Reflection on An Army at Dawn: The War in North Africa 1942-1943 by Rick Atkinson

       This book was undoubtedly a masterpiece. You obviously need to be interested in WWII or military history to enjoy it, but Atkinson masterfully takes the reader from the biggest, highest strategic level down to individual foxholes. He makes the real-life individuals who fought in North Africa into characters as vivid as any novel. The writing is so elevated at times that it's poetic. Describing Eisenhower in Timgad, shortly after an operation resulting in heavy casualties, Atkinson writes,

Eisenhower and Truscott studied an inscription chiseled between two columns in the great forum: “Venari lavari ludere ridere hoc est vivere”: To hunt, to bathe, to play, to laugh—that is to live.

“When you remember me in your prayers, that’s the special thing I want—always to do my duty to the extreme limit of my ability,” Eisenhower wrote his wife a few hours later, during a stop in Constantine. Finally returning to Villa dar el Ouard after the long last leg to Algiers, he sat at the grand piano in the room where a few nights before he had belted out “One Dozen Roses.” Sometimes Eisenhower amused himself at the keyboard by plunking “Chopsticks” with two fingers. This night, weary and morose at the increasingly bad news from Tunisia, he instead, very slowly, picked out “Taps,” then stood without a word and went to bed. To err, to fret, to grieve, to learn—that, too, was to live.

    One major theme of the book is Eisenhower's transformation into a great war leader. He went into North Africa well-prepared, but unsure of himself, and overly deferential to the British. But he came out of North Africa firmly in charge of allied forces. In March, as the tide began to turn against the Nazi counterattack and the allies regrouped, Eisenhower wrote to his son at West Point, "I have observed very frequently that it is not the man who is so brilliant [who] delivers in time of stress and strain, but rather the man who can keep on going indefinitely, doing a good straightforward job." Later, Eisenhower's son, John, wrote that, "Before he left for Europe in 1942, I knew him as an aggressive, intelligent personality," but that he had transformed in the mountains of North Africa "from a mere person to a personage... full of authority, and truly in command. 

    I would say the biggest themes I picked up militarily are the important of supply and intelligence. It was absolutely critical to the allied victory that they just showed up with more stuff. As long as they were logistically supported, our Armies could face setbacks but keep moving. And then the fact that the Americans and British were breaking German codes was absolutely huge in our ability to counteract their maneuvers and catch them unaware.

Miscellaneous Facts:

• To be conscripted into the US Army, a soldier had to be at least 5' tall, 105 pounds, have twelve or more teeth, and no flat feet, hernias, or venereal disease. The Army drafted no fathers, no felons, and no eighteen-year-olds at first, but those standards changed quickly. The joke by the end of the war was that the Army no longer examined eyes, just counted them.
• Patton is exactly what you would expect. On of his diary entries: "When I realize the greatness of my job and realize that I am what I am, I am amazed, but on reflection, who is as good as I am? I know of no one."
• French General Giraud, who went over to the Allies, was famous for getting captured and escaping. In 1914, he was taken prisoner, but made it to Holland and then England disguised as a butcher, a stableboy, a coal merchant, and a magician in a traveling circus. Then, in 1942, when he was 63 years old, Giraud escaped a German prison in Konigstein by saving string used to wrap packages, forming a rope with it, and using it to climb 150 feet down to the Elbe River before hopping on a train to freedom.
• To deal with traffic fatalities in the invasion, the allies established a sliding scale of reparations for people killed: $500 for a dead camel, $300 for a dead boy, $200 for a dead donkey, and $10 for a dead girl.
• During the German counterattack in February 1943, a departing officer left at his headquarters a large wall map showing the battle lines around Stalingrad, where Paulus had just surrendered the German Sixth Army to the Soviets.
• For every six men wounded in the American Army in WWII, another was a neuropsychiatric casualty. More than 500,000 men from Army ground forces were discharged for psychiatric reasons and 12 percent of the 15 million draftees examined had already been culled as mentally unsound.
• Treatments for mental illness in North Africa included electric shock, barbiturates, and inducing deep sleep for 2-7 days. Army doctors found that "the average soldier reached his peak combat effectiveness in the first ninety days of combat and was so worn out after 180 days as to be useless and unable to return to military service."
• Venereal disease rates in Tunisia reached 34 cases per 1,000 white soldiers and 451 per 1,000 black soldiers. Atkinson doesn't give an explanation for this and I am stumped about why. 
• Another good Patton quote: when a subordinate told him that at least he hadn't lost any officers in combat, Patton said, "Goddammit, Ward, that's not fortunate. That's bad for the morale of the enlisted men, I want you to get more officers killed."
• It seems like war crimes were rampant. Some American soldiers would shoot at them for fun, sometimes making those Arabs suspected of being spies dig their own graves before shooting them.
• Every time you read about WWII, you find lots of examples of Hitler blowing it when his generals made good recommendations. In this case, he refused their suggestions to evacuate North Africa because it would be bad for morale, not understanding or refusing to understand that the German Army in North Africa would be completely wiped out by the summer of 1943.
• Interestingly, there was a huge divide within the allies among those who came with Montgomery from Egypt and had fought in the desert and those who came with Eisenhower from Morocco and had fought in the mountains. They really didn't like each other.
• The French faced a serious dilemma early on in the allied invasion of North Africa. They were under the Vichy regime, which was allied to Germany. But they hated Germany, having just been conquered by Hitler's armies. So when the Americans and British invaded, French officers suffered crises of loyalty, where some fought the Americans, some fought the Germans, and many fought both at different times or simultaneously

