. It was certainly an exciting time watching the collapse of the ‘Evil Empire’ in real-time on the nightly news. I remember a friend of mine suggesting that we book a flight to Berlin to *be there* as the Wall came down. Practicalities prevented that from happening, but we did think about it for a while whilst watching the BBC News. 

As a leading authority on the topic, it comes as no surprise that the author has produced a gripping and informative book the Soviet Union. I enjoyed it immensely and it’ll definitely be on my ‘Best Books of the Year List’ early in 2026. If you’re too young to remember what it was like to live in a world of two deeply opposed ideological nuclear powers with their fingers hovering over RED buttons this is definitely for you. Those who did experience living with the frisson of global destruction at any moment will find it equally interesting to see behind the Iron Curtain and begin to understand what was really happening beyond the headlines and propaganda (from both sides). Highly recommended and much more to come both from this EXCELLENT series of books and on the Cold War in all its variety.    

Happy Birthday: Ernesto "Che" Guevara (14 June 1928 – 9 October 1967) was an Argentine Marxist revolutionary, physician, author, guerrilla leader, diplomat, and military theorist. A major figure of the Cuban Revolution, his stylized visage has become a ubiquitous countercultural symbol of rebellion and global insignia in popular culture.

As a young medical student, Guevara travelled throughout South America and was appalled by the poverty, hunger, and disease he witnessed. His burgeoning desire to help overturn what he saw as the capitalist exploitation of Latin America by the United States prompted his involvement in Guatemala's social reforms under President Jacobo Árbenz, whose eventual CIA-assisted overthrow at the behest of the United Fruit Company solidified Guevara's political ideology. Later in Mexico City, Guevara met Raúl and Fidel Castro, joined their 26th of July Movement, and sailed to Cuba aboard the yacht Granma with the intention of overthrowing US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista. Guevara soon rose to prominence among the insurgents, was promoted to second-in-command, and played a pivotal role in the two-year guerrilla campaign which deposed the Batista regime.

After the Cuban Revolution, Guevara played key roles in the new government. These included reviewing the appeals and death sentences for those convicted as war criminals during the revolutionary tribunals, instituting agrarian land reform as minister of industries, helping spearhead a successful nationwide literacy campaign, serving as both president of the National Bank and instructional director for Cuba's armed forces, and traversing the globe as a diplomat on behalf of Cuban socialism. Such positions also allowed him to play a central role in training the militia forces who repelled the Bay of Pigs Invasion, and bringing Soviet nuclear-armed ballistic missiles to Cuba, which preceded, and eventually precipitated, the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Additionally, Guevara was a prolific writer and diarist, composing a seminal guerrilla warfare manual, along with a best-selling memoir about his youthful continental motorcycle journey. His experiences and studying of Marxism–Leninism led him to posit that the Third World's underdevelopment and dependence was an intrinsic result of imperialism, neo-colonialism, and monopoly capitalism, with the only remedies being proletarian internationalism and world revolution. Guevara left Cuba in 1965 to foment continental revolutions across both Africa and South America, first unsuccessfully in Congo-Kinshasa and later in Bolivia, where he was captured by CIA-assisted Bolivian forces and summarily executed.

Guevara remains both a revered and reviled historical figure, polarized in the collective imagination in a multitude of biographies, memoirs, essays, documentaries, songs, and films. As a result of his perceived martyrdom, poetic invocations for class struggle, and desire to create the consciousness of a "new man" driven by moral rather than material incentives, Guevara has evolved into a quintessential icon of various leftist movements. In contrast, his critics on the political right accuse him of promoting authoritarianism and endorsing violence against his political opponents. Despite disagreements on his legacy, Time named him one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century, while an Alberto Korda photograph of him, titled Guerrillero Heroico, was cited by the Maryland Institute College of Art as "the most famous photograph in the world".

Just Finished Reading: How Civil Wars Start and How to Stop Them by Barbara F Walter (FP: 2022) [226pp] 

War is Hell, but Civil War takes it to a whole other level. Civil War is NASTY. Part of that is the belief – often by both sides – that the conflict is absolutely existential. Either they win or they are destroyed rather than ‘merely’ defeated. If they lose – they're DONE. But why do they happen in the first place? Some places have had multiple civil wars over the generations, whilst others have had few, only one or missed out completely. Why? This is the authors area of expertise. 

Interestingly civil wars have patterns. If you study them long enough and use enough examples from different cultures and across the century's patterns begin to emerge. With each stage passed or with each item checked off a list the odds of a country falling into civil war increases. It’s one way, or one metric, to assess foreign nations – to look at their stability, their reliability as allies or trading partners, their vulnerability to destabilisation by enemies and their future prospects. What the author found, much to her surprise, is that the same process, the same metrics, the same checklist, can be applied to her own country – the US - too.  

About 2/3rds of this often fascinating read looks at civil wars throughout the world, from Spain to Ireland, from post-revolutionary Russia to the breakup of Czechoslovakia after the collapse of the Soviet Union pointing out patterns, showing how the process moves from stage to stage until civil conflict breaks out. Although unique elements naturally exist there is a clear evolution being followed here – which, of course, gives those who want to prevent the descent into war an opportunity to break the chain of events and disrupt the process. This is what the author outlines in the final chapters of the book. 

