News Archives 11-02 to 3-03

News Archives

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Wilson Boozer - 1/15/2011

It is remarkable to me how many modern Republicans are ignorant of the fact that their party is the legatee of all this. When Thurmond, that uberbigot, joined the Republicans, he brought his ideas with him. His statement, "Ladies and gentlemen. . . there's not enough troops in the Army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigger race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes and into our churches," says it all, and despite his claim to have softened his hatred for blacks later can be discounted for what it was, politically correct blather in his old age.

santiago martinez - 3/9/2010


sell mbt shoes cheap - 11/21/2009

For sell mbt shoes man is man and master of his mbt walking shoes fate. Have an aim in mbt anti shoes life, or your energies will all be wasted. What makes life dreary is the want of mbt uk motive. When the fight begins within himself, a man's mbt shoes worth something.

John Hanson - 7/14/2009

Mr Richard ignores the fact that Windschuttle's claim about ‘historical standard’ being ‘lower in this field’ centred on a large scale attack on Dr Henry Reynolds. This attack centred on Reynolds estimates for the frontier death toll of Aboriginal people in Queensland.

Reynolds held that minimum 10 Aboriginals were killed in retaliation for every white person. Historians and primary sources gives evidence to the effect that somewhere around a 1000 whites were killed by Aboriginals in colonial Queensland so Reynolds roughly calculated ratio would give a minimum of 10 000 Aboriginals shot in Queen-sland alone.

Windschuttle wrote:

‘When he came to write The Other Side of the Frontier, Reynolds decided to combine the figure of 800-850 white deaths with his footnoted guess that the ratio of black deaths to those of whites "may have been" ten to one. So he multiplied 800-850 by ten. This is the origin of the book's claim of 8,000-10,000 Aboriginal deaths….’

This, Windschuttle added ‘…are not claims that should be treated seriously by histo-rians.’ Indeed, such figures are nothing, he wrote, but ‘unsubstantiated guesswork.’

(source: The myths of frontier massacres in Australian history Part II Keith Wind-schuttle/ The fabrication of the Aboriginal death toll Quadrant November 2000 A recent article in the Quadrant follows up on this, claiming that the right figure for Aboriginal casualties caused by whites in colonial Queensland were probably somewhere around 3 000 as opposed to Reynolds 10 000)

Now, Tony Koch document just two cases of this kind, none of which figures promi-nently in Queensland history.

Two whites were killed by Aboriginals one in 1884 the other in 1889 - and all indica-tions presented suggests that perhaps hundreds of Aboriginals, certainly no less than fifty was shot in retaliation in each case. Certainly if this was the norm we would be looking at figures minimum 5 times higher than those originally estimated by Rey-nolds and 17 times those put forward by a resent article in the Quadrant.

Mr Richards ought to take note that this work was performed by officers and troopers employed to do this work by the government of Queensland, and that we are dealing with a force that was operating in that colony for a period of about fifty years.

It is equally clear that this officer’s superiors treated his reports as a matter of simple routine. Moreover, that the officer was applauded for work well done in one of the cases. It may be added that the very same officer was later promoted to Police Com-missioner of Queensland and that he was later put in charge in a semi Governor posi-tion in Northern Territory.

Tony Koch’s findings indicate that Reynolds, far from exaggerating his figures, sug-gested an estimate which was well and truly on the conservative side.

There is mounting evidence, archived and otherwise, demonstrating that massacres on Aboriginal people were indeed very frequent events in colonial Queensland.

I am sure Mr Windschuttle is well aware of this and I should not be the least surprised if he has decided to quietly circumnavigate the history of colonial Queensland alto-gether.

E Batchelor - 9/9/2008

Admittedly it isn't made that clear, but I assume that was was intended by the mention of Cromwell as 'one of the founding fathers of parliamentary democracy' was a reference to the late 19th century view of him, (the time at which the statue was built.)

Parliamentary reform was popular at the time, and many Victorian historians chose to portray Cromwell as an early predecessor of their own reformers.

E Batchelor - 9/9/2008

Admittedly it isn't made that clear, but I assume that was was intended by the mention of Cromwell as 'one of the founding fathers of parliamentary democracy' was a reference to the late 19th century view of him, (the time at which the statue was built.)

Parliamentary reform was popular at the time, and many Victorian historians chose to portray Cromwell as an early predecessor of their own reformers.

Bernal Rondan Francisco - 12/17/2007

Please, can you tell me what day has the first news in UK of the Wellington victory in Waterloo? Thanks

Louise Brown - 4/23/2007

Desmond Zwar,

I agree with your thoughts..........

If you are reading this, would you please e-mail me on the following address as I have some points to make regarding the above subject.

