News from Berlin by Otto de Kat

When I began News from Berlin I expected something along the lines of Alan Furst (whom I’ve enjoyed), but it turned out to be something slightly different and a bit richer, too. I read this book because de Kat participated in the Jaipur Literature Festival. I’m glad I did. 

Unlike Furst, who follows a central character through the perils of time immediately before and at the beginning of the Second World War, in this novel de Kat focuses on a family. The father is a Dutch diplomat in Switzerland, the wife volunteers at a hospital in London, and their adult daughter is married to a member of the German Foreign Ministry. The son-in-law is not a Nazi; in fact, he’s unsympathetic to the Nazi regime and certainly watched by the Gestapo. The novel begins in early June 1941. The war has begun. France fell quickly; Britain just barely survived. The U.S. remains officially on the sidelines while Hitler and Stalin have a non-aggression pact. For the family, life seems balanced if tenuous. But then the daughter passes on a secret to her father about a major German action coming soon. The knowledge becomes like an infectious disease passed (intentionally) from daughter to father to mother, endangering the thin tissue of each receiver’s existence and relationships without reducing (as hoped) the burden on the person passing  on the moral and practical demands that the secret requires of them.

De Kat’s focus, however, is more than espionage and the moral dilemmas of wartime. It also focuses on the members of the family, their relationships with each other and those closest to them. The delicate balance of relationships changes as each comes into contact with the other. New realities reveal themselves and confound the characters perhaps as much as their burdensome secret. History in the family, as in life, intrudes and shapes the present in ways that the characters can’t escape and can only vaguely comprehend. 

Writers like Graham Greene, Eric Amber (I’m now reading another Ambler), and Alan Furst have written a great deal set in this time period. While titanic military and political forces met in epic struggles, individuals and families—at least those lucky enough to live—continue to try to live and maintain a semblance of ordinary life when the time is not ordinary at all. To me, that's what makes this period so fruitful for novelists and historians (such as John Lukacs) and why I’m so drawn to it. Now I add Otto de Kat to the honor role of writers who explore this dark and frightening time not so long ago.

The Quiet American by Graham Greene

In Chennai, in perhaps the most organized bookstore that I’ve encountered in India, I came across Graham Greene’s The Quiet American, a novel that knew of but had never read. I’d see a screen adaptation with Michael Caine as the lead character Fowler, but other than imagining Caine as Fowler when reading the novel, I don’t have much recollection of the film or recall it having been compelling. But the book is compelling. 

Written between 1953 and 1955, as Indochina (Vietnam) slipped through the grasping fingers of the dying French Empire, the intrepid world-traveler Greene explored the world of the Vietnam, and in writing this novel he foreshadowed the upcoming American involvement. Greene brings America into Vietnam at this very early date in the person of a young man named Pyle. Pyle, fresh from Massachusetts, Harvard, and full of ideas from books, comes in to change Viet Nam, to change it so that it does not embrace the Communist Viet Minh and nor cling to the French colonialists. Pyle imports a belief in a “Third Way” toward “Democracy”. Pyle and Fowler, an older English journalist who is “not involved” in Vietnam but reports on it to his paper back in England, serve as anti-types of one another. Pyle exhibits the naiveté of the American mentality and Fowler the cynicism of the waning European empires. Between them, they also have the enigmatic young Vietnamese woman, Phuong, Fowler’s hope of love and comfort, whom Pyle falls for as well, with all of his youth and innocence. 

A trip to Greeneland finds men (mostly men) living on the edges of war and society, but for all of the searching, we find few heroes or villains. Instead, we find flawed, needy, and puzzled human beings, attending to everything from drink to women to God; sometimes with insight, sometimes in despair. Greene draws his readers into this world so that they feel the fear and uncertainty of his characters. 

However, I should add that while a sense of gloom or despair often mark Greene’s setting, he also displays gems of comedy and social caricature. Greene’s perceptions of Pyle and the other Americans poke a great deal of fun at us, but not without cause, I fear. These moments of levity help keep the reader from falling too deeply into the flawed world and characters that Greene features. 

Did any of the American decision-makers of the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations read this novel before taking us so deeply into Vietnam? One wonders what might have happened if JFK had read this novel, or anyone in power with the perspective to see the perils into which we as a nation had ventured. We Americans have a lot of “Pyle” in us, or at least we did back then, when our government, full of adventurers and idealists, thought that it could change the world into our image for it. After Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, perhaps we’ve outgrown that perspective. I’m not sure, but I hope so. 