There has, as we know, been much talk, indeed much heated rhetoric, about the possibility of a 2nd civil war in the US (so much so they made a film about it which is actually rather good). Even though I think that the odds of such a thing – at least in the sense of actual battles between competing armies – is rather low (although not zero) there remains the somewhat higher probability of increased low-intensity conflict between the increasingly polarised sides in the present ‘culture war’. Several significant lines have already been crossed, and it is not inconceivable that the remaining lines between the present political posturing and an exchange of more than words could happen in the months/years ahead. If one side or the other losses hope than change – or mere survival – is not possible without violence to defend their position, well, all bets are off at that point. We’re not there yet – and we’re probably still a long way from that point, but as far as I can tell from this side of the pond the momentum is continuing in that direction. If I was a betting person, which I’m not, I’d put the potential tipping point (all other things being equal) in 2026 with the mid-terms or, more likely I think, with the 2028 election. Either way the next 3-5 years are going to be turbulent to say the least! 

I think the most important aspect of this interesting read was the way it highlighted the dangers – no ‘It can’t Happen Here’ head in the sand between these pages – without either salivating at the prospect or losing hope that such a thing is either inevitable or unavoidable because it isn’t. The progress towards or retreat from civil war can be both observed and opposed to ensure it doesn’t happen here. This book will help you to understand why civil wars happen and also give you some tools and some idea of what to do to avoid them. Definitely recommended in these ‘interesting’ times. 

Just Finished Reading: Letter from Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King Jr (FP: 1963) [51pp] 

Although I know something of the US Civil Rights movement (more later!) and MLK Jr himself (ditto) it was good to read the actual words of this significant American thinker and activist. ‘Letter...’ was in its essence a defence of the Rights movements use of non-violent but disruptive tactics in the US South against those who wanted MLK Jr and his followers to cool things down and ‘wait’ for deliverance in due time as well as against those in the larger Black community who advocated for a more robust and violent defence of their cause and very existence. Still, after all this time, it's a very powerful argument for everything he believed in and the power of a community united in its opposition to oppression and the denial of basic Human Rights. 

In addition to ‘Letter...’ this brief booklet also contains ‘The Three Dimensions of a Complete Life’ which was a sermon, given by MLK Jr, on the fundamental pillars of a Good Life. These he listed as Love of Self, Love of your Neighbour and Love of God. A person was incomplete without any of these three pillars or dimensions. Again, his arguments are good and, as far as I could tell, grounded both in Greek philosophy and, naturally, Christianity. 

This was the first book(let) in the Penguin Modern Classics boxset I picked up for my recent birthday. Containing 50 volumes taken from a very wide range of authors I’m looking forward to encountering new authors and new perspectives from across the globe. The ‘plan’ is to read the first 10 items from both boxsets (the other being the Penguin Little Black Classics series) this year and with, maybe, another 20 from each next year. At around 50-60 pages each they’re excellent for expanding my range (I might even start feeling a bit more ‘well read’ by the end of it) and adding much needed depth to my all too thin Review pile! More to come. Recommended.  

Just Finished Reading: Priests De La Resistance! - The Loose Cannons Who Fought Fascism in the 20th Century by Fergus Butler-Gallie (FP: 2019) [260pp] 

To be honest it was difficult to resist a book with a pun both in the title AND the sub-title. No doubt it helped that the book also covered an odd aspect of WW2 and I’m always looking for the odd nooks and crannies of that particular conflict. I’ve long been interested in resistance movements across the globe and across time with a particular focus on the French resistance in particular. My reading, up to this point, has looked at the political aspects of this resistance especially focusing on the Communists and local Nationalist groups in various European countries. This was something quite different looking instead at the religious (exclusively Christian here) side of things. 

Looking at around 15 examples (all but 2 from occupied Europe during WW2) this was a fascinating, uplifting, harrowing and sometimes honestly funny look at some of the priests, nuns and other religious characters who put everything on the line to fight Fascism. Sadly (showing my lack of knowledge in this area) the vast majority of the people mentioned where completely unknown to me. The only one I recognised was Dietrich Bonhoeffer – not a name easily forgotten once discovered. Naturally one of the things I love about books like this is that they introduce me too a whole new side of things and to fascinating people of which I was previously ignorant. Being an ‘odd-ball’ myself (although generally I don’t think of *myself* that way) I was delighted to see just how ‘odd’ this cast of characters was. I think almost without exception they were outliers in their own faith organisations and all too often barely tolerated by their ecclesiastical hierarchy. Honestly, I liked them instantly! But it didn’t surprise me that someone who was a constant thorn in the side of their bishops or others above them was equally a thorn in the side (and often much more) to the Fascist authorities who tried to control them. Above all else it was their faith that not only sustained them through the years of Occupation but it was their faith that drove their opposition to Fascist ideology and the practical effects of it – from deportation of Jewish populations to the general oppression of the local population. 

Reading these potted biographies its difficult not to be uplifted by their efforts (often valuable, life-saving, inspirational) to fight a very real evil in their midst. I also found it difficult not only to admire these men and women who put their lives a distant second to doing the right thing but to love them for what they did. They were probably ‘difficult’ people in a whole host of ways but I do think they would have been fun – lovely provocative fun – to have in your community and most especially to know them or, if you were very lucky, to be friends with them. Told with a wonderful style I really enjoyed reading about a whole host of people that shouldn’t really be allowed to fade into historic obscurity. Definitely recommended and I’ll be looking out for the authors previous work on the English clergy. 