Placeholder to mark that I read two books on the last post

Double-Reflection on The Hundred Years War on Palestine by Rashid Khalidi and The Only Language They Understand by Nathan Thrall

           I decided to read two books about the Israel/Palestine conflict simultaneously to do a sort of learning unit on the subject. One is The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine: A History of Settler Colonial Conquest and Resistance, 1917-2017, (HYW) by Rashid Khalidi, and The Only Language They Understand: Forcing Compromise in Israel and Palestine (TOL) by Nathan Thrall. In short, I would say Hundred Years’ War was the better written book. The Only Language was more academically written, and more detached. HYW was way more personal, since Khalidi is personally involved in the conflict, and it is told from the first-person point of view.

My biggest takeaway from both books is how lopsided the Oslo Accords were, as Israel came out firmly on top long term. Israel may have formally acknowledged that there was a Palestinian people and that the PLO represented them, but it did not actually recognize Palestine as a state, which the Palestinians thought would come soon after. Israel really got an amazing deal when Arafat gave up the 1947 borders for the 1967 borders, where Palestinians gave up half of the land they were left with.

Thrall points out in TOL that the Oslo agreement was nearly identical to the framework established in 1978 at Camp David that was not enacted w/r/t Palestine. Both promised a Palestinian government in the West Bank and Gaza, both redeployed Israeli forces to other locations, both created Palestinian national elections and the creation of a local Palestinian police force, and neither allowed Palestinian refugees to return to Israel. Both required Palestinians to recognize Israel’s right to exist. It took 16 years for this agreement to come into being, from 1978, when Carter, Begin, and Sadat negotiated it, to 1994, when Clinton, Rabin, and Arafat agreed on it. However, there was a critical difference. In 1977, Begin was planning to give citizenship to all residents of Mandatory Palestine in the interim period before the two-state solution was achieved, which would have forced Israel to pull out as it would have ended the Jewish character of the Israeli state. Because that never happened, Israel has had no incentive to give up the occupied territories, and instead tightens its grip on them with Jewish settlements throughout the West Bank (formerly Gaza too until the 2006 pullout).

The result of the Oslo accords allowing the PLO to move from Tunis to the West Bank seemed like a good thing for Palestinians, as their leadership was allowed back into the country, but it backfired. Because the plan did not result in sovereignty, the PLO leadership was essentially imprisoned, and could be humiliated later on, stopped from leaving. Now, instead of Arafat and PLO leadership being kept out of Israel against their will, they were kept in the West Bank against their will.

Thrall also writes that Israel does not greatly desire a peace agreement because it has an excellent fallback option. In the long term, Israel can continue to occupy the West Bank and Gaza and has every interest in doing so to preserve its own security. It used to be that Israel would need to make an agreement to get peace with the other Arab states, but Israel has had de facto peace for years, and now many gulf states have turned it into full recognition.

