I picked up Miles Gone By for a light read. However, wading through William Buckley's lexicon is never a light read. I don't read Buckley because I am a die hard conservative. I read Buckley because he writes well. My first introduction to his writing was his Blackford Oakes spy novel series. So, I thought I would take a run through a life fairly interesting.
Mr. Buckley grew up at the highest level of affluence. His father was highly placed in foreign affairs and in U.S. business. Most of his youth stories are framed in instances of three household staff members for each child. William benefits from a solid set of parents and takes full advantage of a first rate education. His surfacing as a professional was his writing of God and Man and Yale.
It becomes apparent early that Buckley is a gifted journalist/writer. The book is split up into writings he did for journals through his career. I have not thought of the value of the writer at events until I read through this book. Much as I am challenged to share my thoughts on books in this journal, Buckley takes events and brings them to magnificent life. He tells of sailing, time with dignitaries and time going down to the Titanic, riding the Orient Express. The trip down to the Titanic and his trip on the Orient Express were the most riveting example of the value of someone who can write memorializing special events/scenes.
Buckley received an invite to go down in a exploration submarine to pick up some artifacts from the Titanic wreckage. He does a tremendous job describing the scene, the history, etc. He brings the entire episode to an interesting light.
Buckley is also a sailor so there are lots of stories on sailing. I want to sail, some day, so hearing his stories are of great interest to me. The more I read about sailing the less it is romanticized - sailing is a lot of hard work followed by periods of grandeur. Buckley crosses the Atlantic and Pacific multiple times. As noted he is wealthy, so most of his boats are crewed. The navigation at the time of his crossings were still pretty basic, unlike today's. If you like to sail, the parts of the books would be interesting.
Virtually everyone that is a who's who is a close friend of Buckley. He tells great stories of social gaffes (interrupting Queen Elizabeth to introduce a friend to the person she is talking to), his close friends, David Niven, Ronald Reagan, Henry Kissinger, Clare Boothe Luce, Tom Wolf, Vladimir Horowitz, Roger Moore, Alistair Cook, Princess Grace and John Kenneth Galbraith. He also talks of times with Whittaker Chambers.
Would I recommend this read? Only if you enjoy a little of the high brow life. It was dry in spots, especially the discussions of God and Yale and Man. Overall, an interesting insight to a life fully lived.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Jerusalem - Montefiore
"For 1,000 years Jerusalem was exclusively Jewish; for about 400 years, Christian; for 1,300 years, Islamic; and not one of the three faiths ever gained Jerusalem without the sword, the mangonel (catapult) or the howitzer. Their nationalistic histories tell a rigid story of inevitable progressions to heroic triumphs and abrupt disasters, but in this history I have tried to show nothing was inevitable, there were always choices. The fates and identities of Jerusalemites were rarely clear cut. Life in Herodian, Crusader, or British Jerusalem was always just as complex and nuanced as life is for us today." Montefiore
This book was a Christmas gift from someone that knows I love history (my wife). I read a review of it in the WSJ and also saw that Bill Clinton saw it as a great read. Jerusalem is simply a historical survey of the city. As Montefiore notes above, the city has seen many changes and has many intrigues. My initial interest in the book was to fill in the gaps of what I knew and see if I could gain a clearer understanding of current conflicts in the area.
If you were Jewish and lived in Jerusalem, it wasn't a good situation. One take away from the book is that the Jewish population was a side show throughout the history of Jerusalem - even before the coming of Christ. David saw the zenith of the city but it later went through multiple sackings from the Persians, Macedonians, Maccabees and Romans. Even under Rome, the Herods ruled the city until its ultimate destruction. At this point the Jewish population in Jerusalem was very small and continued to be so until just before World War II.
Christians saw some presence in the city for a short period of time. Mostly influenced by the Christians from the Anatolia(Asia Minor) region. The group mostly influenced by the early church. Subsequently, the Arabs decided they saw Jerusalem as an important city.
"one night, his followers believed that, as he slept beside the Kaaba (a cuboid building in Mecca - one of the most sacred Muslim locations), Muhammad had a vision. The Archangel Gabriel awoke him and together they embarked on a Night Journey mounted on Buraq, a winged steed with a human face, to the unnamed "Furthest Sanctuary"." This furthest sanctuary is believed to be the Temple Mount and part of the sacred Muslim locations.
