“The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression”, by Stéphane Courtois (ed.), Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartosek, and Jean-Louis Margolin

858 pages, Harvard University Press, ISBN-13: 978-0674076082

The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression is a must read for all students of 20^th Century history, an epoch that cannot be understood without an understanding of the effect, for more than 80 years, of the brutal, nihilistic, and morally corrupt political system called Communism. The Black Book covers the history of Communism, starting with the Bolsheviks in Russia and, chapter by chapter, covers the communist movements and governments, country by country, to the present day. It thoroughly explores the crimes of slavery, genocide, murder, terrorism – in which even the youngest of children were not exempt – and repression committed in the name of Communism. The most poignant aspects of this book are excerpts from narratives of unfortunate people sentenced to socialist concentration camps for political crimes. Anyone who harbors delusions that Communism, if only applied correctly, would solve all ills should read this book. In every instance Communism results in the gulag and extermination camps.

This book could have been a lot longer. It could not have been any shorter, though: it takes a brick of a book to really provide the crushing scope of this murderous ideology, and the authors have slowly, methodically, relentlessly added example after example to put in display, naked, a monster that killed tens of millions in the 20^th Century and that will continue to kill (one hopes in a far smaller scale) in the 21^st until it wastes itself out and vanishes. Communism became religion and state and proceeded to murder away as if the body count meant better chances of achieving that utopian society it pretended to aim at. We now know the absolute disasters that all Communist societies were (and are) but this book is necessary as a ready reference work on evil that should be next to William Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Communism has managed to kill more than 100 million people, and this estimate is actually quite conservative: Solzhenitsyn puts the figure at 60 million in the former Soviet Union alone; Roy Medvedev opts for 40 million dead just under Stalin, not counting those who died because of World War II; nobody really knows how many millions were murdered by Mao. Many historians and writers had told us parts of this sad tale: Milovan Djilas, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Robert Conquest, W.S. Kuniczak, Aino Kuusinen, Armando Valladares, Roy Medvedev, Dmitri Volkogonov, and others, so many, indeed, that a complete list would require several pages. But the authors of The Black Book of Communism do what none of the other authors had done before: they provide us with a total view of malignity, proving that, from Russia to Korea, from China to Cuba, from Africa to Europe, Communism was, indeed, a cancer.

We in the western democracies have long held a double standard with regard to Fascism and Marxist-Leninist Communism. Books are published almost weekly concerning some aspect of Hitler and the Nazis. Programs dominate documentaries concerning the 20^th Century. Hitler and his followers formed but one of the disgusting stains on the fabric of humanity. However, the Nazis were never able to compete with the scale of terrorism, murder, torture of Communism. The land areas and populations under repression by the Nazis pale in comparison with Communism. A recent election in Austria, in which several supporters of a Nazi apologist were elected, was met with cries of outrage from all over Europe and the United States. No such outcry has greeted the election of any communist legislators in Europe or elsewhere.

This book should serve as a warning to those who have never come face-to-face with the reality of Communism, especially here in the United States. It should serve as a warning concerning those that, in their youth, fully supported the Communist movements in Asia and Cuba and still seek to have major aspects of Communism as a part of the laws and society of the United States. We should remember that Communism has not gone away; it is still very much alive in the world today.

“The Roosevelts: An American Saga”, by Peter Collier and David Horowitz

542 pages, Simon & Schuster, ISBN-13: 978-0671652258

Peter Collier’s and David Horowitz’s The Roosevelts: An American Saga is breathtaking in scope, covering not only presidents Theodore and Franklin, but giving detailed biographies of their forebears and children. The lively prose describes the times and society in which the competing branches of the Roosevelt family existed, with the balance of power moving from Oyster Bay to Hyde Park as Great War shifts to Depression, sand does yeoman’s work describing the great animosity that developed between the two branches of the family. Much of what I had read previously about the two Roosevelts focused on their times as president. This book is all about their families; their home lives, the children and their relationships with their parents and each other.

The contrast between the two families is a major theme of the book, and it gave me a greater respect for the first President Roosevelt: the way he and Edith raised their children and the lasting impact of their love and guidance. But it made me feel sorry for Franklin and Eleanor, and more so for their children. Even though the families are almost contemporaries (just one generation apart, Theodore’s children and Franklin and Eleanor are the same generation), Franklin's family seemed so much more “modern”, illustrating all the problems we think about in families today – divorce, absentee parenting, conflict between parents and between siblings. I know these problems are not new (and not completely absent from Theodore's descendants either), but the difference between the two families seems to reflect the great change in society following the First World War on which so many writers of the time comment.