From the beginning, in the 1948 war, the Zionists were organized and Arab states were not super concerned with Palestine if they couldn’t rule over the Palestinians and their territory. They were just monarchs who looked out for their own holdings, so after the War of Independence, Arabs didn’t offer much help to the Palestinians, who were still under the control of Jordan and Egypt. Therefore, the Israelis had the momentum with them in the war. But in spite of that momentum, Israel had a long-term problem. Khalidi quotes historian Tony Judt who said that Israel’s big error was arriving too late. The Zionist movement would have fit in perfectly in 1847, but not in 1947, which was right at the beginning of a huge wave of decolonization. As a result, the world has criticized Israel heavily because the world has moved on.

            There are some broader obstacles to peace that have stopped or slowed the process for decades. The problem is well-stated by former head of Mossad Efraim Halevy, who said, “Imagine that Hamas does disperse its military units and they lay down their arms. What will Israel do if it doesn’t kill them? What incentive will we have to negotiate with them if they are no longer a threat to us?” Similarly, if Israelis laid down their arms, religious extremists on the Palestinian side would certainly kill all the Israelis they could get their hands on.

I didn’t realize that Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon was meant to defeat the PLO, which was operating within the country. I learned that while Israel was able to crush the PLO, it backfired and strengthened the Palestinian national movement within the occupied territories. The invasion of Lebanon resulted in Israel capturing 6,000 PLO guerrillas, forcing Arafat to capitulate, but the Oslo accords wouldn’t come for another 12 years, as the First Intifada intervened in 1987. An interesting thing that Thrall pointed out is that the Palestinians need to constantly be in negotiations to get Western funding. They have to sort of perform the peace process and progress to get money, which they need more than Israel. As a result, there is substantially more external pressure on Palestine than Israel to make peace. Thrall writes that Israel’s most difficult issues are that the borders be based on the pre-1967 lines and that the Palestinian capital would be in Jerusalem. For the Palestinians, it is hardest to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, the absence of a timeline for Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, and that there would be no right of return for Palestinian refugees to Israel.

While I would definitely recommend both books, I would say that both writers are biased towards the Palestinian side of the conflict, especially Khalidi for obvious reasons. Both writers seem to dip into the passive voice when describing violence on the Palestinian side, as if it was an unavoidable consequence of Israeli actions. They don’t seem to give the Israelis the same benefit of the doubt.

I think a major truth of Thrall’s book, that is not so much a concern for Khalidi is that Zionism cannot achieve its purpose until it gains recognition from the Palestinians. As long as the two people remain in conflict, the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is not a fully moral endeavor. However, Thrall makes a very good point that it unfortunately seems the only way that either side can get anywhere is through violence. And if violence is the only thing that both sides understand, that does not bode well for peace.

Miscellaneous Facts:

In the 1936-39 Great Arab Revolt, ten percent of the male population was killed, wounded, imprisoned, or exiled.

The 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine quoted from the Balfour Declaration, but neither document had any significant, direct legal effect.

During the eight years of the First Intifada, 1,600 people were killed, 88% Palestinians and 12% Israelis. In the four calmer years, 90 people died (22% Israelis). Then, in the eight years of the Second Intifada, 6,000 people died (17% Israelis). So the Second Intifada was way more violent than the first.

One important point Khalidi makes about the Second Intifada is that the campaign of suicide bombings backfired on the Palestinian movement by uniting their adversaries against their brutal tactics. Suicide bombings were even opposed by a majority of Palestinians.

Israel collects taxes in the occupied territories on behalf of the Palestinian Authority for a 3 percent fee. The PA in Ramallah collects taxes on all goods entering Gaza, but does not have to spend them in Gaza, a source of conflict between Gaza and the West Bank.

In an Arab summit conference in 1967, after the Six-Day War, Arab states tacitly acknowledged the legitimacy of Israel’s gains in the 1948 war when they demanded Israeli withdrawal from only the “lands which have been occupied since the aggression of June 5.” However, they also proclaimed “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it,” which received much more press. This statement was known as “the three noes.”