"After Muhammad's death, the Muslim desired to build the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount. The Rock was the site of Adam's paradise, Abraham's altar, the place where David and Solomon planned their Temple later visited by Muhammad on his Night Journey. Abd al-Malik rebuilt the Jewish Temple for the true revelation of God, Islam." When you consider the Jewish position that Jesus was not the messiah and the Islamic position that Jesus was a prophet just as Muhammad and all praise and glory goes to God - then building the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount makes sense. The Muslims just thought they were improving on the Temple with the Dome of the Rock. The Rock is the Foundation Stone - the stone that was beneath the Ark of the Covenant.
The crusaders tried to unseat Islam from Jerusalem. It would be a natural decision to try to oust the people that built a mosque over the site of the temple. The book goes through multiple visits by the crusaders and their somewhat limited success to restore Jerusalem to Christian rule. Past the crusaders you have attempts by Napoleon and other European (and Russian) leaders to influence Jerusalem. Unfortunately for them, Jerusalem is always a side bar for other events in Europe and sufficient resources are never available for total control of the city.
Through this time, as noted previously, the Jewish population was not a significant influence as to what is going on in Jerusalem. It isn't until after the first World War that a migration of European Jews begins into Palestine. The Russians and the British start to lay the foundation for the modern geography of Israel and Arab lands. Stalin was a defender and proponent of the Jewish state. The British controlled the city for some time until the mandate for the current country. The two state option was on the table from the beginning. The Arabs fought against it and began what we see today in bombings and assassinations. Many of the Arab leaders we know in current times cut their teeth in these early wars - for example - Arafat and Fatah were created during this time.
The bottom line during this period is that the entire Arab region attacked the young state of Israel. Israel was able to defend itself and create buffers of land around the original state. I was in the military in the early 1980's and witnessed in person the Israeli military spirit and the backwardness of the Arab military while stationed in the Sinai desert.
I went into the book with a desire to learn more and have an equitable view. This book is written very much by a defender of the Jewish population - so there is a slant. However, it is clear that the Arab world has received an opportunity to live in peace alongside the Jewish population in Palestine. No "one" people have the rights to Palestine - Jews and Arabs have lived there for thousands of years. The Arabs have chosen to wage a constant battle with the Israeli's. Peace will not come until the Arab world decides it will live in peace.
It also becomes painfully obvious as you go through the history, that Jerusalem is an international city. There is much discussion of treating it almost like a Vatican with a totally independent authority that oversees it. This is an interesting concept.
This is a good read if you really enjoy historical surveys - it is not a light read.
This book was a Christmas gift from someone that knows I love history (my wife). I read a review of it in the WSJ and also saw that Bill Clinton saw it as a great read. Jerusalem is simply a historical survey of the city. As Montefiore notes above, the city has seen many changes and has many intrigues. My initial interest in the book was to fill in the gaps of what I knew and see if I could gain a clearer understanding of current conflicts in the area.
If you were Jewish and lived in Jerusalem, it wasn't a good situation. One take away from the book is that the Jewish population was a side show throughout the history of Jerusalem - even before the coming of Christ. David saw the zenith of the city but it later went through multiple sackings from the Persians, Macedonians, Maccabees and Romans. Even under Rome, the Herods ruled the city until its ultimate destruction. At this point the Jewish population in Jerusalem was very small and continued to be so until just before World War II.
Christians saw some presence in the city for a short period of time. Mostly influenced by the Christians from the Anatolia(Asia Minor) region. The group mostly influenced by the early church. Subsequently, the Arabs decided they saw Jerusalem as an important city.
"one night, his followers believed that, as he slept beside the Kaaba (a cuboid building in Mecca - one of the most sacred Muslim locations), Muhammad had a vision. The Archangel Gabriel awoke him and together they embarked on a Night Journey mounted on Buraq, a winged steed with a human face, to the unnamed "Furthest Sanctuary"." This furthest sanctuary is believed to be the Temple Mount and part of the sacred Muslim locations.