One can’t leave a Greene novel such as this one without a sense of human frailty and shortcoming and an immense compassion despite it all. If this is in some sense what Greene sought to achieve, then he was one of the most successful of novelists in the 20^th century. 

The Vintage Greene addition that I read includes an introduction written by Zadie Smith that I highly recommend.

Keynes Got There First: The Paradox of the Great Depression

I pulled this quote of John Maynard Keynes from Paul Krugman, who posted lecture slides from his course on the Great Recession. It encapsulates the great paradox of the modern economy: how can we have all of the physical and human capital that we have ready to serve us and yet it lies idle? This thought struck me when first studying the Great Depression: how come if we still had all of our stuff (don't accuse me of having been too articulate) we were so poor? What happened? It's not like a physical catastrophe occurred that wiped out all of our stuff.  Alas, Keynes got there first. No surprise, I guess. Anyway, think on this: 

This is a nightmare, which will pass away with

the morning. For the resources of nature and

men's devices are just as fertile and productive

as they were. The rate of our progress towards

solving the material problems of life is not less

rapid. We are as capable as before of affording

for everyone a high standard of life—high, I

mean, compared with, say, twenty years ago—

and will soon learn to afford a standard higher

still. We were not previously deceived. But to-

day we have involved ourselves in a colossal

muddle, having blundered in the control of a

delicate machine, the working of which we do

not understand. The result is that our

possibilities of wealth may run to waste for a

time—perhaps for a long time.

Keynes, "The Great Slump of 1930"

D-Day: The Battle for Normandy by Antony Beevor

After reading D-Day for several days, I began to feel like Patton, General Leclerc, and their soldiers: I became increasingly eager to reach Paris and thereby liberate myself from this book. Because it was boring or poorly written? Not at all! In fact, Beevor's account of the ferocious battles in Normandy takes the reader into the fray about as well as I expect a book can. The death, destruction, and brutality--with a few fleeting glimpses of kindness--are all there. Just as soldiers wanted to be done with battle and return home and the generals wanted to achieve their glory, so the reader, after only this hint of what it would have been like, wants to conclude the matter. This is a sign of the author's success, not failure. 

I wrote a bit about this book in a recent post, but there's a lot more that can be said about the book. Beevor explains what was happening from Churchill to Norman residents, from the troops to the generals. He does an excellent job of mixing these perspectives. His mix of perspectives also serves to break up the alphabet soup military designations and descriptions of movements on the map. Such descriptions and maps are crucial for understanding the military moves, but such descriptions can sometimes overwhelm a layman like me. 

So in addition to my earlier comments and the comments made above, here are some random notes and thoughts generated by this book: 

• General Montgomery (Monty) was as big a horse's ass as I've heard him to be from other sources. Indeed, many Brits were as displeased with him as the Americans were. He really seems to have taken the cake as a prima dona. 
• General Patton was no slouch when it comes to ego, either. The portrait composed by Beevor, done in small bits, conforms to the impression I have from George C. Scott's biopic, Patton. But in this theatre, Patton, after serving as a decoy, proved helpful. 
• Normandy's sacrifice saved the rest of France a great deal of trauma, but the Normans suffered mightily, perhaps too much from Allied bombing. 
• The politics of the French; to wit, De Gaulle and the Communists, was a real mess. FDR didn't trust DeGaulle, nor should he have, but there was no other choice. The French were proud, although essentially defeated (1940 was a complete collapse of the French) until the Liberation of Paris. It looked like post-war France could erupt in civil war. The Communists, quite important in the Resistance, were putting out pamphlets in Paris to send people "to the barricades" The politics of France at that time remained a mess, and the race to Paris became a necessary ingredient in the campaign. 
• Women in France accused of collaboration horizontale suffered shaved-heads or worse. As Beevor notes, however, much of this consisted of witch-hunting for the benefit males deflecting their non-resistance and enacting their jealousy. Beevor writes: “It was jealousy masquerading as moral outrage. The jealousy was mainly provoked by the food that they [the women] had received as a result of their conduct.” (450). Mob justice is an oxymoron, and there was a lot of it. 
• Americans, arriving in Paris after the grueling battles to take Normandy, treated Paris as a one big carnival, leaving a bad taste in many of the French. Instead of thanks for liberating France, the French remember the gluttony, drunkenness, and whoring. 
• It appears to me (and I don't recall Beevor directly addressing this) that without the almost unchallenged air superiority of the Allies (RAF and Americans), the ground forces may have been outmatched by the Germans. 
• Although not as important in the end, Allied naval superiority allowed the Allies to arrive and establish a beachhead unchallenged from the sea as well as the air. 
• The lack of coordination between ground and air forces often caused a large number of friendly fire casualties. 
• There could be no better demonstration that Clausewitz was right about the reality of the "friction" in war and the reality of “the fog of war”.
• The brutality and carnage on both sides can sometimes leave one shaking one's head. If reading a book doesn't stamp "war is hell" onto your brain, then you'd better check your sense of humanity. This wasn't a "good war"--there is no such thing. 

