![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Two books this week
The first is Commander in Chief by Nigel Hamilton, which is the second volume of an intended three on Franklin Roosevelt's role in World War II. I think it is fair to say that Hamilton, a British-born American biographer, is a huge fan of FDR. The book is a very nice read. But, it's not going to make a lot of fans of other famous men of the era terribly happy. He makes a case for FDR being the source of all of the Allied successful strategy from Pearl Harbor through D-Day. I think that is probably stretching things more than a little. Hamilton's main target for censure is Winston Churchill, but he does a fair job of belittling everyone else other than FDR. Most people who've read about Churchill know about his obsession with attacking through lands bordering the Mediterranean Sea instead of through France to fight against the Germans in both World Wars. They've heard of the disaster at Gallipoli in the first War and of Churchill's understandable reluctance to wade into another stalemate in Northern France in the second. On the other hand people who've read about American generals in World War II, know that they were impatient to cross the Channel years sooner. Hamilton more or less has decided that FDR was the one voice of reason in this, and that because FDR was the Commander-in-Chief of the leading member of the Anglo-American alliance, he could insist on getting his way and thus everything turned out fine in the end. I think Hamilton has gone overboard. It's doubtful that FDR's genius really extended to land military campaign strategy any more than Churchill's did. Did FDR insist on the US getting its way at times? Clearly he did. But I think the innuendo that Churchill in 1943 was only interested in using US troops to help keep India in the Empire and Russia out of the Mediterranean as a part of the same old 19th century 'Great Game,' is uncalled for. Hamilton repeatedly referring to 52-year-old Eisenhower, as 'the young general' is patronizing in a way I'm certainly not used to reading. It's a decent book, but I don't think it or the other published book in the series The Mantel of Command are appropriate for someone who hasn't seen other opinions first. If you have that background, it is at least worth listening to Hamilton's arguments for a different perspective.
I can't be even as reluctantly positive about the second book today, The Irregulars by Jennet Conant. The book tells the story of a British spy ring in the US in WWII including such post-war celebrities as Ian Fleming, Noel Coward and especially Roald Dahl. All in a sense true. But calling them a spy ring is perhaps making the whole business sound much more dangerous and tawdry than it actually was. There is ample reason within the book to believe their activities were anything but secret, and in today's vocabulary we might lump them together as foreign lobbyists rather than spies, especially since their great goal was to aid FDR against Republican isolationists. There were a few instances of 'dirty tricks' when one of the gentlemen helped supply American newspapers with muck to print about foes in this. But it would be difficult to say anyone was ever more than just embarrassed over being exposed.
Mostly the book shows that Britain spent a good deal of money to have a few handsome and witty British men attend Washington cocktail parties and report whatever they heard. Imagine a job where you were paid to go to parties hosted by wealthy Trump supporters, hang out and listen to what was going on. This is not far from what these men were doing. If it sounds to you like a good way to hear more random gossip than anything juicy, you would be correct. This book talking about this business was written to be perfectly serious and it also comes off as tedious gossip.
If you've ever wondered about all those high-society cocktail parties in James Bond books/movies now you know where that came from. It is probably the only thing about those books that came from real life. And you can be sure that Ian Flemming or Roald Dahl would never have been invited to such a high-falutin party during the War in Britain. They just weren't the right kind of people. And no, the American parties weren't convenient excuses for jewel heists. They were just parties and the spies were there to mingle with the other guests not save the world between drinks.
I bought the book several years ago and had a hard time getting through it. Just too much gossip. If you like gossip, you'd probably like the book a lot more than I did.
For me the social whirl came off as the most tedious thing imaginable. Rich folks bored out of their minds and next to incapable of amusing themselves. Holding parties solely to talk to anyone at all socially acceptable from out of town. In this case Roald Dahl, dashing British pilot (and apparently entertaining conversationalist), thought he was there as a serious spy. Drinking and having sex almost at random, doesn't exactly sound like fun in this context.