"After Muhammad's death, the Muslim desired to build the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount. The Rock was the site of Adam's paradise, Abraham's altar, the place where David and Solomon planned their Temple later visited by Muhammad on his Night Journey. Abd al-Malik rebuilt the Jewish Temple for the true revelation of God, Islam." When you consider the Jewish position that Jesus was not the messiah and the Islamic position that Jesus was a prophet just as Muhammad and all praise and glory goes to God - then building the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount makes sense. The Muslims just thought they were improving on the Temple with the Dome of the Rock. The Rock is the Foundation Stone - the stone that was beneath the Ark of the Covenant.
The crusaders tried to unseat Islam from Jerusalem. It would be a natural decision to try to oust the people that built a mosque over the site of the temple. The book goes through multiple visits by the crusaders and their somewhat limited success to restore Jerusalem to Christian rule. Past the crusaders you have attempts by Napoleon and other European (and Russian) leaders to influence Jerusalem. Unfortunately for them, Jerusalem is always a side bar for other events in Europe and sufficient resources are never available for total control of the city.
Through this time, as noted previously, the Jewish population was not a significant influence as to what is going on in Jerusalem. It isn't until after the first World War that a migration of European Jews begins into Palestine. The Russians and the British start to lay the foundation for the modern geography of Israel and Arab lands. Stalin was a defender and proponent of the Jewish state. The British controlled the city for some time until the mandate for the current country. The two state option was on the table from the beginning. The Arabs fought against it and began what we see today in bombings and assassinations. Many of the Arab leaders we know in current times cut their teeth in these early wars - for example - Arafat and Fatah were created during this time.
The bottom line during this period is that the entire Arab region attacked the young state of Israel. Israel was able to defend itself and create buffers of land around the original state. I was in the military in the early 1980's and witnessed in person the Israeli military spirit and the backwardness of the Arab military while stationed in the Sinai desert.
I went into the book with a desire to learn more and have an equitable view. This book is written very much by a defender of the Jewish population - so there is a slant. However, it is clear that the Arab world has received an opportunity to live in peace alongside the Jewish population in Palestine. No "one" people have the rights to Palestine - Jews and Arabs have lived there for thousands of years. The Arabs have chosen to wage a constant battle with the Israeli's. Peace will not come until the Arab world decides it will live in peace.
It also becomes painfully obvious as you go through the history, that Jerusalem is an international city. There is much discussion of treating it almost like a Vatican with a totally independent authority that oversees it. This is an interesting concept.
This is a good read if you really enjoy historical surveys - it is not a light read.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
The Liberator - Alex Kershaw
After Les Miserables I needed a book I could run through a little quicker. The Liberator by Alex Kershaw has been on my list and it was a good fit. This book came on my radar when the Wall Street Journal reviewed it in their daily op-ed section. I get a lot of books off the Wall Street Journal and the Economist reviews. This caught my eye because I recalled hearing this story in person twenty years ago in a hospital in Enid, Oklahoma.
The gentlemen telling me the story was Sam Vogel who had been in World War II with the 45th Division. We were in the waiting area of the hospital, sadly standing by as a family member was passing away. I asked Sam about his service in the war. Maybe since he knew I served he decided to share. Over the next hour or two Sam shares this amazing story of shipping out of NYC on a ship to Africa. In Africa his group trained for a beach landing in Sicily, captured the island then made a beach landing in Italy. His group fought its way from the beaches of southern Italy. They then made another beach landing in southern France. From southern France they entered Germany and fought their way towards Berlin. Unfortunately, they were tasked with liberating Dachau and their drive stalled near Munich as they dealt with the grim realities of the prison camp. Needless to say I was simply stunned. He's entire discussion was a, just doing what we needed to do, tone.
Anyhow, the Liberator is actually the story of the 45th Division going through the fight that Sam told me about. How crazy is that. So I picked the book up for a read. It's an easy read so if you are a WWII buff you need to pick it up. Some quick input on Kershaw's writing and research - average at best.
The story follows a gentlemen, Felix Sparks, who was a country kid that grew up in Miami, Arizona. The 45th Division was comprised of units from Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Oklahoma. Spark's unit was the 157th Infantry Regiment based out of Arizona. Sparks is a typical young man fighting his way through the great depression. The military ends up being his out of poverty and route to opportunity. After going through the war he ends up being a lawyer in Colorado.