President Obama's State of the Union Address 2014: Pointing in the Right Direction

 I didn't see or hear President Obama's State of the Union address, but I've reviewed the text and found some things worth considering more carefully. Excerpts from the speech follow with some comments from me. (Bold type marks my emphasis.)

The question for everyone in this chamber, running through every decision we make this year, is whether we are going to help or hinder this progress. For several years now, this town has been consumed by a rancorous argument over the proper size of the federal government. It's an important debate -- one that dates back to our very founding. But when that debate prevents us from carrying out even the most basic functions of our democracy -- when our differences shut down government or threaten the full faith and credit of the United States -- then we are not doing right by the American people.

 Calling out House Republicans for their shameful behavior (okay, he didn't say "House Republicans", but we all know it) was completely appropriate. He needed to lay down his marker and he did.

And in the coming months -- (applause) -- in the coming months, let's see where else we can make progress together. Let's make this a year of action. That's what most Americans want, for all of us in this chamber to focus on their lives, their hopes, their aspirations. And what I believe unites the people of this nation, regardless of race or region or party, young or old, rich or poor, is the simple, profound belief in opportunity for all, the notion that if you work hard and take responsibility, you can get ahead in America. 

A restatement of the American Dream and ideals, but we have to take a hard look at whether its working as well as it should. I don't think so. 

Now, let's face it: That belief has suffered some serious blows. Over more than three decades, even before the Great Recession hit, massive shifts in technology and global competition had eliminated a lot of good, middle-class jobs, and weakened the economic foundations that families depend on.

Today, after four years of economic growth, corporate profits and stock prices have rarely been higher, and those at the top have never done better. But average wages have barely budged. Inequality has deepened. Upward mobility has stalled. The cold, hard fact is that even in the midst of recovery, too many Americans are working more than ever just to get by; let alone to get ahead. And too many still aren't working at all.

So our job is to reverse these trends.

It won't happen right away, and we won't agree on everything.

 Growing inequality is a creeping and its insidious. One of the benefits of living in another country is to see how things that you don't understand or appreciate in your own country effect other nations. India suffers from huge chasms of inequality, the rising middle class notwithstanding. If you consider nations with large amount of inequality, you see how they don't make the "best place to live" awards. American has normally been marked by a large degree of social and political equality, and the more we lose that quality, the more our social and political fabric suffers.

But what I offer tonight is a set of concrete, practical proposals to speed up growth, strengthen the middle class and build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class. Some require congressional action, and I'm eager to work with all of you. But America does not stand still, and neither will I. (Applause.) So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that's what I'm going to do. (Cheers, applause.)

 In other words, "Republicans, you either part of the solution or a part of the problem. You've marked yourselves as problems and its time for you to go." I'm glad to hear Obama taking this type of bold stand, which seems contrary to his instincts, but sometimes you've got to go beyond instincts.

 The point is, there are millions of Americans outside Washington who are tired of stale political arguments and are moving this country forward. They believe, and I believe, that here in America, our success should depend not on accident of birth but the strength of our work ethic and the scope of our dreams. That's what drew our forebears here. It's how the daughter of a factory worker is CEO of America's largest automaker -- (applause) -- how the son of a barkeeper is speaker of the House -- (cheers, applause) -- how the son of a single mom can be president of the greatest nation on Earth.

Yes, most of us come from modest origins. This is a great strength of our nation. 

Moreover, we can take the money we save from this transition to tax reform to create jobs rebuilding our roads, upgrading our ports, unclogging our commutes -- because in today's global economy, first- class jobs gravitate to first-class infrastructure. We'll need Congress to protect more than 3 million jobs by finishing transportation and waterways bills this summer. (Cheers, applause.) That can happen.

Infrastructure in the U.S. is beginning to lag, and this a great way--assuming sound projects--to put people to work. That all of us fortunate enough to enjoy some of this prosperity will have to pay some more in taxes doesn't bother me.

Meanwhile, my administration will keep working with the industry to sustain production and jobs growth while strengthening protection of our air, our water, our communities. And while we're at it, I'll use my authority to protect more of our pristine federal lands for future generations. (Applause.)

If you want to find out what poor environment standards mean for day-to-day living, come to India or China, and you'll find out. 