Kate Gladstone - 1/20/2007

Those interested in handwriting may enjoy visiting the Handwriting Repair web-site (home of the World Handwriting Contest and other handwriting-improvement endeavors and information) at

sean james conway - 12/28/2006

I bought a print today attributed to J.C. Hemment and it supposed to be from a volume called the STORY OF THE SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR and the Revolt in the Philippines Published by Peter Fenelon Collier & Son New York. The print is a photograph of "Spanish Prishoners Captured at El Caney. It is copyrighted 1898 by W.R. Hearst. I was trying to find where El Carey is. The print appears to be page 149 of the above identified publication. With the matte it is approximately 16' X 11."

Rob Englert - 11/5/2006

I am endlessly amazed at how terrible human beings can treat each other. We've been sent teachers such as Buddha and Jesus who've shown us the senslessness of hatred. Those who practice it never figure out that the people they hurt the most with that hatred is themselves.

HNN - 9/24/2006

test 2

HNN - 9/24/2006


HNN - 9/15/2006

#1 Max Blumenthal: ABC 9/11 Docudrama's Right-Wing Roots

#2 Eric Alterman: Lying About 9/11? Easy as ABC

#3 Tony Judt: The Strange Death of Liberal America

#4 Gary Leupp: A Third to Half of Americans Still Link Saddam, 9/11

#5 Juan Cole: On Bush and Rockefeller

#6 Ira Chernus: The Day th! at Changed Everything (No, Not 9-11)

#7 Max Holland: Should ABC Have Yanked The Path to 9/11?

#8 Anne Alexander: Unpicking the knots: War and imperialism in the Middle

#9 Fareed Zakaria: Mao & Stalin, Osama & Saddam

#10 Leon Wieseltier: What would Niebuhr do?

HNN - 9/15/2006

#1 Max Blumenthal: ABC 9/11 Docudrama's Right-Wing Roots

#2 Eric Alterman: Lying About 9/11? Easy as ABC

#3 Tony Judt: The Strange Death of Liberal America

#4 Gary Leupp: A Third to Half of Americans Still Link Saddam, 9/11

#5 Juan Cole: On Bush and Rockefeller

#6 Ira Chernus: The Day th! at Changed Everything (No, Not 9-11)

#7 Max Holland: Should ABC Have Yanked The Path to 9/11?

#8 Anne Alexander: Unpicking the knots: War and imperialism in the Middle

#9 Fareed Zakaria: Mao & Stalin, Osama & Saddam

#10 Leon Wieseltier: What would Niebuhr do?

HNN - 9/8/2006

#1 Sidney Blumenthal: Cheney Picks a Biographer

#2 Niall Ferguson: Did the U.S. overreact to Sept. 11?

#3 Juan Cole: Shiite vs. Shiite

#4 Thomas Sowell: Fanatics with Nukes

#5 David Rosner and Gerald Markowitz: 9/11: Katrina Started at Ground Zero

#6 ! Tom Engelhardt: 9/11 in a Movie-Made World

#7 Ivan Eland: What If the U.S. and Iranian Presidents Did Debate?

#8 Daniel Martin Varisco: Bush's Misleading Talk About Democracy

#9 Gerald Posner: Why protect the Saudi royal family and Pakistani

#10 Katha Pollitt: The Trouble with Bush's 'Islamofascism'

HNN - 8/18/2006

#1 David Greenberg: Is Lamont Another McGovern?

#2 John Keegan: What went wrong in Iraq--and how to make it right.

#3 Niall Ferguson: The Next War of the World

#4 Alan Dershowitz: Hezbollah's Final Solution

#5 Stephen Morris: It Is Islamic Fascism

#6 Michael Auslin: North Korea's Marshall Plan

#7&nb! sp; Stephen Kinzer: The 14 Governments the US has Overthrown

#8 Julie Bishop: If we forget our nation's past, we will fail our future (Australia)

#9 Humberto Fontova: Historians Have Absolved Fidel Castro

#10 David Halberstam: Romney's unlearned lesson

HNN - 8/12/2006

#1 Bernard Lewis: On the chances "MAD" would deter Iran from using nukes

#2 Walid Phares: Hezbollah's Political Blitzkrieg

#3 Mark LeVine: 101 Uses of Chaos

#4 Gabriel Kolko: 21st century technology and primitive political attitudes

#5 Gary Leupp: "Kill All Military Age Men!"

#6 Juan Cole: Bush, Islamic Fascism and the Christians of Jounieh

#7 Jon Wiener: Beyond My Lai ... New Revelations of Vietnam Atrocities

#8 Michael B. Oren: Israel could lose the war but win the peace

#9 Conn Hallinan: How the Irish Can Save the Middle East

#10 Ilan Stavans: What's civil rights history without Latinos?