Just Finished Reading: The American Revolution – A Very Short Introduction by Robert J Allison (FP: 2015) [112pp] 

I think, if memory serves (which sometimes it doesn’t), we very briefly covered the American War of Independence in school. Not that we went into any great detail, but we did (I think) mention it in passing. Since then, I’ve picked up the odd bit of information about it from various other books and the occasional YouTube video. So, I thought it was about time I delved a little deeper. Of course, this being a very short introduction I wasn’t expecting to go too deep or too detailed. Indeed, it did feel from time to time rather breezy... 

I knew that the rumblings of revolutionary feelings had been bubbling under for some time, what with taxes and various appointed officials of the British crown throwing their weight around. It wasn’t long before tea and bullets started to fly. What was clear from the start is that the whole thing was very chaotic with neither side really knowing what to do and what they wanted. History writing tends to impose a much cleaner narrative on events than the reality of things. In the mix we had patriots (aka revolutionaries) and loyalists amongst the American population – plus no doubt a majority who just wanted to keep their heads down – along with the British who were trying to maintain or impose order. We also had slaves who were being offered their freedom if they joined the British cause as well as native Americans who fought on both sides. Then we had German ‘mercenaries’ and French ‘volunteers’ fighting with the British and American forces respectively, oh and the Spanish in the south got mixed in there somewhere. It was quite a complex mess. 

I think my biggest surprise reading this pretty good summary was that the whole process took so long. The bubbling of tension took some years before the shooting started, but once it did and after the actual Declaration of Independence happened I though the war itself only dragged on for a year, 18 months tops... Nope. It was MUCH longer. I was aware that the logistics of fighting a protracted war on the other side of the Atlantic at that time was not exactly easy and that Britain just didn’t have the forces required to fight there and protect the growing Empire from its many enemies, but I failed to understand just how difficult it was to play whack-a-mole with George Washingtons army and the rest of the ‘upstart rebels’.  

Being the kind of person that I am, what I found most interesting was the number of times and number of incidents that, if they had happened a little different, might have changed everything. There are the very close-run things during various battles and military encounters. There was talk of General Washington being replaced by someone more ‘forceful’ which could have at least changed the ultimate name of the US capital. Mistakes were made (on both sides), messages lost or received too late, leaders doing their own thing sometimes against orders or ‘freely interpreting’ them in such a way that amounted to the same thing. In a hundred ways either the details or the outcome of the conflict might have been different – which is why I like reading History so much. 

The last part of the book, post conflict, certainly piqued my interest when the author discussed the messy birth of the US Constitution and all of the compromises and horse-trading (as well as VERY heated arguments) around its provisions. I think that’s a subject I need to delve into a bit further. The whole process seems to be very human, very flawed, very imperfect – no wonder so many amendments were needed in an attempt to tidy things up a bit! Although not earth-shattering in its analysis this was still an interesting overview of an important conflict and its aftermath. Reasonable.

Remember, remember!

The fifth of November,

The Gunpowder treason and plot;

I know of no reason

Why the Gunpowder treason

Should ever be forgot!

Guy Fawkes and his companions

Did the scheme contrive,

To blow the King and Parliament

All up alive.

Threescore barrels, laid below,

To prove old England's overthrow.

But, by God's providence, him they catch,

With a dark lantern, lighting a match!

A stick and a stake

For King James's sake!

If you won't give me one,

I'll take two,

The better for me,

And the worse for you.

A rope, a rope, to hang the Pope,

A penn'orth of cheese to choke him,

A pint of beer to wash it down,

And a jolly good fire to burn him.

Holloa, boys! holloa, boys! make the bells ring!

Holloa, boys! holloa boys! God save the King!

Hip, hip, hooor-r-r-ray!

Yeah! We MADE it to November.... This Month here @ SaLT is dedicated to REBELS everywhere in honour of Guy Fawkes who is still celebrated (for his act or failure depending on your PoV) almost 420 years later! Not bad....   

Just Finished Reading: Echolands – A Journey in Search of Boudica by Duncan Mackay (FP: 2023) [306pp] 

It all started with the Welsh, and an overzealous Roman commander. It ended with death, destruction and a revolt that might have ended to occupation of Britannia. The commander of the province at the ends of the world, Suetonius Paulinus, was campaigning (AKA exterminating) in Wales subduing the local population that had been causing so much trouble in the past. To do so with the maximum of effort he wanted his rear to be secure and to assure this he directed his subordinate to disarm the local tribes. One of these tribes, the Iceni, had been willing clients to Rome for some time and they expected to be treated as such. To demand their weapons, as if they couldn’t be trusted, was an insult too far. Swords were drawn, words were said and, as night follows day, blood flowed. What was worse is that the queen, Boudica (which means Victory) was whipped and her daughters raped – or at least according to later accounts. Whatever actually happened, it was enough for the Iceni and their allies to hold an urgent meeting to decide how to respond. The decision was to fight – to kill every Roman, man, woman and child they found and to burn everything Roman to the ground. The Iceni were warriors of their word and they fell upon the Roman occupiers like ravening wolves. Cities burnt, including London, thousands died and the IX Legion was destroyed to a man – with only its commander and a handful of cavalry able to save the eagle from capture. Only weeks later, when Paulinus return from his campaigning did a final battle take place where, this time, the Iceni fell in their thousands and the revolt was brutally ended. But it was a close-run thing and even the Emperor, Nero, apparently considered giving up Britannia as a lost cause. 