And taken together, our energy policy is creating jobs and leading to a cleaner, safer planet. Over the past eight years the United States has reduced our total carbon pollution more than any other nation on Earth. (Applause.)

But we have to act with more urgency because a changing climate is already harming western communities struggling with drought and coastal cities dealing with floods. That's why I directed my administration to work with states, utilities and others to set new standards on the amount of carbon pollution our power plants are allowed to dump into the air.

The shift -- (applause) -- the shift to a cleaner energy economy won't happen overnight, and it will require some tough choices along the way.

But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact. (Applause.) And when our children's children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did. (Cheers, applause.)

Figuring out energy while reducing our carbon footprint is probably the greatest challenge the world faces now. To hear climate change raised in the public sphere in a clear and unequivocal voice is so welcome. We can't fix the problem until we acknowledge it, and the No-Nothing Party (once the proud Republican Party) won't do it. 

Tonight, because of the extraordinary troops and civilians who risk and lay down their lives to keep us free, the United States is more secure. When I took office, nearly 180,000 Americans were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, all our troops are out of Iraq. More than 60,000 of our troops have already come home from Afghanistan. With Afghan forces now in the lead for their own security, our troops have moved to a support role. Together with our allies, we will complete our mission there by the end of this year, and America's longest war will finally be over. (Applause.)

It should have happened sooner. The complexity and history of Afghanistan are so daunting that we'll never have a "victory", so we need to get out sooner rather than later.  Watch the superb Jaipur Literature Festival panel about Afghanistan if you want some sense of the problems that exist there.

But I strongly believe our leadership and our security cannot depend on our outstanding military alone. As commander in chief, I have used force when needed to protect the American people, and I will never hesitate to do so as long as I hold this office. But I will not send our troops into harm's way unless it is truly necessary, nor will I allow our sons and daughters to be mired in open-ended conflicts. We must fight the battles -- (applause) -- that need to be fought, not those that terrorists prefer from us -- large-scale deployments that drain our strength and may ultimately feed extremism.

Yes, they do drain us. Thanks for admitting it!  And yes, sometimes I think that the U.S. government is in the terrorist creation business (see under "drones").

So even as we actively and aggressively pursue terrorist networks, through more targeted efforts and by building the capacity of our foreign partners, America must move off a permanent war footing. (Applause.) That's why I've imposed prudent limits on the use of drones, for we will not be safer if people abroad believe we strike within their countries without regard for the consequence.

This can't be said often enough: war and democracy don't mix. War kills democracy. If we have to worry about it in an Obama Administration (and we do), then how much more in a future (Heaven forbid!) Bush administration? 

The sanctions that we put in place helped make this opportunity possible. But let me be clear: if this Congress sends me a new sanctions bill now that threatens to derail these talks, I will veto it. (Applause.) For the sake of our national security, we must give diplomacy a chance to succeed.

Super. We have to let all the world know that the U.S. will act in its perceived interests even if they conflict with the interests of any ally or friendly nation, whether it be Canada, the U.K. , or Israel. If Israel foolishly tries to torpedo negotiations with Iran (through the U.S. Congress, no less!), then President Obama is right to say "no". Simple. The war hawks in Congress need a firm "no" on this, and I'm very glad that Obama sent that message. After assuring our own national interest, we must support the State of Israel within the bounds of our interests and not simply follow the policies of any given Israeli government. 

All in all, a good message. Keep after it, Mr. President! 

Move over, Harry Hole: A Review of Closed for Winter (A William Wisting Mystery) by Jorn Lier Horst

The cornucopia of crime and detective novels coming out of Scandinavia unnerves me. Those affluent and chill residents of the north land with good government are subject to some very nasty criminals, at least according to their crime writers. Starting with Steig Larson and his dragon-tattooed heroine, to Henning Menkell (via television for me) to Jo Nesbo, we get a very different look at Scandinavia. Now I’ve added Jorn Lier Horst to my list of Scandinavian crime writers, and he’s a worthy addition. 

Unlike fellow Norwegian cop Harry Hole from Jo Nesbo, Lier Horst’s Wisting isn’t confronted—in this book at least—with psychopaths and persons bent on deep revenge. Instead, Wisting has to deal with, well, criminals, the sort that you encounter if you’ve had anything to do with the criminal justice system, as I have. Unlike criminals on screen or in fiction, most persons charged with crimes are screw-ups first and foremost. A few are professional, and fewer still are deadly. A police officer has to sort it all out, the dumb, the opportunistic, and the calculating. Sorting it all out is what William Wisting must do. 