HNN - 7/31/2006

#1 Juan Cole: Congress Expects Islamic Dawa to Support Israel, Condemn

#2 Daniel Pipes: Arabs Disavow Hizbullah

#3 John Voll: The "Guns of Lebanon 2006" are NOT the "Guns of August 1914"

#4 ABA Report: History of Signing Statements Shows Bush II Has Gone Further
than Predecessors

#5 Richard Gott: The brutal story of British empire continues to this day

#6 Neve Gordon: Talking down the war

#7 Arthur Herman: What Nasser wrought when he seized Suez a half century ago

#8 Thomas E. Ricks: In Iraq, Military Forgot the Lessons of Vietnam

#9 David Greenberg: Why the villain of The History Boys is the better
#10 John Dean: The Story Behind the Bogus History of Watergate Presented in
Silent Coup

HNN - 7/23/2006

#1 Kevin Baker: Stabbed in the Back!

#2 Michael B. Oren: Why Israel should bomb Syria

#3 Daniel Pipes: Israel has a war to win

#4 Michael T. Klare: An Imperial Defeatist -- And Proud of It

#5 Juan Cole: Israel's Maximal Option

#6 Ted Steinberg: Why Deregulation Is to Blame in part for Katrina and Other
Natural Disasters

#7 Robert Jensen: Florida's Fear of History! 6/7/#28428

#8 Mark Tushnet & Saul Cornell: The Second Amendment & Gun Control ... An
Email Dialogue

#9 Richard Cohen: Hunker Down With History

#10 H-Diplo Roundtable: Eric Alterman, When Presidents Lie

Henry Oglivy - 7/19/2006

Anni-Frid Lyngstad found her father (or more correctly he found her) in 1977, he was called Alfred Haase.

Note: I made a type in my previosu post and wrote 'Labanborn' instead of Lebensborn, for some reason. Sorry.

Henry Oglivy - 7/19/2006

This is one of the most disgusting things I have ever known. It sickens me who evil mankind can be and how disgustingly they can treat their fellow humans.

I think it is a disgraceful blot on not only Norway, but the world, that this could happen.

The Nazis that were created by the Labanborn project, where those that abused the innocent children that were born of a German Serviceman.

If these INNOCENT people do not get justice then the Norwegian government is not fit to rule a part of the 'civilised' world.


HNN - 7/17/2006

#1 Noemie Emery : Truman's heirs are Republicans now

#2 Samar Assad: A History of Israeli-Palestinian Prisoner Exchanges

#3 Benny Morris: The Future of Hamas

#4 Daniel Pipes: Trouble in Londonistan

#5 Victor Davis Hanson: The Subtexts of War

#6 Charles Krauthammer: Why Israel Is Being Attacked

#7 Marwan Bishara: Israel on the Offensive

#8 David Hirst: Overnight Lebanon has been plunged into a role it endured
for 25 years

#9 Edward Rothstein: Democracy's Best Friend or Antidemocratic Elitist?

#10 David R. Roediger: Whiteness Studies ... Where Things Stand Now

No ne - 5/22/2006

Your correction is actually incorrect. Wen Tianxiang did fight against the Mongols. Yue Fei protected China against the ancestors of Manchuria (the Jurchens, who concurrently founded the Jin empire), but they were not the only invading force during the decline of the Song dynasty. Yue Fei succeeded in fending off the Jurchen temporarily. After his death, the Chinese emperor invited the Mongols to help fight the Jurchens. After the Jin empire fell, the Mongolians stayed, took over all of China from the Song dynasty, and founded their own Yuan dynasty. Wen Tianxiang, who was born about 100 years after Yue Fei, fought valiantly, yet futilely, to resist the Mongol invasion.

Deborah Anne Iseminger - 9/28/2005

There is nothing that could ever be done to justify a babys murder,. I decsend frome the Nottoways through George Skipper, and i think what our ancestors did to ALL Indians just awful, but what is done as a "Group" does not Justify what is done as an individual, the only one responable for that babys murder was the one who did it

Deborah Anne Iseminger - 9/28/2005

There is nothing that could ever be done to justify a babys murder,. I decsend frome the Nottoways through George Skipper, and i think what our ancestors did to ALL Indians just awful, but what is done as a "Group" does not Justify what is done as an individual, the only one responable for that babys murder was the one who did it

Deborah Anne Iseminger - 9/28/2005

Hello Bill, (firemaker) myself and a cousin (Skipper) also descend from George Skipper Cheif of the Nottoways, We would love to talk to you,

Scott Booth - 8/1/2005

Does anyone know whether there was a Lebensborn home in or in the general vicinity of Balingen, Norway? The above article states that Anni-Frid "Frida" Lyngstad was a Lebensborn child, daughter of a Norweigan mother and a German father, but was she a Lebensborn child at all?