One of the biggest mistakes Arafat/ the PLO made was supporting Iraq in the Gulf War. It completely delegitimized the Palestinian leadership in the eyes of the world, even Arab states, which uniformly opposed Iraq’s aggression against Kuwait.

While Ehud Olmert progressively offered more and more of the Occupied Territories to the PA, starting under 70% and eventually going as high as 99.5%, Mahmoud Abbas did not accept because Olmert was unpopular and embroiled in scandal. Abbas felt that a new Prime Minister would not honor such a deal.

Reflection on And Then There Were None by Agatha Christie

     This was a really good book. When I read Murder on the Orient Express, I was a little disappointed, but And Then There Were None is excellent from start to finish. Ten people arrive on an island estate, all invited for different reasons. It turns out that each of them has killed someone before in ways that allowed them to avoid legal justice. Then, they start dropping like flies in a way that matches an old children's rhyme. This was a really good and satisfying murder mystery.

Reflection on Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follett

     Pillars is truly an EPIC of historical fiction. This book covers lifetimes and generations of medieval English people and major historical events of 12th century England: the sinking of the White Ship, the anarchy that followed, the Battle of Lincoln (1141), and the assassination of Thomas Becket, among other events. But the focus of the books is not the historical events, it's the lives of the people who were on the periphery of history. We follow Tom Builder and his family at first, and then move onto other characters, all of whom are forced to deal with the evil William Hamleigh, who is just fucking horrible. The book is long. But even though it's about 1,000 pages, I read it in like a week because it was just so damn interesting and readable. I could not put it down.

    Maybe the best thing about Pillars is how Follett includes small details about medieval life. These include the fact that bishops had mistresses, although monks were more chaste, or that people kept stones in their fires to pull out and use to rapidly heat small amounts of water or soup. One interesting aside is that sermons were becoming more common in churches in the 12th century, and we see that change happen in the books. Follett also teaches us about how stained glass is cut, using a red-hot rod to trace a line and cause a crack. There are a million more examples of this in the book. The uniting theme of the book is the mission to build a church in Kingsbridge, so the reader learns a ton about architecture and its evolution in the High Middle Ages. People don't realize it, but lots of invention and innovation happened throughout the Middle Ages, and it wasn't just stagnation until the Renaissance.

    All in all, this is a highly recommended book.

Reflection on Empire of Pain: The Secret History of the Sackler Dynasty by Patrick Radden Keefe

    This was a great book that is written like a novel. Empire of Pain is a highly readable history of the Sackler family and their rise and fall from grace. The book starts with the brothers Arthur, Mortimer, and Raymond, who made millions off of various medicines and advertisements for medicines. It continues, after Arthur's death, with the children of Mortimer and Raymond, who gradually take over the company. One in particular, Richard, son of Raymond, is especially important, as he invents and aggressively markets Oxycontin, the drug that would earn billions for the family and become a major cause of the opioid crisis in America.

    The entire first part of the book is really about Arthur, who was the leader of the brothers. If you are totally interested in the opioid crisis and not the family, this part is probably not even necessary for you to read. However, it was really well-written and interesting. You get to see Arthur rise up from a working-class family in Brooklyn and become a multi-millionaire who is completely obsessed with work and collecting art and artifacts from around the world. His only other hobby is donating said art and artifacts (as well as millions of dollars) to museums so that he could have his name put on galleries and wings. His second wife said that, "Arthur found safety and comfort in objects; they could not hurt him, they could not make demands on him." Arthur had very little public life besides his philanthropy. Arthur's death is so abrupt and sudden I had to reread it. He felt chest pains and went to a hospital without informing his family and checked in under a fake name. He did not want to be dependent on anyone and feared that someone may take advantage of him while he was impaired. By the time his family found out that he was in the hospital, he was already dead. He left $600,000 to each of his four children and over $100 million to his third wife. 

    In general, this family sucks. It's not just Arthur. They're not just callous to all the human lives they ruined with Oxycontin, but they are also just terrible to each other. Constant fighting over money, disrespect for one another, and backstabbing. The environment they lived in seems really horrible.

