Collected Miscellany

The book, A Special Mission: Hitler’s Secret Plot to Seize the Vatican and Kidnap Pope Pius XII by Dan Kurzman, is on a topic few people know about. I had read snippets of such a plot in general histories of World War II before reading this book, but did not think much about it. Kurzman does an excellent job of describing what really occurred when the Germans took control of Rome in 1943.

Here is a brief summary of the book from Publishers Weekly:

Veteran popular historian Kurzman (The Bravest Battle) relates how a Hitler-Himmler order in 1943 to kidnap the pope and seize Vatican files and treasures was twice delayed and finally undermined by a group of high German officers and officials in Rome. The foilers were headed by the SS leader in Italy, Gen. Karl Wolff, whom Kurzman interviewed before his death in 1984.

Kurzman demonstrates that Hitler wanted the Vatican neutralized because he thought the pope had aided the overthrow of Mussolini in 1943 and feared that the Church’s leader would denounce the Final Solution in general and the imminent deportation of Rome’s Jews in particular. Wolff and others in Rome, meanwhile, hoped to use the pope as an intermediary for a negotiated peace and an Anglo-American-German campaign against the Soviets. Kurzman also touches upon such related topics as the 1933 Nazi-Vatican Concordat, how Pius’s silence on the murder of the Jews was partly rooted in excessive fears of a Soviet takeover of the Vatican, and the curious role of Rome’s chief rabbi, Israel Zolli, who ultimately converted to Catholicism. Kurzman does a good job of telling a suspenseful and little-known story of WWII intrigue.

Continue reading →

After further thought, I realized I should provide full disclosure regarding Jonahs’ forthcoming book and its new and improved, and yet still apparently infuriating, title.

The reason I know that the book is a serious argument with important points to make is that I have read an early version of the manuscript and provided some feedback. I don’t want to get into the details until the book comes out, but it is a serious work of intellectual and political history. You may not agree with all of Jonah’s points or arguments but he draws out some fascinating aspects of history and makes some pretty compelling arguments about the faulty nature of the conventional wisdom surrounding fascism past and present. I learned things reading the book and I have a Masters in History and consider myself pretty knowledgeable about this area.

In fact, in the past I have often teased Jonah about the work he was putting into the book. Why was he putting himself through the work and stress of writing so serious and substantial a book when he could very easily crank out a humorous collection of essays massaged into the kind of current events/political opinion book that seem to be a dime a dozen these days.

Perhaps, this is why I get cranky when people attack him before the book is even out. It ticks me off when book like this, and Ramesh’s previously, get dismissed before they get a chance to prove their worth.

So all I am saying is give the book a chance before you dismiss it. Disagree all you want, but make an intelligent argument if you want to be taken seriously. I will try to do the same.

What is it about controversial book titles? Why can’t people stop themselves from jumping all over a title before a book even comes out? What is it about the marketing aspect of titles that drive people to say such stupid things?

Ramesh Ponnuru’s excellent The Party of Death was roundly criticized and dismissed simply because the of the title (or some of the admittedly over-zealous marketing material). Bloggers, Amazon reviewers, and even journalists – all mostly of the liberal variety – arrogantly and ignorantly sniffed that the title was insulting and wrong and that they weren’t going to read the book because the title revealed that it was hopelessly warped.

Ramesh’s fellow National Review colleague Jonah Goldberg has been experiencing the very same thing as he prepares for his book’s release. Today he noted yet another example of this phenomenon.

Here is what Tom Palmer has to say:

A friend just sent me a rather shocked link to Amazon.com’s page for Jonah Goldberg’s new book with the utterly crazy title: “Liberal Fascism: The Totalitarian Temptation from Hegel to Whole Foods.” The original subtitle was “The Totalitarian Temptation from Mussolini to Hillary Clinton.” That one was unhinged enough, but the new title is simply deranged.

[. . .]

I’ve met John Mackey a number of times and I know for a fact that he’s not a “fascist,” nor does he distribute “fascist food.”

I know that authors don’t always come up with the titles or covers of their books, but they do get to veto them. This one is so utterly stupid that I hope that Goldberg is ashamed to show his face in public.