Max Martin - 6/29/2005

I am also Nottoway. A descendant of Rachel Seahorse Stepp. I believe it's about time history's truths are exposed to everyone. Even in the schools. If the truth isn't told now, it may be lost. I am looking to contact more Nottoway so if you want to e-mail me at, feel free.

Pete k Morton - 5/30/2005

I don't profess to be a writer therefore my message here may not be as clear as I might like but I shall persevere nonetheless.

I visited Budapest on what was meant to be a drunken weekend away about a month back. The first night lived upto it's expectations. I was mightily impressed by the distinctive style of architecture. Not so much with the magnificence of the Parliament building, the castle or the many impressive religious and museum structures but with the enormity of the apartment blocks that lined each and every Pest street. I mean the 6 or more story buildings, each with it's own carved feature. Be it a lion, a gargoyle of some type or whatever. I couldn't help but think back to Wales where I am from realise how uninspiring and unimaginative our architects have been and continue to be.

This is an impressive city by anyone's standards. It is bustling, up-and-coming and big.

On my last full day I visited the Holocaust Museum which has been effectively and educationally been put together. However, it's modern design leaves you feeling removed from the horrific events that it teaches you about. Then someone suggested I visit the 'Terror Museum.' To be honest I went there not having the faintest idea what it was about. After all, I knew absolutely nothing whatsoever about Hungary and it's history. I arrived with open eyes and an open mind. I left the 'Terror Museum' humbled beyond belief.

What makes this building humbling is the fact that it demonstrates not an event that took place somewhere else in history but an event, a series of events that took place in that very place. Some of the rooms send a shiver down the spine. It is hard to believe that a nation was brutalised by a regime only to be 'rescued' by another equally brutal regime who brutalised them all over again. There is a presence in the dungeon rooms that I believe can only be experienced when you visit the building. For me this was a visit that moved me greatly and has led me to educate myself about the events that took place in this beautiful city and great country.

I don't believe it is possible for any person to leave the 'Terror Museum' having enjoyed it, yet I don't believe it is possible for a person to leave the 'Terror Museum' not evidently affected by it.

I left 60 Andrassy Utca a different person than that I arrived as. Whether I have a morbid fascination or whether I have been moved to oppose such activity around the world today remains to be seen but one thing is for certain, whilst men and women around the world can bring peace and harmony, others can be brutal and calculating monsters. Can the rest of us sit back and watch this happen in our world today or can we act to help those being terrorized? Maybe a visit to this museum can offer you some guidance.

Guillermo Oncins - 5/19/2005

Dear Inácio, I had the privile of corresponding with you in the past and, after many problems with my PC, have now retrieved your contact.
I am a sincere admiror of the Captain and have read several times his biography that you co-authored. I also visited Porto and the Kadoorie Synanogue, and was disappointed to verify that nothing or almost nothing remains there of the great work of Ben-Rosh.
Anyhow, I am still very much interested on everything concerning the Portuguese Dreyfusand his work, and would like to be uptated about any new publications, activities, etc.
I also have lost contact with my good friend SERGIO CASTRO PINHEIRO. Do you have his present e-mail address??
Thanks for a few lines with your comments.
I finally wish to have a good copy of the photograph on "O RESGATE DOS MARRANOS PORTUGUESES",by David Augusto Canelo, where Captain is with Rabbi Baruch Ben Jacob and others, on page 113. Maybe you can direct me to where I could obtain it, as the one on the book is of very poor quality.
Thanks so much for you assistance and best regards!
Guillermo Oncins

Richard W South - 4/19/2005

Will a Manned Mars Mission be a one-off trip?
Could a disaster in the Manned Mars program cause NASA to be dismantled?
Do you think the first city on the moon will speak English or Chinese?

Kate Bissell - 2/24/2005

Dear Della,

I am currently making a BBC Radio documentary about Lebensborn children from Norway and Germany. I found your web posting on the History News Network regarding your husband Eduard Gehrmann. I am very keen to speak to Lebensborn children particularly those who are still trying to trace their paternal parents. I was hoping that your husband may be interested in telling me about his own experience and whether you have had any luck finding his real identity.

Whilst researching for this documentary I have come across several people who specialize in helping Lebensborn children find their roots. Please let me know if you are still interested in receiving information about Lebensborn children.