Lier Horst was a cop until very recently, and it shows. Lier Horst displays an appreciation of the mundane challenges of policing, such as gathering evidence, dealing with co-workers and other agencies, interviewing witnesses and suspects, leading a personal life, and so on. Not always glamorous, but then how much of life is glamorous? I found Wisting an appealing character for his plainness and the realism of the plot. In my two forays with Jo Nesbo, The Redbreast and then The Snowman, I found the plots a bit too contrived, the villains too psychopathically sinister, and Harry Hole experiencing too many cliffhangers. Lier Horst’s effort in Closed for Winter avoids this fault. It intrigues by remaining largely prosaic. 

So Wisting now goes onto my list along with Arkady Renko, John Rebus, and John Marshall Tanner as characters that I will join again for another case.

An Uncertain Glory: India and Its Contradictions by Jean Dreze & Amartya Sen

Two things drew me to this book. First, the co-author, Amartya Sen, winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, whose work goes far beyond mere economics into history, political theory, and a good deal about his native India. He’s co-authored works with Jean Dreze before. (And, he's the keynote speaker at the Jaipur Literature Festival this year!) But even if the authors hadn’t captured my attention, the sub-title would have: “India and Its Contradictions”. Sometimes a subtitle tells us more than the title, and this is such a case. As an extended visitor here in India, nothing has impressed me so much as its immense contradictions. 

When talking with friends and family back in the U.S. about India, I usually preface my remarks by saying that within sight of any trait that I identify is a counter-example. Extreme poverty, opulent wealth; beautiful buildings, collapsing buildings; bright capable individuals, ignorant masses (ignorant as in unschooled)—I could go on, but you get the idea. In all, India holds huge but largely unrealized potential. Compared to its neighbor China, which I visited this fall, India lags far, far behind. Why? 

Both India and China entered the post-World War II era with similar states of deprivation. China, of course, went through hells of famine, The Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution. India, a democracy since its birth, did not suffer such calamities. Yet today, China has entered the modern economic world at rocket speed while India remains at a plodding pace similar to the speeds of the animal carts one still encounters on the roads. Did India make a mistake opting for democracy? 

Sen and Dreze address these questions and others. They note the impressive rates of growth of the Indian economy in the last decade and more (now significantly slowed). Despite these growth rates and other markers of success, India lags behind many of its peers in the arenas of education, healthcare, inequality, and other markers of social well-being. China, on the other hand, performs much better in almost all of these areas. Indeed, Sen and Dreze note that China’s lead in education and health came long before the market reforms beginning in 1979 with Deng Xiaoping. Mao’s regime established basic standards. Indeed, within India the authors find significant gaps between many of the states, with Kerala (where we now live) and Tamil Nadu performing much higher on many of the measures of performance. Both have competitive elections with Communists and other left groups having held power. 

Toward the end of the book Sen and Dreze address the need for political action in India. Indeed, this book seems to bolster the contentions of Acemoglu and Robinson in their book, Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. My one line summation of the Why Nations Fail: it’s all about the politics. Sen and Dreze seem to arrive at the same conclusion: a different direction of the political body politic would have taken India in a better direction, and it still can. Overcoming old mindsets, clientism, corruption, caste and class loyalties, and so on, won’t be easy. But until India decides to take a very different course, it will remain toward the back of the pack, all of the new billionaires notwithstanding. 

Anyone familiar with Indian politics might despair at this point. Both Congress and BJP seem wedded to the status quo. However, there are rays of hope. The Aad Adami (Common Man Party), running primarily on an anti-corruption platform, ran very strongly in Delhi recently and has now formed the government there. This may be the middle class political uprising that India needs. I’ve contended that until a politically motivated middle class takes the helm of politics, governance here—which remains poor—will continue to lag, and with it, the whole nation. In addition, the outcry from women’s groups after the ghastly rape and murder in Delhi last year suggest the political agenda may move away from the status quo, client-driven politics that mark the current climate. Some political leaders should be able to establish an agenda that provides the poor with both protection and real opportunities, while providing the middle class with a better quality of life. (The rich can take care of themselves.) 

India should exist as a beacon of hope as the largest democratic nation in the world, not as a laggard compared to its authoritarian, non-democratic neighbor China. An Uncertain Glory should serve as a bucket full of icy water in the face to wake-up Indian elites and the middle class to their current plight. A successful government isn’t one that will simply see a successful mission to Mars or focus on diplomatic tit-for-tat, but one that strives to provide a billion plus people the potential that can be theirs, one where disease, ignorance, and poverty aren’t driving forces in their lives and where those who’ve made into the middle class can enjoy a better quality of life.