As you read the story it brings back the crazy sacrifice that all of these men made. The cold reality is if you were in an front line infantry unit during the war your odds of not being a casualty of some sort was very low. Sparks (an officer) goes through two battles where he loses almost every one of his men. The battle conditions are unimaginable to say the least. Once they finally get to the point that they feel the war is ending they walk into Dachau without any preparation for what they would see.
Sparks group was simply overwhelmed and actually did not respond in the most professional way. They just didn't have the training to deal with the gross abuse of life they saw in the camp.
A nice quick read and a good nod to Sam for his service. If you have a travel day grab this book and read it. You will appreciate all of our military for the role they serve in not only protecting our freedom but the freedom of everyone throughout the world.
The gentlemen telling me the story was Sam Vogel who had been in World War II with the 45th Division. We were in the waiting area of the hospital, sadly standing by as a family member was passing away. I asked Sam about his service in the war. Maybe since he knew I served he decided to share. Over the next hour or two Sam shares this amazing story of shipping out of NYC on a ship to Africa. In Africa his group trained for a beach landing in Sicily, captured the island then made a beach landing in Italy. His group fought its way from the beaches of southern Italy. They then made another beach landing in southern France. From southern France they entered Germany and fought their way towards Berlin. Unfortunately, they were tasked with liberating Dachau and their drive stalled near Munich as they dealt with the grim realities of the prison camp. Needless to say I was simply stunned. He's entire discussion was a, just doing what we needed to do, tone.
Anyhow, the Liberator is actually the story of the 45th Division going through the fight that Sam told me about. How crazy is that. So I picked the book up for a read. It's an easy read so if you are a WWII buff you need to pick it up. Some quick input on Kershaw's writing and research - average at best.
The story follows a gentlemen, Felix Sparks, who was a country kid that grew up in Miami, Arizona. The 45th Division was comprised of units from Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Oklahoma. Spark's unit was the 157th Infantry Regiment based out of Arizona. Sparks is a typical young man fighting his way through the great depression. The military ends up being his out of poverty and route to opportunity. After going through the war he ends up being a lawyer in Colorado.
As you read the story it brings back the crazy sacrifice that all of these men made. The cold reality is if you were in an front line infantry unit during the war your odds of not being a casualty of some sort was very low. Sparks (an officer) goes through two battles where he loses almost every one of his men. The battle conditions are unimaginable to say the least. Once they finally get to the point that they feel the war is ending they walk into Dachau without any preparation for what they would see.
Sparks group was simply overwhelmed and actually did not respond in the most professional way. They just didn't have the training to deal with the gross abuse of life they saw in the camp.
A nice quick read and a good nod to Sam for his service. If you have a travel day grab this book and read it. You will appreciate all of our military for the role they serve in not only protecting our freedom but the freedom of everyone throughout the world.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Les Miserables
What an amazing read. You owe it to yourself to take the time to read this book written about the dawn of the freedom of the ordinary human in the early 1800's. I tend to be hard on the French but after reading this I have a better feel for the spirit of the French people.
Victor Hugo outlines what was going on from the revolution in 1789 through the Napoleonic wars and finally through the restoration of the French Royalty. He tells the story through a man sent to the galleys as a teenager for stealing a loaf of bread for his siblings. The character - Jean Valjean - spends twenty years in the galleys until he is finally paroled. He leaves hardened but crosses paths with a Bishop that shows him unconditional love. Jean Valjean then moves on with a "less of me, more of others" life. The story is peppered with characters that reflect the tragedy of life in a world with limited opportunities. Hugo goes into the detail of each of the characters lives and the events that surround their situation. The reader is staggered as you realize just how horrible the living conditions were for ordinary citizens. The reader also gets insight as to the life of the idealistic young bourgeois - and the failed efforts to make a difference for the common citizen.
This is a long book and there times when it benefits you to skim. However, the book reminds you of how rich the writing was from this period. Books would not make it through edit today that go into the detail of each event that Hugo goes through. This level of detail is what makes the book. The insight as to what it was like to be a prisoner chained to a wall, the details of the battle of Waterloo, the events that form the individuals that are key to the book. Some of the greatest literature was written during the 1800's. This was certainly a different time.
Jean Valjean pours the remaining portion of his life into a young girl. His selfless devotion to her to fulfill a promise sees the book to its end - don't miss it.
