5 comments about Special Tasks.

1. This book is ESSENTIAL to understand Power in the former Soviet Union. It's almost the history of the first decades of the soviet intelligence services written in a reasonably detailled manner. It's revealing on the nature of Power under Stalin rule. I also recommend the Portuguese translation (if you happen to speak Portuguese) since it was very carefully done. If you study this subject in particular get every translation you are able to read! Great book!



2. Sudoplatov ran the NKVD's Administration for Special Tasks, which carried out some of the Soviet Union's darkest operations --- assassination, kidnapping, murder, and frequently, terrorism (the author's own words, no less). Sudoplatov also directed undercover and partisan operations behind German lines during WWII. Later he supervised all atomic espionage operations against the US and Britain after the war.
   Still a Stalinist at heart, Sudoplatov offers few regrets for a career filled with death up close and personal. One of his first solo operations entailed infiltrating a Ukrainian nationalist group. After befriending one it's leaders for the better part of a year, he dispatched him in Rotterdam with a box of chocolates loaded with explosives. Later, he went on to supervise large roving killer squads himself, such as the team that assassinated Trotsky outside Mexico City in 1940.
   The book is filled with surreal scenes, such as in the "Komandatura" in the Lyubianka, where prisoners were executed. One section was outfitted more as a hotel than a prison. But as prisoners were given a "routine" medical examination, they were administered a lethal injection, then quickly cremated. Sudoplatov, himself arrested on bogus charges after Beria'a arrest, describes receiving not one, but two spinal taps while pretending to be catatonic (so as to avoid interrogation). His simple, direct language in describing these kinds of sequences is chilling.
   More than a few of the author's historical claims are either suspect or simply false based on information long available elswhere. For instance, his assertion that Stalin was not involved in the murder of Leningrad Party leader Sergei Kirov can't be taken seriously. He also offers suspect versions concerning the demise of various defectors and other Soviet "enemies" such as Agabekov and Krivitsky. In other cases he seems to want to have it both ways. He admits Alger Hiss was a paid Soviet agent -- but before WWII, not when he was actually accused.
   Regardless, these sorts of flaws can be overlooked. This work is critical for an understanding of the mentality behind of some of the Soviet Union's most notorious policies, actions, and crimes.



3. More than any other work I've seen, Special Tasks illuminates the Soviet experience. Its author lived it from beginning to end, joining the Red Army in 1919 at the age of 12 and offering his opinion 7 decades later on what Gorbachev did wrong in his attempts to keep the Soviet Union together.
   
   During those 70 years Sudoplatov is at or close to the very center of all the Soviet leadership was known for. He lived through the purges of the Thirties, directed the assassins of Trotsky, played a major role in the defeat of the Nazis, coordinated the theft of atomic secrets from the US, was arrested and imprisoned and tortured, then spent another 20 years in a sort of twilight struggle for rehabilitation, which was finally granted him just days after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The breadth of this memoir is truly astounding. And while at times it becomes difficult to read due to his tendency to digress into details about persons most readers would not know the significance of, the details about well-known persons and events keep one reading past the digressions: Oppenheimer and Fermi feeding atomic secrets to the Russians in the altruistic belief that a balance of power was preferable to an American monopoly (one thinks of the recent Pakistani scientist who spread nuclear knowledge around for the same reason); Ramon Mercador killing Trotsky with an ice ax while his mother waited in a car outside; then giving all the details of the assassination to Sudoplatov in person in 1969--thirty years later--when they'd both done many, many hard years in prison: the control of emigre scientists in America such as George Gamow through threats to their families in Russia...
   
   Sudoplatov makes no apologies nor seems to have any regrets about what he and Stalin and the others did. He states plainly in the Prologue: "We did not believe there was any moral question involved in killing Trotsky or any other of our former comrades who had turned against us. We believed we were in a life and death struggle for the salvation of our grand experiment..."
   
   So we are left to wonder whether Sudoplatov, who seems to be a basically decent person playing rough in the service of his country really believes that 10-15 million of his former comrades had really turned against communism and deserved to die for the "salvation" of the "grand experiment". Are we to believe that he believes all of Stalin's purges were justified and Kruschev's were not?
   