If you would like to get in touch my e-mail address is

Kind Regards,

Kate Bissell

tony salomone - 11/15/2004


i read your article and i am doing my senior thesis at SFSU on cultural plurality in SF and would like to know your the various ethnicities and races in SF and the entire US constitute a cultural plurality or do you think that ethnicities in in the US assimilate into one group and culture? please get back to me at your convenience

-tony salomone

Marie Jackson - 11/1/2004

Message for Frank Charmer Re:Small Pox. I am the daughter of Desmond Noon. We would be pleased to get in touch.

Janie White - 10/8/2004

Are there any reviews or critiques of this 7th grade social studies textbook?

Allison Brown - 9/8/2004

I am a freelance translator presently translating Joerg Friedrich's book into English for Columbia University Press. It will probably be available in late 2005.

Tim Wright - 7/19/2004

Just don't, "Praise Allah and pass the ammunition..."

One, after all, is "right" and the other "wrong."

This is just another "righteous" Christian ranting against a pluralistic view of the past that recognizes that the world (which includes the United States) is not made up of a single faith or religious viewpoint. The author here offers few specifics and a quick click of the link to the militantly Christian website shows that this is a group that toes a narrow line that condemns just about anyone who doesn't agree with them or their blinders on approach to Christianity and "God's word." Their rants are filled with hate against homosexuals (accusing them of "raping" California because they seek equal protection under the state and federal Constitutions), visions of Islam as an evil force out to conquer the world, and an insistence that sex education equals porn.

The textbooks Ms. Schroeder talks about have been around for more than a decade in one version or another and her, aside from being rather sketchy on what is so offensive about the book, doesn't give a fair or balanced portrayal of the book. To get that balance, take a look at Houghton Mifflin's response to some post 9/11 criticism of the lessons in it:

Also, as a final note, I cannot believe this "good" woman would really encourage children to vandalize school property. What's next, "Godly" graffitti in the girl's bathroom and Christian enforcers on the playground? I hope my children aren't forced to grow up up in her world.

L. Yantsos - 7/19/2004

I can't get the book. How come?

Sylvia Carling - 7/19/2004

I have been surprised that there seem to be no film records of the Dunsterforce Campaign in 1918.So many WW1 campaigns in France etc have been shown on TV over the years and yet nothing on Mesopotamia.I know a little of the Dunsterforce Campaign,I believe my own Grandfather lost his life there in September 1918.I wondered if any film had been taken at this time.It certainly seem to be the Neglected War A.J.Barker wrote about.

Joe Lane - 7/19/2004

I hope this site is still active:
Urquhart's predecessor (literally!) was, I believe, my great-grandfather, Marcus de la Poer Beresford. My [illegitimate] grandfather used to speak of his older brothers going out hunting blackfellows after church on Sundays, in the Gulf country in the early 1880s. De la Poer was, by all accounts, a useless degenerate: his family was descended on one side (Beresfords) from carpet-baggers coming over to SE Ireland with Cromwell's thugs and on the other side from the de la Poers (Powers), Earls of Tyrone, etc, (Tyrone Power is another relation)who had come over with the Normans in the late 12th century to do the same sort of thing in northern Ireland (does history repeat itself or what?!). Ironically, many of the rest of the family settled here in South Australia, and I married an Aboriginal girl from that same region, now a senior lecturer at the largest university in South Australia.
Land-grab policy in South Australia was much more subtle, yet more rapid: from 1830 to 1860, almost all of the state would have been conquered - of course, it is only half the size of Queensland at 362,000 sq.m., and with far less attractive country, apart from along the Murray River.
I would be happy to keep any interested readers informed if they wish. Like everywhere else, this place has had a tragic, fascinating and complicated history. The history of the whaling industry here and its impacts on Aboriginal society throws up some surprises, for example.

Godbear Hansen - 7/19/2004

That's life.
I'm sick and tired of hearing about the lebensborn children. I think they have been treated wrong, but the Germans never did anything for THEIR "lebensborn" children. It was a german product, and I think their German fathers should have taken their share.
Of course... A "legensborn" child would be accepted in Germany because of it's cleaner Arian genes.
The "Nazi Whores" was a shame for the Norwegian people. The Norwegians suffering during the world war made them bitter. The "whores" was to "good" for the norwegians during the war. During the war they did not join the norwegian community, but preferred the Germans. This way they could get jewelry, food and entertainment. The "Whores" is also responible for the loss of many a norwegian life. They could not be trusted.
Think the "whores" deserved what they got, because of their selfishness and ego. The lebensborn is a victim. And both Germany and Norway is directly responsible for this. USA and England is responible too. Because they refused the Norwegian gouverment plans to send these children (and mothers) to their fathers in Germany, where they would not be frozen out by the people. In Germany they could be proud of their genes, instead of being ashamed of their genes living in Norway.
Norway admits their quilt, but I think that Germany should take their responsibility too.
Lucky for Hitler.... He did not get the best genes for his "lebensborn". He took the genes "First myself, then myself... and if there is more... to myself.."
In many ways he took the weakest genes. The selfish genes. So he would never manage to make the perfect soldier, because a soldier like that must never bow under, be loyal to the country and be strong in both mind and body.