Victor Hugo outlines what was going on from the revolution in 1789 through the Napoleonic wars and finally through the restoration of the French Royalty. He tells the story through a man sent to the galleys as a teenager for stealing a loaf of bread for his siblings. The character - Jean Valjean - spends twenty years in the galleys until he is finally paroled. He leaves hardened but crosses paths with a Bishop that shows him unconditional love. Jean Valjean then moves on with a "less of me, more of others" life. The story is peppered with characters that reflect the tragedy of life in a world with limited opportunities. Hugo goes into the detail of each of the characters lives and the events that surround their situation. The reader is staggered as you realize just how horrible the living conditions were for ordinary citizens. The reader also gets insight as to the life of the idealistic young bourgeois - and the failed efforts to make a difference for the common citizen.
This is a long book and there times when it benefits you to skim. However, the book reminds you of how rich the writing was from this period. Books would not make it through edit today that go into the detail of each event that Hugo goes through. This level of detail is what makes the book. The insight as to what it was like to be a prisoner chained to a wall, the details of the battle of Waterloo, the events that form the individuals that are key to the book. Some of the greatest literature was written during the 1800's. This was certainly a different time.
Jean Valjean pours the remaining portion of his life into a young girl. His selfless devotion to her to fulfill a promise sees the book to its end - don't miss it.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Kissinger Sheds a Clear Light on China
On China - Henry Kissenger
Wow - this is a must read for anyone working in Asia or wanting to know more of the Chinese culture. I have tried multiple reads into the Chinese mindset/history and have not had a lot of success. My favorite prior to this book was Pearl Buck's - The Good Earth.
What can you get from this read? The book begins with a clear survey of China from the beginning of its recorded history. The biggest takeaway being the Chinese thought that they are the central (middle) kingdom and everything outside of China is the outer region. More importantly, China has not had a history of being expansionist - unique for a potential world power.
The history of China is a consolidation of smaller kingdoms to a point of a large peaceful kingdom ruled by the Yellow Emporer. The famous opening of The Romance of the Three Kingdoms, a fourteenth century epic novel treausured by centuries of Chinese (including Mao, who is said to have poured over it almost obsessively in his youth), evokes this coninuous rhythm: "The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been." Once the rythm of consolidation occurred then the manipulation of foriegn threat could be used to preserve the kingdom from outsiders. A common thread throughout China's history has been using foriegners (barbarians against barbarians) against each other to ward off interest in attacking China (keeping the barbarians weak).
This policy worked well until the reality of China's demise in military arms and tactics came home with the British coming into Peking and demanding terms. The result of their falling behind militarily was the release of Hong Kong and Macau and the allowance of trade into controlled zones in China to western powers (which would be very familiar to anyone doing business in China since the late 1980's).
China meandered along until the Revolution. The outcome of the revolution was the fracture of the country having the prior government (led by Chaiang Kai-shek) running to Formosa (Taiwan), and Mao controlling the mainland from Beijing. Mao focused on revamping China through two main thrusts, the "Great Leap Forward" and the "Cultural Revolution".
The Great Leap Forward represented China's first attempt at planned economies and collectivism. The attempt to pull the country out of an agrarian society to an industrialized society. Just as the Soviets experienced, this was a disaster and led to extreme shortages in grain and famines which claimed millions. As we will discuss later the Chinese learned from this experience.
The Cultural Revolution was an attempt by Mao to totally disrupt the heirachy of the party and he allowed the country to go into constant chaos. Many leaders were sent to re-education camps - if they were lucky. Gangs literally ran the streets of China disrupting everything. This was a reflection of Mao thinking that harmony (Confucionasim) led to a lack of development so constant disruption had to be introduced to allow China to be more productive. There were a lot of negatives to this policy and one key one was the outside world didn't know how to engage a country that allowed this internal policy.
The Korean and Vietnamese wars were discussed and primarily there was concern by China that the United States sought a policy of hegemony (an attempt to rule an area with subordinate states). A divide began to occur between China and the Soviets and this allowed an opening to begin discussions with China. China was able to see that the U.S. saw Korea and Vietnam as expansionist activity by the Soviets - and China subsequently had their own issues with Vietnam and the neighboring states. President Nixon was ready to close the Vietnam war and the opening of China to the West began. Of course, true to China's nature, China saw a way to take advantage of two barbarians (the U.S. and Soviets) and focus inwards againg on their economic issues.