The first is Commander in Chief by Nigel Hamilton, which is the second volume of an intended three on Franklin Roosevelt's role in World War II. I think it is fair to say that Hamilton, a British-born American biographer, is a huge fan of FDR. The book is a very nice read. But, it's not going to make a lot of fans of other famous men of the era terribly happy. He makes a case for FDR being the source of all of the Allied successful strategy from Pearl Harbor through D-Day. I think that is probably stretching things more than a little. Hamilton's main target for censure is Winston Churchill, but he does a fair job of belittling everyone else other than FDR. Most people who've read about Churchill know about his obsession with attacking through lands bordering the Mediterranean Sea instead of through France to fight against the Germans in both World Wars. They've heard of the disaster at Gallipoli in the first War and of Churchill's understandable reluctance to wade into another stalemate in Northern France in the second. On the other hand people who've read about American generals in World War II, know that they were impatient to cross the Channel years sooner. Hamilton more or less has decided that FDR was the one voice of reason in this, and that because FDR was the Commander-in-Chief of the leading member of the Anglo-American alliance, he could insist on getting his way and thus everything turned out fine in the end. I think Hamilton has gone overboard. It's doubtful that FDR's genius really extended to land military campaign strategy any more than Churchill's did. Did FDR insist on the US getting its way at times? Clearly he did. But I think the innuendo that Churchill in 1943 was only interested in using US troops to help keep India in the Empire and Russia out of the Mediterranean as a part of the same old 19th century 'Great Game,' is uncalled for. Hamilton repeatedly referring to 52-year-old Eisenhower, as 'the young general' is patronizing in a way I'm certainly not used to reading. It's a decent book, but I don't think it or the other published book in the series The Mantel of Command are appropriate for someone who hasn't seen other opinions first. If you have that background, it is at least worth listening to Hamilton's arguments for a different perspective.
I can't be even as reluctantly positive about the second book today, The Irregulars by Jennet Conant. The book tells the story of a British spy ring in the US in WWII including such post-war celebrities as Ian Fleming, Noel Coward and especially Roald Dahl. All in a sense true. But calling them a spy ring is perhaps making the whole business sound much more dangerous and tawdry than it actually was. There is ample reason within the book to believe their activities were anything but secret, and in today's vocabulary we might lump them together as foreign lobbyists rather than spies, especially since their great goal was to aid FDR against Republican isolationists. There were a few instances of 'dirty tricks' when one of the gentlemen helped supply American newspapers with muck to print about foes in this. But it would be difficult to say anyone was ever more than just embarrassed over being exposed.
Mostly the book shows that Britain spent a good deal of money to have a few handsome and witty British men attend Washington cocktail parties and report whatever they heard. Imagine a job where you were paid to go to parties hosted by wealthy Trump supporters, hang out and listen to what was going on. This is not far from what these men were doing. If it sounds to you like a good way to hear more random gossip than anything juicy, you would be correct. This book talking about this business was written to be perfectly serious and it also comes off as tedious gossip.
If you've ever wondered about all those high-society cocktail parties in James Bond books/movies now you know where that came from. It is probably the only thing about those books that came from real life. And you can be sure that Ian Flemming or Roald Dahl would never have been invited to such a high-falutin party during the War in Britain. They just weren't the right kind of people. And no, the American parties weren't convenient excuses for jewel heists. They were just parties and the spies were there to mingle with the other guests not save the world between drinks.
I bought the book several years ago and had a hard time getting through it. Just too much gossip. If you like gossip, you'd probably like the book a lot more than I did.
For me the social whirl came off as the most tedious thing imaginable. Rich folks bored out of their minds and next to incapable of amusing themselves. Holding parties solely to talk to anyone at all socially acceptable from out of town. In this case Roald Dahl, dashing British pilot (and apparently entertaining conversationalist), thought he was there as a serious spy. Drinking and having sex almost at random, doesn't exactly sound like fun in this context.