As Jonah noted in his Corner post, this isn’t really an argument so much as a emotional reaction. Palmer seems offended that Whole Foods and fascist appear together in any way. He doesn’t explain why this isn’t a perfectly legitimate teaser to the book. Does the title or subtitle argue that Whole Foods is a totalitarian organization or that the owner, John Mackey, is a fascist? No. It simply suggests that in the process of discussing “Liberal Fascism” and the “Totalitarian Temptation ” Jonah will cover topics as diverse as Hegel and Whole Foods.

I am glad Palmer can vouch for John Mackey and is confident the Whole Foods doesn’t distribute “fascist food” but what does that have to do with anything? Is it really too much to ask that critics read the book and make an attempt to understand the argument before they start assuming that the title and subtitle are “unhinged.”

Tom Palmer asserts that this “is so utterly stupid that I hope that Goldberg is ashamed to show his face in public.” What? Before he goes around calling something “utterly stupid”maybe Mr. Palmer might want to go ahead and flush out an argument about the supposed offense, preferably one that includes logic and reasoning rather than just personal assurances and bluster.

Let me repeat, the subtitle “The Totalitarian Temptation from Hegel to Whole Foods” does not automatically mean, or imply, that Whole Foods or John Mackey are fascist or totalitarian. Rather, in the age old tradition or book marketing it is designed to intrigue potential buyers and readers: Liberal Fascism? Hegel and Whole Foods? Just what is this Goldberg talking about? I had better buy this book and find out!

It is called marketing and it is rather prevalent these days. And on occasion it might even use controversy or shock value to catch-readers attention. I would think libertarians might be familiar with it.

Can we all just agree that we will not post sloppy attacks on books simply because of their titles? I am not even arguing that you have to read the book cover to cover. Don’t like the title or subtitle but don’t want to spend good money on it? When the book comes out go the public library and take a look. Read the introduction, the conclusion, key parts of key chapters, etc. Then you can say: I haven’t read the whole book, but it seems to me that book “X” is making a ridiculous argument by saying “Y.” Easy enough, no?

And I think Mr. Palmer should feel free to show his face in public even though he posted an emotional rant utterly lacking in logic or reason and without the common courtesy of reading a book before attacking the argument.

***I should note that I consider both Jonah and Ramesh friends so make of that what you will.***
UPDATE: Please see this post for additional disclosure.

In discussing A Nail Through the Heart by Timothy Hallinan I want to use a sort of Complete Review format as I have in the past. With quotes from other reviews followed by my own take on the book.

Let’s start with Kirkus Reviews as they offer a quick plot summary as part of their short review:

Mystery writer Hallinan scores big-time with a fast-moving thriller set in Thailand.

Poke Rafferty, the improbable product of a Filipino-Irish union, writes articles and niche travel books that provide him enough to live, if not well, at least better than the average Joe in Bangkok. The American expat wants to marry bar-girl-turned-businesswoman Rose, and he wants to adopt Miaow, the eight-year-old urchin he’s rescued from the streets. Then Poke’s old friend, a police officer named Arthit, sends him a young woman searching for her recently disappeared uncle. As Poke digs deeper into the uncle’s past, he finds evil that strikes a bit too close for comfort. Matters get even more complicated when he crosses paths with Madame Wing, a terrifying old woman who hires Poke to investigate a theft that has left at least one man dead, and with Miaow’s friend Superman, a scary street kid. They’re only two of the vibrant, deftly drawn characters who throng Hallinan’s exotic but believable landscape. His hero has both a gun and a conscience, as well as enough wit to do the math and come up with the right answer. Poke struggles with age-old questions of right and wrong in a very personal way as the well-crafted narrative moves quickly and convincingly toward a satisfying conclusion that almost guarantees a sequel.

Dark, often funny and ultimately enthralling.