Zhou was the (short-term) predessessor to Mao and introduced the "Four Modernizations" platform: agriculture; industry; national defense; and science and technology. Deng Xiaoping replaced Zhou in short order but he continued the focus of the Four Modernizations but with an interesting twist - instead of trying to achieve the goals with a planned economy - he allowed the people to invest.
Kissinger's quote/my emphasis "For the only time in my experience with Chinese leaders, philosphical and practical disagreements were made explicit. Hua described an economic program to spur production by traditional Soviet methods, emphasizing heavy industry, improvemetns in agricultural productions based on communes, increased mechanization, and use of fertilizers within the framework of a ubiquitous Five-Year Plan. Deng rejected all these orthodoxies. The people, he said, needed to be given a stake in what they produced. Consumer goods had to have priority over heavy industry, the ingenuity of Chinese farmers had to be liberated, the Communist Party needed to become less intrusive, and government would have to be decentralized." WOW.
I like to think of Deng Xiaoping as the George Washington of China. What we are seeing today is the direct result of his vision to disconnect the political China with the economic China. You can be assured he had his detractors - but he held to his concept and fought for it to his last days. When Gorbachev came to China and shared his vision to allow the Soviet Union to change the political framework before the economic framework of the country China saw him as "misguided" - and the outcome prooved that out as the Soviet states went into a virtual free fall.
As you can tell this book has impacted me greatly. There are a lot of other things that come out of the book that are interesting facts but the biggest read I get is I'm not certain our current political stance with China (tilting towards adversarial) is in our best interest. Out of all of the great powers, China may be the best to coexist. As in all industries the top two survive, so it shall always be with great powers. Maybe the U.S. and China should strive to be the two.
Wow - this is a must read for anyone working in Asia or wanting to know more of the Chinese culture. I have tried multiple reads into the Chinese mindset/history and have not had a lot of success. My favorite prior to this book was Pearl Buck's - The Good Earth.
What can you get from this read? The book begins with a clear survey of China from the beginning of its recorded history. The biggest takeaway being the Chinese thought that they are the central (middle) kingdom and everything outside of China is the outer region. More importantly, China has not had a history of being expansionist - unique for a potential world power.
The history of China is a consolidation of smaller kingdoms to a point of a large peaceful kingdom ruled by the Yellow Emporer. The famous opening of The Romance of the Three Kingdoms, a fourteenth century epic novel treausured by centuries of Chinese (including Mao, who is said to have poured over it almost obsessively in his youth), evokes this coninuous rhythm: "The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been." Once the rythm of consolidation occurred then the manipulation of foriegn threat could be used to preserve the kingdom from outsiders. A common thread throughout China's history has been using foriegners (barbarians against barbarians) against each other to ward off interest in attacking China (keeping the barbarians weak).
This policy worked well until the reality of China's demise in military arms and tactics came home with the British coming into Peking and demanding terms. The result of their falling behind militarily was the release of Hong Kong and Macau and the allowance of trade into controlled zones in China to western powers (which would be very familiar to anyone doing business in China since the late 1980's).
China meandered along until the Revolution. The outcome of the revolution was the fracture of the country having the prior government (led by Chaiang Kai-shek) running to Formosa (Taiwan), and Mao controlling the mainland from Beijing. Mao focused on revamping China through two main thrusts, the "Great Leap Forward" and the "Cultural Revolution".
The Great Leap Forward represented China's first attempt at planned economies and collectivism. The attempt to pull the country out of an agrarian society to an industrialized society. Just as the Soviets experienced, this was a disaster and led to extreme shortages in grain and famines which claimed millions. As we will discuss later the Chinese learned from this experience.
The Cultural Revolution was an attempt by Mao to totally disrupt the heirachy of the party and he allowed the country to go into constant chaos. Many leaders were sent to re-education camps - if they were lucky. Gangs literally ran the streets of China disrupting everything. This was a reflection of Mao thinking that harmony (Confucionasim) led to a lack of development so constant disruption had to be introduced to allow China to be more productive. There were a lot of negatives to this policy and one key one was the outside world didn't know how to engage a country that allowed this internal policy.