I’ve long had a ‘thing’ for the Boudica story (or Boadicea as I wrongly knew her growing up). I think I might have heard the full story early in school during a history lesson. I do wonder if the teacher, in the 1970’s, was the same one who turned me on to the story of Hereward. It’s entirely possible. They were a radical bunch back then! It is a great story though – despite the fact that we only really know about it from the Roman viewpoint and a good chunk of that evidence is questionable to a degree. There’s plenty of physical evidence – including the Boudican layer of destruction visible in digs across England’s southern plain. What we don’t know are where some of the notable battles took place – including the ambush and destruction of the IX Legion and the final battle itself.  

That’s one of the things the author went looking for in this highly engaging and highly entertaining narrative. I was honestly hooked! I really liked the way he tried to get inside the heads of the main players but was also more than happy to point out what we don’t know and probably will never know about the events surrounding the revolt itself. I also really liked the authors sense of humour most obvious from his chapter headings. I particularly liked the one covering the initial Roman invasion of Britain called ‘The Egle Has Landed’. Brilliant! If you’ve ever wondered exactly who Boudica was and why she was held in such high regard for so long – although apparently there are some who are trying to label her as a war criminal or worse – this is definitely the book for you. One last thing, below is an image of the statue of Boudica and her two daughters in London. Whenever I’m there I always try to visit the area and admire the artwork and the woman herself. She’s still one of my all-time historical heroes and I can’t help but wonder what things would’ve been like if she had succeeded in throwing the Romans back into the sea.... 

Just Finished Reading: The Romans Who Shaped Britain by Sam Moorhead and David Stuttard (FP: 2012) [251pp] 

It may have been true, but it was certainly a piece of significant propaganda as well as a shot at personal aggrandisement. When Julius Ceaser was fighting in Gaul he pointed at Britain as a haven for trouble makers, a haven that needed to be tamed, to be brought to heel. The only way to do that was to invade – which he did with a relatively small force in 55BC achieving little more than a ‘photo-op’. He returned with a much larger force the following year achieving his limited war aims and essentially put the locals on notice that the Roman Empire was watching and would be back. Then... Nothing. 

Only after around 100 years in AD43 under Emperor Claudius did a full invasion and occupation get underway. Resistance was, at first, significant – at least amongst some of the Britannic tribes but Rome, being Rome, dealt with any signs of opposition in their usual brutally methodical manner. In this case at least resistance was, generally, useless. With each passing year the Empire pressed north and west towards what is now Scotland and Wales. Both future countries proved far more difficult to subdue than first thought although Wales eventually fell after many years of warfare. Scotland proved a somewhat tougher nut to crack – or simply too expensive for minimal gain – and a series of walls were built to contain any possible threat. But not all was well (or peaceful) in Britannia.  

In AD60 the Roman’s pushed too far. With a heavy hand they turned a compliant ally into an implacable enemy. The Iceni queen Boudica rose in revolt to avenge her husband, her daughters and herself against an oppressive regime. This was no idle threat. Tens of thousands reached for their swords and shouted ‘Death to Rome’. The city of Colchester went down in blood and flame followed by London. The 9th Legion was ambushed on the way to intercept Boudica’s army and destroyed. Rearmed and reinvigorated who could stand against them? Returning from the Druid heartland of Anglesey the Roman governor, Gaius Suetonius Paulinus, did just that with appalling consequences and the revolt bled out in an English field. The death toll was truly staggering with the Romans and their allies losing around 80,000 and the Celtic tribes considerably more. Although Emperor Nero considered abandoning Britain the defeat of Boudica led to Roman consolidation in the south and a confirmed presence in the rest of the country for centuries to come. 

When the Romans finally left early in the 5th century, they left a partially Romanised province largely unable to stand on its own feet. For centuries it had been a place of some value but always at a cost. It was one of the most heavily garrisoned provinces in the Empire and seemed to be a regular producer of troublesome Emperor ‘wannabies’ safely far from the centre of things. 

This was a very good overview/introduction to Roman Britain. I was aware of the rough outline of things (back in my day they taught this sort of thing in History class) so it was nice to fill in some detail. There is much, at least on the surface, to admire about the Romans but it was gratifying to see then get their assess handed to them on more than one occasion by the Brits (even though the ‘British’ didn’t actually exist at that time), the Welsh and the Scots (ditto and ditto). Naturally I was drawn particularly to Boudica (or Boadicea as I knew her growing up – yes, I’m THAT old) so there’s more to follow on that amazing woman and hero of mine for many years. Definitely worth a read and recommended to anyone wanting a firm foundation to this most interesting slice of Britain's early history. 