Greetings from

PS: That's life... An action always makes an reaction...
To the "whores": You deserve it. "In bed with the enemy". What do they talk about...
To the "lebensborn": To bad nobody took the responibility for your human rights, but the Norwegian state is not responible for what norwegians do. Can't force them to hire you, play with you or sleep with you. Norwegians have always been a people which freezes out what they call a "quisling". So they probably froze you out because of your mothers. The norwegian state is however responsible for the institutes etc.

Nil Savci - 7/19/2004


Jim Meisner - 7/19/2004

Just saw the movie on dvd for the first time. It seemed way overdone to me, kind of like watching Oliver Twist. Your NPR interview set the record straight. Thanks! I'll have to read your book for a more serious treatment of an interesting topic in American History, but the movie is a good way to introduce the topic and whet the appetite for more details.

B Garai - 6/30/2004

The website of the organisation Gerd Fleischer is working for:
You can find an e-mail there, try that.

Rhonda K Jackson - 6/16/2004

Like the Natives of North America, Aborigines have been subjected to no less than the aboriginal cultures around the world. I find is frustrating, sad and criminal that due to nothing less than the color of our skin, we have been subjected to the rules and the religion of white society.
Today, I find it truly heartbreaking that those of my race would rather embrace a religion that was once forced upon us...than to be proud and whole heartedly take hold and practice our culture and preserve our heritage.
In the name of religion, we were beaten, humiliated, abused and tortured. Those that survived, few function as complete, proud, happy individuals.
I watched this movie, for the first time, and believed it, not because I wanted to...but because I believe in the cruelty and the hypocrisy of those people that think themselves superior than anyone else.
Now take off the white sheet, put out the burning cross in that yard and start taking responsibility for YOUR actions and quit blaming your failures on those that are not "like" you.

Dan - Bessie - 6/6/2004

Correction... Alvah NEVER appeared before Senator McCarthy. He appeared before the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities of the House of Representatives. McCarthy was a senator. Alvah's 10 months in prison were a result of the House hearing. It all happened during the McCarthy era, and though his name became associated with blacklisting, McCarthy had nothing to do with investigating Hollywood.

Dan Bessie

Steven Eugene Miller - 5/30/2004

I am also Nottoway by blood. I've been searching for proof of this for over twenty years. In doing so I also found out that I'm a desendant of Thomas Jefferson. My lineage is as follows:
Thomas Jefferson> Sally Hemings
Thomas Woodson> Jemima Grant Price
David Nukes,(Nooks, Noaks, Nookes, ect)> Jemima Woodson
Hezekiah Minor> Jemima Nukes
Alta Elizabeth Minor> Unknown Caucasian man
Anabelle Minor> William Armstrong
Clarence F. Miller> Winifred A. Armstrong (My Parents)

Norbert J Johnson - 5/4/2004

I am also Nottaway.

I am of the family Rogers, Anderson, Edwards, Gill. Our family migrated with Great Elk, a Nottaway Chief to the Cherokee, then to Ohio and finally Grand River Reserve Canada.

We have land interests on a federal Indian reservation in Wisconsin as well. We are the Cheroenhaka Tribal Community. We are also within the Nottaway Confederation trying to restore the Nottaway Tribe. The main office of the Nottaway Confederation is located in Winton, NC. There is a North Carolina Nottaway Tribal Community located there which is a Chartered Corporation of a Federal Indian Tribe.

John Stanley Macfarlane - 4/24/2004

I have read Kim Beattie's History of the 48th highlanders of Canada 1891-1918 and the only mention of Sgt.H. Band that I can find is on page 54. He was commanding No.9 Platoon under Capt. A.N. Daniels..Do you have any further information in the 4th War Diaries or communiques that might throw further light on this story. With many thanks - Capt.Stan Macfarlane WW2

Tracey Jones - 12/22/2003

i am a black 42 year old female who's roots go back to the state of Alabama,My parents were sharecroppers on cotton fields, i need to talk to someone about getting in on the class action lawsuit.

Courtis - 12/21/2003

Article ws not written by the writer you have bylined. Please correct or delete . . .