The Korean and Vietnamese wars were discussed and primarily there was concern by China that the United States sought a policy of hegemony (an attempt to rule an area with subordinate states). A divide began to occur between China and the Soviets and this allowed an opening to begin discussions with China. China was able to see that the U.S. saw Korea and Vietnam as expansionist activity by the Soviets - and China subsequently had their own issues with Vietnam and the neighboring states. President Nixon was ready to close the Vietnam war and the opening of China to the West began. Of course, true to China's nature, China saw a way to take advantage of two barbarians (the U.S. and Soviets) and focus inwards againg on their economic issues.
Zhou was the (short-term) predessessor to Mao and introduced the "Four Modernizations" platform: agriculture; industry; national defense; and science and technology. Deng Xiaoping replaced Zhou in short order but he continued the focus of the Four Modernizations but with an interesting twist - instead of trying to achieve the goals with a planned economy - he allowed the people to invest.
Kissinger's quote/my emphasis "For the only time in my experience with Chinese leaders, philosphical and practical disagreements were made explicit. Hua described an economic program to spur production by traditional Soviet methods, emphasizing heavy industry, improvemetns in agricultural productions based on communes, increased mechanization, and use of fertilizers within the framework of a ubiquitous Five-Year Plan. Deng rejected all these orthodoxies. The people, he said, needed to be given a stake in what they produced. Consumer goods had to have priority over heavy industry, the ingenuity of Chinese farmers had to be liberated, the Communist Party needed to become less intrusive, and government would have to be decentralized." WOW.
I like to think of Deng Xiaoping as the George Washington of China. What we are seeing today is the direct result of his vision to disconnect the political China with the economic China. You can be assured he had his detractors - but he held to his concept and fought for it to his last days. When Gorbachev came to China and shared his vision to allow the Soviet Union to change the political framework before the economic framework of the country China saw him as "misguided" - and the outcome prooved that out as the Soviet states went into a virtual free fall.
As you can tell this book has impacted me greatly. There are a lot of other things that come out of the book that are interesting facts but the biggest read I get is I'm not certain our current political stance with China (tilting towards adversarial) is in our best interest. Out of all of the great powers, China may be the best to coexist. As in all industries the top two survive, so it shall always be with great powers. Maybe the U.S. and China should strive to be the two.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Peter The Great - Robert K. Massie
I appreciate friends who prod me to blog. I have read a ton of books and need to catch up. A friend from New Jersey knew I am a history junkie so he told me I had to read Robert K. Massie's Peter the Great. This book is an easy read and a great add to anyone interested in Russian history.
So what did I get out of this book? Peter was a leader - a transformative leader. Unfortunately, leaders can't always be the boy next door. Peter was all in and willed Russia out of the fog of history. He had an amazing curiosity that drove him forward - always.
His signature is his attempt to build a naval force and bring Western knowledge to Russia. Most of his life's work evolves out of these primary focuses.
His first stop on this path was building a small fleet of barges to take an army down the Volga and over to the Don to raid the land of the Turks, fighting Tatars along the way. The reason Peter used the river route is because he had originally tried marching armies down the steppe only to have the Tatars burn the steppe depriving the horses of forage and driving the army back. The Tatars were regular raiders on Russian outer settlements taking peasants as slaves and selling them in the Crimea. The barge concept eventually lead to success. This was critical to gain the confidence of the Russian people - Peter then turned north.
Eventually Peter settled St. Petersburg which gave Russia an northern port. From here he had seaworthy ships built and used them to advance Russia's influence in western Europe and in Finland and Sweden. St. Petersburg is a city the Peter willed out of the marshes - literally almost built one log at a time. Only someone with his primal focus could have settled a town there. This is a city that I must see one day.
A funny story of Peter's disconnect with reality was when he tried to go on a fact finding trip to the West but didn't want anyone it was him. Peter was almost a giant in his time so everyone knew who he was and word spread fast that he was heading to the next town. He kept the sharade up through the entire trip even though he had crowds following him.
As brutish as Peter was - and he was very much so, you have to take away that great/transforming leadership requires this type of focus and drive. How else do you, as one man, influence not only your own backward country to great changes, but also strike fear in all of Europe?
So, an easy read and great insight into the Russian mindset. If you have further interest in Russia consider some of these other great books - Russka ( a history of Russia from the beginning of its history to the Revolution) and The Great Upheaval (A comparison of the US, French and potential Russian Revolutions - great insight into Catherine the Great).