Although most readers (and most historians) are primarily interested in the two presidents (and Eleanor), the lives of their children also tell important stories of America and the world during the two World Wars and after. Several of the children and grandchildren achieved significant accomplishments in their own right and deserve recognition and remembrance, although none reached the height of their famous fathers. Their lives illustrate the struggles of the children of famous lineage. How can they carry on the family name yet carve out some identity of their own? Who will be the standard bearer for the next generation? Are they trying to live up to their famous name or are they trying to trade off of it? It is in part around these questions that the feud between the Oyster Bay Roosevelts (Theodore's descendants) and the Hyde Park Roosevelts (Franklin and Eleanor) erupts into open conflict, waged in both political and personal arenas.

For many people like me who may feel familiar with the two Presidents but are fuzzy on how they were connected, this book will fill in the gaps. But more than that, it tells a fascinating American story through two branches of one family, leaders of their nation through war and peace but often at war with each other as well.

“Alexander of Macedon, 356-323 B.C.: A Historical Biography”, by Peter Green

617 pages, University of California Press, ISBN-13: 978-0520071650

Mr. Green is possibly the best historian among novelists and the best novelist among historians. His book, Alexander of Macedon, 356-323 B.C.: A Historical Biography, is very reader friendly and transforms the dry history of events into coherent, polished stories. Mr. Green portrayed a very dark Alexander the Great. Don’t get me wrong; it’s not that Alexander cannot be debated or criticized, but rather that history should not be distorted. In this book, we see too much Mr. Green’s personal opinions and judgments. In essence: if Alexander did not do things up to the standards of the present day then that is due to Alexander’s grotesque flawed character; if he did, then it was for propaganda purposes alone.

Amongst his many sins, Green failed to address the situation before Alexander’s expedition and the results and effects after. He claimed that the reason for the expedition was that Macedon badly needed money, and that was all and concluded that the financial difficulty and the profit were the only reasons for the expedition without giving proper credence to Alexander’s (and Philip of Macedon’s) stated purpose: to punish and remove the Persian Empire as an enemy of Greece.

Green further failed to make any proper reference of Alexander to other historical figures. Who in history did better than Alexander? Until today we still cannot find anyone who is remotely comparable to Alexander in politics, military, and contribution to human civilization. If Green reserved such harsh judgment for Alexander, what would he comment on the figure of 1500 years after, Genghis Khan, who did nothing more than destruction in Asia and Europe. Alexander was rather different in that his respect to science and knowledge made him uniquely outstanding in the history. Also, if one refers the politicians of our own time, which one is more sincere than Alexander on any issue being criticized by Green? Green did not make any horizontal comparison (at Alexander's time with other figures) or vertical comparison (with other figures at different eras). This would be a fatal ignorance by any historian.

If a historical figure should be judged by Green's way, every one of them would be convicted in today's court. Green used the saying in Animal Farm to ridicule Alexander's so-called “brotherhood of mankind”. How sincere Alexander on this issue is not an issue: it could be a slogan, a mean for his political purpose as well as genuine as other historians concluded, but when we see the results that Alexander left behind him, an empire that covered Europe, Asia and Africa that produced so many great scholars and the knowledge that still is taught in our time and inspired great scientists since, should we give some credits to Alexander's means and achievements? But Green, claiming every nation and culture is equal, on the other hand he is so sure that his time and his theories are so superior (or “more equal” as he ridiculed Alexander) to others that he can use them to judge a figure living in 2300 years ago. There has been a movement of political correctness claiming every culture is equal. However, we have to realize that Greek culture was far more superior to the others. It is the only culture that created science and democracy. After Alexander, Greek culture entered another golden era.

Green’s book is reinventing history and jumping to conclusions: Green tried to make things favor his theory when there is a clue or even there is no clue. The battle of the River Granicus did not weigh much in the career of Alexander, but since the records about it had some vacancies and inconsistencies, Green jumped to it to dig out something that was not there to conclude that Alexander lost a battle over there and lied to the world. He ignored the records by reliable sources and made his assumption sound as what really happened there with vague sentences in the book and then in the Appendix he made more theories to justify his assumption; however, at the end of the Appendix, after all claims that he made, he said maybe the issue of the battle of is indeed “insoluble”. I saw an irresponsible gossiper who made many rumors and at the end, afraid of being liable for the rumors, he said “after all I did not say anything or at least I did not mean what I said”. Such attitude and action can hardly lead to anywhere but failure.

Mr. Green spent almost an entire chapter denouncing Alexander in the fashion of human right tribunal of our time. History is not the business of fashion, which should not be styled to suit our time or our political purposes. I know it is difficult to put a person’s passions and political views aside when dealing with history, but an historian is supposed respect the facts and base his arguments set within the frame of reference of the era he is studying, rather than his present-day opinions or viewpoints. Green failed do so.