Just Finished Reading: The Trigger – The Hunt for Gavrilo Princip: The Assassin who Brought the World to War by Tim Butcher (FP: 2014) [297pp] 

When the young Serbian assassin, Gavrilo Princip, stepped out of the crowd in Sarajevo in 1914, fired twice and killed the heir to the Austrian crown and his wife, what exactly was he trying to achieve? What did he expect to happen next? One thing he didn’t think would happen was that he’d live to see the end of that day – a cyanide capsule attested to that fact. What he had hoped was that he would live up to his heroes and strike back against the oppressors of his country and his people – the Serbs. He may well have expected Austria to go to war with Serbia over the attack, but Princip expected that this war would be short and that it would bring together the Balkan states to throw off Imperial domination. Did he think it might result in a larger war? Possibly. In the recent past, Russia had voiced both official and private support for its southern neighbour. But Russia was also an Empire and also a Monarchy. Could they really support the act of someone who struck at the heart of both? It was not an academic question. The lives of millions might rest on how that question was answered. 

But who exactly was Princip, where did he come from, and why did he think Franz Ferdinands death was worth his young life? These questions are what the author sought to find out – but not in a way I expected. The book's subtitle pointed me in the wrong direction. I had assumed, wrongly it turned out, that this book was about the Austrian, or indeed local police, hunt for the assassin. However, Princip was apprehended at the scene of the shooting and arrested immediately. The ‘hunt’ in question was for the history, the personality and the radicalisation of the assassin himself. But the book turned out to be much more than that. The author was a journalist during the Balkan/Yugoslav Wars in the 1990’s so knew the region and the people’s reasonably well. He had made life-long friends there and seen things that haunted him to the present. Part of the book was the author relating his experiences as he, and friend, visited Princip’s home village, talked to surviving family and then travelled in his footsteps (often literally) from his home to Sarajevo and that fateful meeting.  

Part history of the events and the conspiracy leading up to the assassination, part discussion of the 90’s conflict, part high-level history of the region, and part travelogue this was an intriguing mix and story threads that worked really well. It showed where Princip came from – both geographically and culturally – how he arrived at his destination – both physically and politically and how it impacted on the region both at the time and how echoes of that event still reverberate today. It was, in many ways, a very interesting (and sometimes haunting) narrative. Definitely recommended for a new look at one of the defining moments of modern times.  

Just Finished Reading: The Assassination of the Archduke – Sarajevo 1914 and the Murder That Changed the World by Greg King and Sue Woolmans (FP: 2013) [292pp] 

I think it is more than arguable that THE pivotal moment (or most definitely A pivotal moment) in the 20th century occurred on 28th June 1914 when a young Serbian man shot and killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie on the streets of Sarajevo. A little over 4 weeks later Europe and the world was at war – a conflict that accounted for around 20 million deaths. Like most people, in the West at least, I certainly knew OF the event and some of the details behind it. What I didn’t realise, until reading this excellent book, was just how many details I was unaware of. 

The book was essential formatted into two halves – covering the life and (apparently very happy) marriage of the archduke in the first section and the more immediate run-up to the assassination in the second half. Naturally I enjoyed the second half more – being the person that I am – but the first half was FAR from boring. It was interesting that Franz never even entertained the idea of eventually becoming Emperor of Austria-Hungary. He was 4th in line and only an unusual set of circumstances led him to the cusp of that role. I also had no idea just how controversial his marriage was. Apparently by marrying a mere countess – who he was apparently deeply in love with – he ‘shamed the Imperial crown’ and was made to suffer repeated public humiliation because of it. Indeed, he had to sign an agreement that his children would not be allowed to inherit any rights, privileges or position once he became Emperor. [Side note: This is known as a morganatic marriage: relating to or denoting a marriage in which neither the spouse of lower rank, nor any children, have any claim to the possessions or title of the spouse of higher rank. This was obvious a favourite word of the authors who, throughout the book used it repeatedly. Although I wasn’t exactly counting, they must have used it 30 times at a minimum and I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if the use count exceeded 50 times. Although it did start to get irritating after a while I did eventually find it funny.] After YEARS of public abuse for marrying for love I, personally, would have used very undiplomatic language to tell the Empire what it could do, and where it could stick, the crown. Franz (and especially Sophie) were made of sterner stuff. 

The assassination itself was, well, weird. Even at the time there was much speculation that it was the result of a conspiracy. In effect, of course, it was – just (maybe) not the conspiracy some people were thinking of. There was definitely a conspiracy involving the assassins themselves. On top of that there was another conspiracy by members of the Serbian military to train, arm and assist the assassins in their attempt. What is not so clear, despite some very strange goings-on, was if there was any AUSTRIAN complicity in the killing. Franz didn’t want to go to Sarajevo but was essentially ordered to do so by the emperor, the visit and the route was advertised months in advance, the archduke's personal security detail was left at the local rail station because of lack of transport for them, the local governor (despite protestations) failed to arrange additional security for the event or even take normal standard precautions and on... All VERY strange. Was it a set-up? I think there’s a distinct possibility. Austria was certainly looking for an excuse to ‘deal’ with Serbia once and for all and an attempted assassination would provide that very excuse. If the archduke was actually killed....? Well, there was always someone around to take his place on the throne. 