Robert Gilroy - 12/21/2003

To suggest this against Keith Windschuttle is laughable, he is without a doubt, the most credible Australians we have.
Robert Gilroy.

zach - 12/19/2003

your site sucks my balls

H.W.W.H - 12/16/2003

I recommend reading: "Silent Night: The Story of the World War I Christmas Truce" by Stanley Weintraub". He collected letters, among other things,and accounts from both sides regarding this remarkable event where common soldiers and front line Officers did fraternize. The Generals and their respective Staffs, learning about these revolting turn of events must have been horrified, after all unemployment loomed and their Champagne guzzling Good Times might end, God forbid they might have to seek undignified “honest” employment.
Yes this event would and could not be repeated after WW1, which ushered in the death of Western Civilization and/or Christendom as well as the concepts of personal honour and chivalry. The leaders ("rulers") during WW2, without exception, regarded their charges as little more than disposable cannon fodder, whilst proclaiming to save Western Civilization, Europe, Christendom, the Empire, or whatever issue they did fancy

Dave Livingston - 12/16/2003

It is amazing the lentghs to which some folks will go to dream up counter-cultural theories about things Christian.

For Pete's (St. Peter's)sake, here we have another instance of an academic's inability to see the trees for the forest, attempting to make a simple matter complicated. There is nothing very complicated about the origin of Christmas, just look (and see) the word itself, Christmas is a contraction of the phrase Christ's Mass, which itself is a summation of the phrase/concept Mass to celebrate the birth of Christ. The feast day was indeed chosen to be celebrated at the winter solsoltice as a device to aid in evangelizing pagans, to slowly ween pagans from their pagan celebrations to Christian worship. So what in the heck was wrong with doing that? Multicultural types should appreciate it.

Duane E. Tressler - 12/15/2003

LOOKING for Reid Mitchell--formerly assoc. professor of history at Univ. of Maryland at Baltimore County in Catonsville. Am a member/officer of Friends of President Street Station at Baltimore Civil War Museum and wish to speak/phone/write to you regarding a new forward/introduction to a reprinted 1997 edition of Benson Lossing's "Field Guide to the Civil War" from 1870-76 by Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. of Baltimore.

Please contact me at email above (occasionally gets filled up though --also use or at postal address at 3712 Pennington Avenue, Curtis Bay; Baltimore, Md. 21226 - phone (410) 354-3712. Also can reach co-worker and friend Robert E. Reyes at 126 Club Road; Riviera Beach; Pasadena, Md. 21122, phone at (410 437-4467.

Website for FofPSS is and also at (as we are also now part of Md. Historical Society)in addition we are listed at and

I have my own websites of local community history at,, and

Hope to hear from you through contact at this site as have already done a "google" search regarding some of your previous books and seminars.

(Mon., 12/15/03 - 6:45 pm EST)

Dorh.yan - 12/10/2003

First, here is the correction:
What Wen Tianxiang fought was Manchuria, the descendant of Jurchen that was what Yue Fei’s ethnic enemies, not Mongolia.
Chinese government tries to distinguish north nomadic people from foreigners, so they can keep that part of territories legitimately. As well truth is few and fewer these people can speak their own language, but they are not extinct yet, of cause Chinese people have patient to see it from happening.
I am Manchuria, I have Jurchen blood rather than Chinese blood, and I am proud of being this ethnic. From time to time one nation rises, and one nation falls, but nobody can change what happened, because it is history. If these people belong to what they keep saying ‘great, brave’ nation, they should face it rather than avoid it.

Anthow - 12/10/2003

what troubles, or problems were going on in the world and what did pope Pius 11 try,and do to fix them?

george Vancover - 12/3/2003

hi how is it going my name is tituba
c u later
bye bye bye bye bye

Lee - 12/1/2003

I'm trying to find an address to send some information to Ms Reynolds for a friend of mine instead of emailing it. Please advise of a proper address.

Thank you. Lee

alex w. penns - 11/28/2003

I was very impressed with Ms. Catherine Reynolds and husband interview with 60 minutes. Her perspective and outlook on life is totally genuine. The Smithonian is out of their mind, claiming that she is trying to buy her way into society with a genious donation. I find their action against Ms. Reynold is appalling, and I commend her for moving up in life as she did. I can only give her Kudos. I am in total agreement with her reply to help the under achievers financially. When time are hard, it sometime take a person like her to give one incentive to better themself in life. If only I could have that opportunity, I would do the same and give back to others less fortunate. I have always worked two full time jobs to help my family for the last 35 years. Please send me an address for sending a letter to her, my address is 5252 Mineral Lake Dr. Las Vegas, Nv.89122