   Like Albert Speer, Sudoplatov is more than a little reticent about the mass murders he was a witness to. A Ukranian by birth, he says nothing about the millions of Ukranians who died during Stalin's collectivization and subjugation of that country, though he worked in Ukraine for the Party through the Twenties, when those horrors took place. There is not the slightest mention of the famines or the shipping off of entire Ukranian villages to death camps.
   
   In a way, one can't blame him. There is a limit to the amount of such things a person can deal with. He was very young and no doubt counted himself lucky to have escaped it. Still, one would like to know what he thinks about it now.



4. The Russian version of the popular movie "Hopscotch"
   in which we learn how the spies were run that stole
   the Atomic bomb.
   Here we have the story of a "Monster" , a super spy and killer,
   the kind of man the bad guys are modeled after.
   He probably should have been executed
   because he did these acts willingly and with no conscience at all.
   It appears that the men and women in this book make
   the worst of American leadership (like Herbert Hoover) in this era look good.
   As reward for being one of the most trusted, respected and successful spooks in world history
   who only just managed to survive, but for his service was given 15 served years in prison
   and the title of criminal.
   For me this book makes me ask if there were parallels in American
   CIA and FBI history of the same era to the Soviet purges of their best Intelligence people.
   Pavel Sudoplatov's license to kill almost got him killed by his own people.
   A lot of people distrust what he says about American scientists,
   but I tend to think that he may be telling the truth for once in his life,
   but we are left with the Eublides liars paradox:
   "The statement I am making is false."



5. Extremely questionable story of a top Soviet spy. I suspect this author is telling stories that he thinks people would want to hear, rather than actual facts. Much of this book strikes me as just plain silly, and highly distorted if true.
   Zero stars in my opinion.

2 comments about James Edward Oglethorpe.

1. It helped me with my project and gave a lot of good facts. I learned soo much.It was a book that kept my attention. Rylee



2. My eight year-old "history buff" enjoyed this book very much. I enjoyed the chapters I read with him and the interesting facts he reported as he read about the life and experiences of Oglethorpe -- his progressive views on slavery, his friendships with Native Americans, his work to promote the establishment of Georgia as a colony, the conflicts he encountered.

No comments about Madam Prime Minister: A Life in Power and Politics.

No comments about De Tocqueville (Founders of Modern Political and Social Thought).

5 comments about The Complete War Memoirs of Charles De Gaulle.

1. As one might expect, De Gaulle's memoirs of the Second World War are deeply concerned with self-justification, if not self-glorification. More surprisingly, they are good reading. De Gaulle writes in a formal, but clear and elegant style. The period covered is from the fall of France, through De Gaulle's flight to England and formation of the Free French, to the liberation and a bit of the postwar period. Obviously, this is not objective history. The chief interest of the book is that De Gaulle's personality and opinions colors every page. The reader may indeed be irritated, or he may be amused, by the author's undisguised self-regard, but in any case there are compensations. There is revealing detail on events such as the fall of France and the invasion of North Africa. With great candor and sharp perception De Gaulle assesses his own and others' strategies. There are good pen-portraits of Churchill and many other contemporaries. And there is the fascination of viewing great events through the prism of a commanding mind..



2. This book is outstanding for its literary, even poetic, power. De Gaulle thinks of France as a person fated for tragedy and greatness. His biggest problem is achieving recognition as the political representative of France after France has signed an armistice with the Germans: Churchill tells him that although he claims to represent France, neither England or the US will recognize him as such; De Gaulle steadily replies that it is sufficient for him if the French people recognize him. This is the story of a man standing against the entire world for the sake of an ideal. Reminded me of Nelson Mandela!



3. An essential book and one of the best autobiographies ever. Unlike Churchill and others, de Gaulle researched and wrote his momoirs all by himself, without any "contributors" and shadow writers. He writes clearly, the style is formal and elegant. A joy to read, which is wonderfully surprising and refreshing considering the stuffy nature of most such undertakings. To truly understand the man, one has to read this. His motives, his love for France, the belief in France's destiny. The world has still a lot to learn from him.