Apart from the mildly irritating ‘morganatic’ on repeat this was a very interesting read. I learnt a lot about the run-up to the event itself as well as the immediate aftermath. Together with a few more upcoming reads I’m now much more aware of why and how Europe and the world ended up fighting one of the most destructive wars in our long and bloody history and why the world remains in such a mess today. All because a car paused at the side of a street in exactly the wrong place at the wrong time. SO many ‘what-ifs’ spring from that day. So many possibilities... Definitely recommended to anyone interested in how the Great War started. More to come – soon. 

Just Finished Reading: Red Summer – The Summer of 1919 and the Awakening of Black America by Cameron McWhirter (FP: 2011) [271pp] 

After their sacrifices on the battlefields of France they thought things would change on their return. With the words of President Wilson still ringing in their ears with talk of Democracy and Self Determination as the cornerstones of a new world order, with talk of peace, prosperity and progress for all they thought things would be different, that they’d be treated with more respect and that many would, at long last, be able to cast their votes without fear of the consequences. In 1919 they realised they were wrong. Nothing had really changed. Despite filling many of the jobs lost to soldiers fighting abroad and despite fighting and dying on European battlefields – when they were actually allowed to fight – they were treated exactly the same and were expected to take up their subservient roles again as if nothing had happened. Not surprisingly, many decided that things had indeed changed – maybe not in American society but within themselves. The feeling, most especially amongst returning veterans, was that they deserved better and that they would demand batter. So began the slow, painful and often bloody awakening of Black consciousness across America – from resistance to lynching, to fighting back in the cities (both North and South) when attacked, to the founding and growth of organisations designed to help black American’s gain access to legal remedies previously denied them as well as procuring professional legal representation in court cases where life and death hung in the balance.   

I’d come across various examples of this aspect of the American experience scattered through my reading of US history, but I lost count of the number of times I was honestly shocked at what went on and people's reaction to it. A few times I had to put the book down and go do something else for a while for my brain to function again. There’s only so much casual racism and targeted brutality I can cope with before my mind loses all comprehension. From 1919 into the early 1920’s I’m stunned at what black Americans had to put up with and I’m not surprised in the least that at least some of them decided that enough was enough. Some white commentators actually complained that the problem was caused by the French who had the audacity to treat black American soldiers like human beings which inevitably gave them ideas ‘above their station’. While American officers treated black soldiers who wanted to fight as simple labourers the French officers were more than willing to lead them into battle – and did so to great effect. The French could care less about their skin colour (having black soldiers themselves) but only cared if they were willing to kill the Boche.  

This detailed and very well written history was a real eye-opener for me. I kind of ‘knew’ how bad it could be being black in early 20th century America, but I had no real idea – until now. If you have a reasonably strong stomach and you can keep your anger and disgust in check this is a worthwhile if sobering read which helps to put a lot of black activism into a solid context. Black Lives Matter and its predecessors did not pop into existence out of thin air. It had LONG antecedents – even long before the focus of this book. I think that I am at least beginning to understand where some of the animosity and suspicion of American blacks comes from. This book was a real education. Highly recommended to anyone wanting to understand a still vital aspect of America. More to come from this author. 

Happy Birthday: Guy Fawkes (13 April 1570 – 31 January 1606), also known as Guido Fawkes while fighting for the Spanish, was a member of a group of provincial English Catholics involved in the failed Gunpowder Plot of 1605. He was born and educated in York; his father died when Fawkes was eight years old, after which his mother married a recusant Catholic.

Just Finished Reading: The Blood of Free Men – The Liberation of Paris, 1944 by Michael Neiberg (FP: 2012) [280pp] 

Covering much the same timeframe as well as the same overall events as my last Liberation book, the focus of this interesting volume was quite different. Although the major players highlighted in the previous book are still mentioned – if only sometimes in passing like General Eisenhower – they are very much in the background here. Even De Gaulle gets a bit-part role with the focus mainly on him trying to control events as well as control the major Resistance groups headed by the Communists. Despite the fact of the German occupation of the city, it was the danger of a Communist take-over before the Allies arrived in force that was foremost on De Gaulle’s mind, and he made great efforts to ensure that this did not happen. Both the British and especially the Americans concurred and, despite loud protestations from Resistance elements inside Paris, steadfastly refused to air-drop any weapons to Resistance units. A re-run of the 1871 Paris Commune as well as the death and destruction which followed was very much in the minds of those who knew their history and did not want to repeat it.  

Most interestingly, I found, was the almost total side-lining of the ‘hero’ of the previous book – the cities German military commander Dietrich von Choltitz. In the previous book it was he how saved Paris for the world largely because of his reluctance to destroy one of the treasures of Europe (if not the world) on the say so of a madman. Here we have a very different interpretation and a very different portrait of a man. Here, the author highlights the reluctance of von Choltitz to act partially for purely practical reasons – he wanted the bridges to remain intact so that German units outside Paris could still retreat over them towards the East and home. Other, very practical, reasons prevented him for organising any widespread demolition – the lack of sufficient explosives as well as the lack of sufficiently experienced demolition experts. There was only so much he could do with so little. When pressure was applied from his superiors it was already too late – Paris was rising and von Choltitz had missed the opportunity to reduce the city to rubble. 