Chris McCann’s Pop Matters review is the best among the online reviews I have seen. He doesn’t bury the lead but gives you his interesting perspective on book in the first paragraph:

Timothy Hallinan’s A Nail Through the Heart features rough-and-tumble Bangkok street kids, former Khmer Rouge sadists, pasty pederasts, and a not-so-typical American-Thai romance. What elevates it above other strictly genre thrillers is its stubborn focus on family and how the links between people, burdened with complexity and pain, ultimately give meaning to otherwise chaotic, meaningless, and violent lives. In this regard, A Nail Through the Heart can be read as an anti-noir, eschewing the taciturn, solitary detective for a man whose only desire is to connect.

McCann also focuses on what differentiates the book from other thrillers:

Hallinan differentiates A Nail Through the Heart from other rote thrillers set in exotic locales with the tenderness it has at its heart. Where authors of most genre work would trip over themselves in an attempt to humanize the story, Hallinan seems to sincerely care about his characters; even transient actors receive a moment or two of his full consideration.

The intricate pattern of the web that ties everyone together—not in a Sam Spade whodunit sort of way, but in a Buddhist we’re all part of the same living universe” way—emerges as the true theme of the work. The Buddhist characters of Hallinan’s Bangkok practice daily acts of devotion, which in the hands of a less confident or overly ambitious writer could easily seem too fraught with symbolism. Instead, talk of ghosts, spirits, and offerings grounds the characters in the literary city that’s half reality and half dream.

Continue reading →

Warlords: An Extraordinary Re-creation of World War II Through the Eyes and Minds of Hitler, Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin by Simon Berthon and Joanna Potts is a fascinating and eye-opening read. Berthon and Potts do an excellent job in bringing these larger-than-life men down to Earth.

Here is a brief description of the book from Publishers Weekly:

Recounting WWII from the point of view of the era’s four political giants is an original idea, and it works: while not exactly revisionist, Berthon and Potts’s book delivers some good jolts. Where popular writers often portray the good guys, Churchill and Roosevelt, as friendly partners, the authors refuse to soft-pedal controversies that erupted after America declared war—especially over Churchill’s reluctance to support a cross-Channel invasion and F.D.R.’s pressure on Churchill to free Britain’s colonies. Readers will wince to be reminded of Roosevelt’s conviction that Britain’s imperial ambitions were a greater threat than Stalin’s and his belief that Stalin was a sensible fellow one could do business with. Those accustomed to the stirring History Channel depiction of WWII as a crusade against evil will cringe to read of Stalin’s persistent, insulting treatment of his allies and of the unspeakable atrocities he committed against his own countrymen. Using diaries, correspondence and personal accounts, the book cuts back and forth among its subjects as they direct the war. This cinematic style succeeds (the authors work in British TV), and the scholarship is solid—so solid that readers convinced WWII was less squalid than other wars may be provoked to reconsider.

Continue reading →

Warlords: An Extraordinary Re-creation of World War II Through the Eyes and Minds of Hitler, Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin by Simon Berthon and Joanna Potts is a fascinating and eye-opening read. Berthon and Potts do an excellent job in bringing these larger-than-life men down to Earth.

Here is a brief description of the book from Publishers Weekly:

Recounting WWII from the point of view of the era’s four political giants is an original idea, and it works: while not exactly revisionist, Berthon and Potts’s book delivers some good jolts. Where popular writers often portray the good guys, Churchill and Roosevelt, as friendly partners, the authors refuse to soft-pedal controversies that erupted after America declared war—especially over Churchill’s reluctance to support a cross-Channel invasion and F.D.R.’s pressure on Churchill to free Britain’s colonies. Readers will wince to be reminded of Roosevelt’s conviction that Britain’s imperial ambitions were a greater threat than Stalin’s and his belief that Stalin was a sensible fellow one could do business with. Those accustomed to the stirring History Channel depiction of WWII as a crusade against evil will cringe to read of Stalin’s persistent, insulting treatment of his allies and of the unspeakable atrocities he committed against his own countrymen. Using diaries, correspondence and personal accounts, the book cuts back and forth among its subjects as they direct the war. This cinematic style succeeds (the authors work in British TV), and the scholarship is solid—so solid that readers convinced WWII was less squalid than other wars may be provoked to reconsider.

Continue reading →