4. I'm an agronomist and I live in Brazil.I read this book, published here in Brazil in three volums and translated to the portuguese.
   This book is an auto-biography, but it is only about De Gaulle, in World War two and some months later.
   De Gaulle was a giant, not only about his hight, but also about his life.
   You won't only know about war, in this book, but also about peoples.De Gaulle has very good opinions, about Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini,etc.
   About the future of France, De Gaulle was prophetic.Being writen in 1940 decade, De Gaulle in this book, tells that nuclear energy will be very important to France, in the future.In fact, today, nuclear power is 85% of France's eletricity.The hidropower is 15%.Nothing comes from oil or natural gas.De Gaulle knew that France, will be nuclear.
   In another part of this book, De Gaulle tells that soviet communism is nothing more than a fashion, and that it will pass, but France will last.
   
   The biggest problem of this book is that it's very biased.And the bias isn't only about De Gaulle , but also far more, about France itself.
   The Frace's defeat in 1940, came from cowardy, betrial and incompetence.
   You can't know nothing nothing about this.You know nothing about France's anti-semithism.Some scape goats, such as Laval, were punished, but France was a shame, in World War II.
   For De Gaulle, France is ever biggest of all nations and full of proud.
   I have dozens of book about World War II.And any of them, is so biased about France as this.
   In all senses, De Gaulle was a giant, but this book, even being 100% biased, is good and after sixty years, remains prophetic about France's future.



5. Charles de Gaulle is perphaps one of the most enigmatic figures of World War II. Misunderstood by both the British and Americans during post WWII period, he ended up greatly disliked in both countries. De Gaulle's memoirs, however, are an important source to more throughly understand the second world war. He tells the story of a France in a virtual state of civil war after the collaspe of France and the establishment of the Petain regime at Vichy. This civil war was fought in the outer reaches of the French Empire- Dakar, Lebanon, Syria, Chad, Indochina, etc. It tells a depressing story of how most of the French remained loyal to Vichy. De Gaulle recounts how in 1940 he made a speech before 2,000 French soliders stranded in England. H He pleaded with them to join his Free French army. He was only able to convince 200 to join. He recounts how the Vichy French army fought with greater vigor against fellow Frenchmen and the British then they did against the Nazis. He writes the history of how a people deeply depressed by war and defeatism slowly raises itself for the struggle against Germany. Without doubt, De Gaulle's perserverence provided France with some cover of honour to assuage its sense of national shame and guilt. De Gaulle takes us through the Empire, his challenges in remaining relevant to the British and the overt hostility of the Americans who remained loyal to Petain until 1943. The translation is good. The inclusion of maps of the Empire would have been useful. As with other memoirs, such as those of Mussolini, Admiral Horthy, Churchill, etc. this is a must read for the student of the 1940s. One note is that strategically, De Gaulle, like Churchill, was an imperial optimist. Both were convinced that once the war with Germany became a world war, time and the vast resources (both in men and material) available in their respective Empires would provide Great Britain and France with decided advantages against the Axis. As history was to demonstrate, both men's optimism were proven correct.

1 comments about Belinda: The Political and Private Life of Belinda Stronach.

1. Author Don Martin pens an interesting biography of the most public of members of the Stronach family dynasty.
   
   The Honorable Belinda Stronach is the daughter of Frank Stronach, perhaps most renowned for his Stronach Stables/Adena Springs Thoroughbred holdings and Magna Entertainment Corp., which owns a number of major tracks in North America.
   
   Her life has been in a fast lane of politics, pop culture and business. A Liberal Member of Parliament (MP) in the Canadian House of Commons, she started her political career as a member of the Conservative Party; her friends include Brad Pitt, Bono and Gene Simmons of KISS and she has had major management positions in Magna International, the family's automotive enterprise.
   
   Hers is a life that can be explored from many angles. And through the triumphs, controversies and tragedies, Martin keeps the pace of his text humming along, like a race car rhapsody.
   