So, if the major players barely got a mention who or what was this interesting book about. Simply it was about the group (or rather groups) that where surprisingly side-lined in the previous book – the Resistance and people of Paris itself. After the false hope of D-Day for instant Liberation had passed, the local Resistance units in and around Paris accepted the order to ‘stand down’ until the Allies broke through the German defences and had already approached the capital. As the weeks went by the Resistance grew frustrated (and ambitious) and wanted to both strike at the hated Occupiers and the Collaborators in their midst. Further they wanted to liberate themselves – in large part to give themselves a place at the future political table – in effect restoring their honour after so long in the shadows. Eventually, when no Allied tanks had arrived despite months passing by the Resistance decided to rise and take the city themselves. It was not going to be an easy fight, but their actions certainly concentrated the minds of all involved. The Free French forces outside the city insisted on rushing to their aid and, eventually, the Americans agreed. The German forces inside the city, who were still much stronger than any Resistance forces ranged against them, saw the writing on the wall (all too literally) and decided to wait until captured by the Allies rather than either fight or surrender to Resistance fights or civilians. Meanwhile, the Collaborators either made hasty deals with the future administration, fought on the streets and hoped for some kind of atonement bonus or fled Paris with as much as they could carry and with or without their German ‘friends’. 

This was a very interesting compliment to my previous Liberation read and really brought home that two views of a rather narrow subject can end up have a very different focus. After reading both of them, especially so closely together, I think I have a much more rounded and nuanced view of the Liberation of Paris. Definitely recommended. Further down the line, although not any time soon, I have one more book on the subject that goes up to 1949 so, hopefully, dealing with a lot of the aftermath of both the Occupation and Liberation. But that’s in the future...

Just Finished Reading: The Liberation of Paris – How Eisenhower, De Gaulle, and Von Choltitz Saved the City of Light by Jean Edward Smith (FP: 2019) [205pp] 

When the Allies landed on the Normandy beaches on 6th June 1944 the citizens of Paris celebrated. Soon, they thought, their ordeal would finally be over. Within days, they thought, they’d be free. The Resistance units especially where itching and ready, despite their lack of weapons, to act. But as days turned to weeks and still no column of Allied tanks approached celebration and hope turned to confusion and despair. The question on everyone’s lips: where are they? 

The problem was far from simple. Firstly, the German resistance to Allied advances was tougher than anyone expected. Despite the Allies having effective air supremacy, German units were generally far more experienced that their Allied opponents. Then there was the matter of logistics. With most of the ports either in enemy hands or heavily damaged it was difficult to keep Allied units fully supplied. Together with the unfamiliarity with the problems of fighting in bocage country with its sunken roads and dense hedges progress, at least at first, was painfully slow. Only with the long-awaited US breakout did things become more fluid, and the problem of Paris could even be discussed. The Free French Forces (technically) under General De Gaulle were naturally eager to liberate their capital city for a host of reasons. Their American overlords, who supplied all their equipment and who were above them in the Allied chain of command, had other ideas. It was only when it became obvious that Paris was open and would fall with the minimum of effort on the part of the Allies was its liberation even contemplated. Within the city itself tension between Resistance units and the German occupiers began to reach new heights. Under orders to destroy the city if it looked like holding it was no longer an option Von Choltitz needed to juggle his duty, fear for his family back in Germany if he didn’t comply, the need to keep the bridges intact to allow German units outside Paris to retreat in good order and his place in History if he left Paris in ruins. August 1944 was going to be a hot one. 

Yet again, I knew of the Liberation of Paris in general terms but wasn’t fully aware of the details. I didn’t know that, at least originally, the Allies (or actually the Americans) had no intention of liberating Paris but had intended to by-pass it thereby forcing the German occupiers either to flee or surrender to follow up forces. The Americans were well aware of the logistical nightmare of feeding the city which would just add to their already existing logistical problems. But I think one of the most interesting characters in the whole series of events was Von Choltitz – the German military commander of Paris and the region surrounding the city. I’m not sure if I’d heard of him before, but he seemed – at least in this narrative – to have been central to saving Paris from unforgivable destruction. Interesting, when he was finally captured by the advanced Allied units he was spat on by the French citizens (and the officer standing next to him shot and killed) yet, on his death, had a French military honour guard at his funeral. As you might imagine from the subtitle, the focus of this excellent history is on the three main players – Von Choltitz, De Gaulle and Eisenhower – with the Resistance getting a lot less attention than maybe they should have, but I’ll have more to say about that next week! Overall, I learnt a LOT from this book, and I’ll be looking out for more from this author in future. If, like me, you had a passing appreciation of the events surrounding the Liberation and wanted to know more than I can certainly recommend this to you. But what I did learn from later reading – and no doubt more reading to come – things are not always so cut and dried as they’re made out to be so it's best to get more than one opinion/perspective on a subject. More to come.  