So what did I get out of this book? Peter was a leader - a transformative leader. Unfortunately, leaders can't always be the boy next door. Peter was all in and willed Russia out of the fog of history. He had an amazing curiosity that drove him forward - always.
His signature is his attempt to build a naval force and bring Western knowledge to Russia. Most of his life's work evolves out of these primary focuses.
His first stop on this path was building a small fleet of barges to take an army down the Volga and over to the Don to raid the land of the Turks, fighting Tatars along the way. The reason Peter used the river route is because he had originally tried marching armies down the steppe only to have the Tatars burn the steppe depriving the horses of forage and driving the army back. The Tatars were regular raiders on Russian outer settlements taking peasants as slaves and selling them in the Crimea. The barge concept eventually lead to success. This was critical to gain the confidence of the Russian people - Peter then turned north.
Eventually Peter settled St. Petersburg which gave Russia an northern port. From here he had seaworthy ships built and used them to advance Russia's influence in western Europe and in Finland and Sweden. St. Petersburg is a city the Peter willed out of the marshes - literally almost built one log at a time. Only someone with his primal focus could have settled a town there. This is a city that I must see one day.
A funny story of Peter's disconnect with reality was when he tried to go on a fact finding trip to the West but didn't want anyone it was him. Peter was almost a giant in his time so everyone knew who he was and word spread fast that he was heading to the next town. He kept the sharade up through the entire trip even though he had crowds following him.
As brutish as Peter was - and he was very much so, you have to take away that great/transforming leadership requires this type of focus and drive. How else do you, as one man, influence not only your own backward country to great changes, but also strike fear in all of Europe?
So, an easy read and great insight into the Russian mindset. If you have further interest in Russia consider some of these other great books - Russka ( a history of Russia from the beginning of its history to the Revolution) and The Great Upheaval (A comparison of the US, French and potential Russian Revolutions - great insight into Catherine the Great).
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Life and Fate - Vasily Grossman
Life and Fate - Vasily Grossman
Vasily Grossman was a reporter embedded with he Russian Army during WWII. He spent a significant amount of his time in Stalingrad. He uses this experience to write an epic saga similar to the style of War and Peace following several families through the war.
This book gives great insight as to the Russian mind - how collectivism and the purges of 1937 influenced how Russians thought. Stalin was fully in control and had the ability to influence the masses through a trip to a work camp in Siberia or a chance phone call.
If you enjoy Russian history or have an interest in this period then this book is a great read. For anyone that doesn't have an interest in Russia the book might be dry.
You walk away feeling for the Russian citizen. For the most part they are a victim of a situation out of their control.
From Stalingrad... "The Germans were simply unable to believe that all their attacks were being borne by a handful of men. They thought the Soviet reserves were being brought up in order to reinforce the defence. The true strategists of the Soviet offensive were the soldiers with their backs to the Volga (who would have been shot if they ran) who fought off Paulus's divisions. The remorseless cunning of History, however, lay still more deeply hidden. Freedom engendered the Russian victory. Freedom was the apparent aim of the war. But the sly fingers of History changed this: freedom became simply a way of waging the war, a means to an end."
Vasily Grossman was a reporter embedded with he Russian Army during WWII. He spent a significant amount of his time in Stalingrad. He uses this experience to write an epic saga similar to the style of War and Peace following several families through the war.
This book gives great insight as to the Russian mind - how collectivism and the purges of 1937 influenced how Russians thought. Stalin was fully in control and had the ability to influence the masses through a trip to a work camp in Siberia or a chance phone call.
If you enjoy Russian history or have an interest in this period then this book is a great read. For anyone that doesn't have an interest in Russia the book might be dry.
You walk away feeling for the Russian citizen. For the most part they are a victim of a situation out of their control.
From Stalingrad... "The Germans were simply unable to believe that all their attacks were being borne by a handful of men. They thought the Soviet reserves were being brought up in order to reinforce the defence. The true strategists of the Soviet offensive were the soldiers with their backs to the Volga (who would have been shot if they ran) who fought off Paulus's divisions. The remorseless cunning of History, however, lay still more deeply hidden. Freedom engendered the Russian victory. Freedom was the apparent aim of the war. But the sly fingers of History changed this: freedom became simply a way of waging the war, a means to an end."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)