1 comments about A Twentieth-Century Life: The Memoirs of Arthur Larson.

1. Arthur was a great man - I think everybody should read about his life

4 comments about Stalin: The Man and His Era.

1. Certainly, any rational thinking American is completely flabbergasted by the atrocities Stalin commited in the very long twenty-four years he reigned in the Soviet Union. And naturally any thinking person would want to know why a person would commit these atrocities.

   Ulam's excellent biography puts into perspective how a seemingly under-educated person such as Stalin could fill the void left by a giant of a person like Lenin. The part of the book that is most insightful is the chapters describing the power stuggle that took place "after" V.I. Lenin's death. You really start to understand how a gifted author and orator such as Leon Trotsky lost the battle for Lenin's mantle to Stalin. A person can even begin to sypathize for Stalin, but then the author describes what happened after Stalin became the maximum leader of the USSR in 1929. Of course everyone knows what happened after 1929, collectivization, purges, show trials of Bukharin, Kamenev, and Zinoviev, and the assasination of Leon Trotsky. Ulam's book is quite lengthy, but it is well worth the read, I would recommend this book to anyone.




2. This is quite simply a masterful book. Ulam gives the impression of having read, pondered, and put in context everything ever written in any language by and about Stalin, the other Bolsheviks, and their close contemporaries in the USSR and Europe. And yet he is anything but tedious. He is as fine a writer as any historian around -- lucid, incisive, authoritative, serious and yet with a very witty, very dry irony. His tone is ideally suited for writing about historical figures, especially such grotesque ones as Stalin and his cohorts.



3. Ulam's book is "must read" history for those who are even moderately interested in the development of totalitarianism and/or how Russia came to be what it is today.
   
   Ulam's descriptions of the death of Lenin (physically limited by the stroke that he suffered, controlled by Stalin, and ultimately crying in despair at the devil that he himself had unleashed), was especially poignant. The book is also very enlightening as to the mechanics of how Stalin wielded such absolute power and held it to the very end, and the air of fear, distrust, syncophany, and total unreality that he foisted upon Russian society typified by such things as "Potemkin villages" (cardboard houses constructed to impress visiting dignitaries).
   
   However, the book is long and detailed, and not for anyone looking for a quick read.



4. If you have the patience to finish reading this long, difficult book, you will have as great an understanding of Stalin as you could acquire anywhere.
   Despite his prominence on the international scene for a quarter-century, Stalin was a mystery to people outside the Kremlin. He was even more paranoid than Hitler, and revealed as little of himself as circumstances would allow.
   He is sometimes credited with having killed more people than Hitler. This may be true, but only if you lump in the victims -- largely through starvation -- of his rapid, brutal collectivization of agriculture. Hitler has a clear edge if you limit the count to deliberate murder.
   However, Stalin was no slouch at murder. A sure way to get yourself killed was to take a job in the upper ranks of the Soviet government during Stalin's regime. As Prof. Ulam expertly points out, this was a no-win situation. If you failed in your job, you were murdered. If you did well in your job, you were murdered because Stalin would consider you a threat to his supremacy. One great question, unanswered by this book, is why anyone would put his life at stake in this way. It was like working for Caligula.
   The book is densely packed with myriad facts, which makes it difficult to read, even if one is reasonably well-informed about the period. I found it difficult to finish more than ten pages at a sitting. There was just too much to absorb. That is why I chose to rate the book only four stars.
   `A mind-bending experience, but well worthwhile.

1 comments about Scandal in the Courtroom 1: Found Guilty Without Trial.

1. Who knew bucolic Copake, New York, was and apparently remains, an arsonist's dream? Although I'd read stories from the NY Times about the little town's ongoing and unsolved arson problem; Grant Langdon's account of an arsonist, assisted by law enforcement and the executive branch of government willing to smear an innocent man while protecting what looks to be a guilty one, is a good, albeit, disturbing read. Grant Langdon has written a powerful and scary story. But then, criminals in uniforms generally are.

No comments about A Month and a Day & Letters.