Just Finished Reading: Michael Collins and the Troubles – The Struggle for Irish Freedom 1912-1922 by Ulick O’Connor (FP: 1975) [209pp] 

Tension in Ireland had been building for some time. Periodic rebellions across the island, although more prevalent in the South, had long been a feature of life there. As the 20th century progressed it became obvious, even to the British parliament in London that something needed to be done. The answer it seemed was to give Ireland a form of independence similar to the Dominion status of Canada and Australia within the British Empire. Not everyone, of course, was happy with the idea of Home Rule – both in England and in the north of Ireland specifically – and the passage of the Bill through parliament was far from easy. A further complication arose with the start of the Great War and Home Rule was delayed until after hostilities has ceased. Tensions, however, continued to rise with activists on both sides of the issue starting to arm and train for future conflict both in support of Home Rule (or indeed full Independence) or to fight against it. This culminated in the 1916 Easter Rising in Dublin and the subsequent brutal British response. With the end of the War in Europe talks began again regarding Home Rule with now three factions arming heavily – those in favour of the Home Rule bill being implemented, those fighting for full Independence from the British Empire and those fighting (in the northern counties) to remain within the Empire. A Civil War was brewing in Ireland and Michael Collins, one of the leaders in the Rising, was at the heart of things. 

This slim volume covered much of the ground I’d read about in various other books regarding this turbulent period in Anglo-Irish history. Despite being necessarily brief, it did manage to cover the Easter Rising in some detail over around 3-4 chapters and I picked up a few more insights into that pivotal event. It was interesting to see how the Rising could have been much more effective (or at least longer lasting) if the plan for a much wider rebellion had managed to go off as expected or if a large arms shipment from Germany had been delivered into Republican hands as planned. But what I took from this book was the importance of some of the leading players in the drama – and not only Collins himself. Although hundreds of men (and women!) took part in the Easter Rising itself and many thousands of others in the subsequent Civil War, it was the big players (mostly men, but with a few notable women too) who directed things for good or ill both in Ireland itself and within the English establishment in London. I’ll definitely be reading more about them going forward. I also wanted to read more about the leaders of the Rising who were arrested afterwards and eventually executed in England for treason.  

England has had a LONG and difficult relationship with its close neighbour to the west, and I’m really only just still scratching the surface of that troubled history. As I get older, I’m becoming more interested in my Irish heritage so want to understand the background to incidents such as this (for one thing I only discovered that Ireland even HAD a Civil War just a few years ago!) so expect more Ireland focused books in the years ahead. Oh, and just one other thing... Although Michael Collins does feature quite a bit in this book – especially in the second half – this isn’t really about him so much as the role he played in things during and after 1916. On the back, the book is classified as a Biography. It isn’t. But, as a well-written and concise look at the 10-year period from 1912-1922 its pretty good. More to come. 

Just Finished Reading: Rebel Writers – The Accidental Feminists by Celia Brayfield (FP: 2019) [246pp] 

I’d heard of a group of male authors in the 50’s and 60’s called The Angry Young Men (writers such as Stan Barstow, John Braine, John Osborne and Alan Sillitoe amongst others) and I even have some, typically unread, books by them but I had never heard about the ‘Angry Young Women’ who were their contemporaries. Of course, much was made of the men’s efforts and many column inches appeared in the papers discussing their new, radical, ‘kitchen sink drama’ style of writing featured between the pages of a book or on the BBC’s Play of the Week. The women, and often very young women, were seen as more exotic and not a little transgressive – becoming published authors in their TEENS and writing about poverty, sex, abortion (illegal at that time) and contraception (difficult to obtain until the advent of the Pill and even then, only initially available to married women). In some cases, most notably with Edna O’Brien, their books were vilified and, in some cases, actively banned for years after initial publication. Even a successful print run had its own problems attached – from media pressure, fame (however brief) and the fact that the youngest authors had to have their financial affairs countersigned by their husbands or fathers.  

What these women authors chronicled – although they were singularly unaware of it at the time – was a radical change in British life as old the certainties of their parent’s generation gave way to the more radical, more free and more open 1950’s and 1960’s. They brought, intentionally or not, many of the daily problems experienced by women, and especially working-class women, into the public (and middle-class) domain which inevitably raised questions about solutions of poverty, single parenthood, divorce, childcare, prostitution, the legalisation of abortion, homosexuality, race issues and much more. These authors – both men and women – introduced a new perspective into modern literature: from the bottom looking up rather than from the top (or middle) looking down or, all too often, simply ignoring conditions that were long considered ‘beneath’ them. It was quite a revelation for everyone. 

I’d come across this book (or at least the cover!) some time ago when searching for works on rebels, so when I saw it going cheap in my favourite Indie bookshop picked it up as at least potentially interesting. I’m so glad I did. Not only did I learn a great deal about these authors – only one (Edna O’Brien) I’d tried before – but also about the times they wrote about. Although I hadn’t actually heard of many of the authors before, I had come across much of their output in movie adaptation or in play form on TV such as ‘The L-shaped Room’, ‘A Taste of Honey’, ‘Up the Junction’, ‘Poor Cow’ and ‘Georgy Girl’. What made an already interesting subject even more so was the excellent writing by the author who melded together the lives of the authors themselves, the times they were writing in (and about), the on-going social upheaval they witnessed and helped along, the reactions of critics and the reading public (plus both politicians and churchmen) to their output and much else perfectly. It was all quite fascinating! If you have any interest in this radical period of British literature and theatre or just in post-War Britain and the emergence of the ‘Swinging Sixties’ this is a definite recommendation. 

[Labels Added: 1, Labels Total: 73]