    Oxycontin even had a damaging effect on Purdue because it made higher returns than anything else. As a result, people didn't want to invest in products that couldn't return as much as Oxy, and there was simply nothing they could invent that was better. As a result, Purdue's profits depended more and more on Oxycontin, and the company never diversified. Purdue tried to claim that they were responsible for only 4% of the opioid epidemic, but that was only in pills sold. Purdue sold the highest-intensity pills, and when you account for that, they sold 27% of all oxycodone. In some areas, Purdue's market share was 30%. 

    The Sacklers, and their company, Purdue Pharma, knew early on that Oxycontin was addictive and that people were abusing it. They tried to argue that the special slow-release coating they put on it meant that the drug was not addictive, but all that happened was that addicted users would crush the pills or chew them to break that layer and get a huge hit of oxycodone. When Purdue finally got in trouble in 2007, three non-Sacklers took the fall and were each paid millions by the company. From 1997 to 2007, Purdue paid out $126 million to the Sacklers. But once they knew that the company was in trouble, they raided the treasury. After 2007, the company paid out billions to the Sacklers, who moved it overseas to avoid US authorities. The feds will be searching for that money for a long time.

Miscellaneous Facts:

• During the 1930's, many American medical schools established Jewish quotas, as by the mid-1930's more than 60% of applicants were Jewish. Yale marked Jewish applicants' forms with H for Hebrew.
• Curtis Wright (the former FDA Director, not the company Curtiss-Wright) left the FDA and worked for a small pharmaceutical firm for one year before accepting a position at Purdue Pharma (the Sackler company) that paid him a first-year compensation package of nearly $400,000 dollars. CORRUPT.
• African-Americans were hit less hard by the opioid epidemic. The author writes that doctors were less likely to prescribe black patients with opioids because they either did not trust them to take the drug responsibly or because they did not feel as much empathy or belief for/in their pain. 
• Tasmania, Australia grows 85% of all the thebaine in the world. Thebaine is similar to opium and used in Oxycontin.

Reflection on Storm of Steel by Ernst Junger

Storm of Steel was a very fast read for me, in which Junger details his experiences as a German soldier on the western front of World War One. Junger adapted his memoir from his journal, so sometimes the narrative is not so clear, but he writes very descriptively and there were times when I couldn't put this book down. One example is how he describes weathering an artillery barrage, like being tied to a post while a man swings a hammer at you over and over, just barely missing you, sometimes hitting the post, and sending splinters raining down over you.

Reading Storm of Steel gave me a better appreciation for the different phases of the war, as it began in pitched battles that resulted in stalemate and trenches, followed by a war of materiel and artillery barrages, followed by some mechanized warfare at the end.

Some things that stood out to me included the general absence of life not on the front. Junger frequently tells us about when he has leave to go back home or when he goes to training or when he is in the hospital convalescing, but only to inform us that there is a pause. The action of the book does not take place in the hospital or Hanover (Junger's home). Rather, he tells us that he is gone for a while, and then, in the next sentence, we are back fighting in northern France. I also thought it was strange that the officers and maybe other men wore their awards in battle. It is strange to imagine them fighting with ribbons and iron crosses on.

Junger as a person at times seems like an absolute madman who sometimes really enjoyed the war. He writes about how "these short expeditions, in which a man takes his life in his hands, were a good means of testing our mettle and interrupting the monotony of trench life. There's nothing worse for a soldier than boredom." The book is highly emotional, as Junger is deeply introspective about his own reactions to war. He is enthusiastic at times, and at other times paralyzed with fear, sometimes throwing himself on the ground and crying, "sobbing hysterically," as he writes it. Other times, he finds himself experiencing no fear at all and experiencing "fits of laughter I was unable to repress."  Twice Junger thinks that he is about to die, and his descriptions of that are very interesting, especially the second time. He mainly describes surprise and relief as his emotions, where he gains a deeper understanding of his purpose in life. For Junger, war evokes the entire range of human emotion, often not the types that you would expect would match the situation. He is unapologetic for showing emotion. Junger reflects on seeing a dead English soldier who was so young that Junger calls him a boy-- "the state, which relieves us of our responsibility, cannot take away our remorse; and we must exercise it. Sorrow, regret, pursued me deep into my dreams." I think that is the best line of the book.