Heather - 11/26/2003

Quite some time ago my father was searching in the attic of an old farm house where he used to live. Underneath the insulation and amongst other stuff he came across a paritial book copyright 1898 Hearst. It is about the Spanish Civil War and was strung together. The pages are somewhat damaged but the photos and or drawings were by JC HEmment, CD GRaves, James H Hare and paintings by FC Yohn. The book is approximately 16 x 11. My son seems to think that the photos are actually pencil drawings. I am trying to gather more information about this book as I only have parts. Never was able to locate the rest.If you could help that would be wonderful. Thanks

jason tompkins - 11/21/2003

need more info

Ragnar - 11/16/2003

What you don't seem to understand is that the key to modern prosperity has been industrialization. In 1750, most British as well as most Indians were peasants trying to make a meagre living off the land, possessing a very low standard of living because the society could not provide many goods for its members, lacking education, dying of disease, and living for only about thirty years on average. The existence of impressive manufacturing cities in India does not constitute industrialization and affected only a small proportion of the Indian population. It was not an industrial revolution that increased standard of living and life expectancy. Machine production changed all this. India can only be compared to Britain in 1750 by being very vague but the devil is in the details. For example, who was the Indian Isaac Newton or James Watt and what great achievements did they provide not only to India but to human knowledge? This bizarre notion that somehow the Mughals were "modern" but the British conquered and exploited them begs the question of how such an advanced society ever could be taken over by the lowly British. The key to modernism is British liberalism, including modern science and technology, a belief in liberty, democracy, and capitalism. The Mughals believed in none of these things. These fictions of lost "Golden Ages" might be helpful in convincing traditional peoples to accept the blessings of liberal modernism, but they make for bad history. Also, more respect is shown to past civilizations by not misrepresenting them. I am sure that Mughal Muslims would love to know that they embraced change away from the practices of Muhammad. Any theory that tries to explain history by minimizing the complex cultural differences between human societies and the impact of these differences can only hope to create inaccurate cariactures.

jeff weber - 11/15/2003

I am a proad canadian but after seeing the program about the crucified the soldier, i was disgusted, and irritated at the fact that the german army has never formally apoligized and taken responsibility. My great uncle faught in the first world war on the side of the germans, one of the reasons that he emmigrated was due to the attrocities that he saw committed during war time by fellow german officers, as well as allied officers. I still believe that the event happened and that the German government should appoligize.

dick face - 11/14/2003

I have a dick face and howard tucker wears pants y?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!? :'( i think im goin 2 killmy self as im a dick face with no pubes! help me or i wont b able 2 have any more orgasms!

Sunman - 11/11/2003

Intresting you mention Sol Invictus. But did you know that it was a date that was already honored for the birth of a savior of the world way before Christ was come into the world?
It was the birth date, Dec.25th, as we know it to be today of Horus son of Isis and Osiris

haward - 11/7/2003

I wear pants

Allie - 11/4/2003

I am trying to find out Mr. Brinkley's email/phone number to conduct and interview with him on the UN for a history project of mine. If you could let me know his email address or phone number so I could contact him that would be great.

Charlie Tucker - 11/3/2003

I missed Andy's talk November 2nd 03 on CBS. Could I get a copy of it, he is the best show on all of TV.

Qui Quiratman - 10/29/2003

This Was Was Deeper Than Any war history I ever read about
I dont blame Captian Roy Brown for cursing the war it was one of the sadest moments of Captian Roy Browns life about killing the Red Baron well if i had no choice to choose Peace & it was A time of War i would of half to Kill The Red Baron if he was about to kill me 4 being a Ace Pilot & protecting my Country
i would do what I was told to do in the royal army. to stay alive
well i cant Picture My self in that time pirod becuz I wasnt existing that time it is A good thing to read about history to educate yourself even though it is sad to read about war its how we learned are deeper sources & roots of the way of Life
During a time of war & how war was its sad to read about it
well thats how life itself operates is through the chain of money,sex,violence,cruelty, Peace & God.

This WAS Good subject 2 read about The Red Baron
I thinck They should make A Movie about the Red Baron so people could get a better Idea what it was Like to see a war hreo name Roy Brown A ace Pilot in action during a dog fight against the RED Beron so we could give more respect to war heros & war vetrons as a memoral & contribution to are soldiers served & died In Action.

JUST to let you know im not a war buff I was just interested who was the Red Beron realy it will be good if they could make a up to date Red Beron action pack movie that could be a contribution 4 his honor & A honor To do it in respect of the WAR HERO THAT SHOT HIM DOWN.
good buy & write me Back.
Of war a Hero,s welcome.

Qui Quiratman - 10/29/2003

This Was Was Deeper Than Any war history I ever read about
I dont blame Captian Roy Brown for cursing the war it was one of the sadest moments of Captian Roy Browns life about killing the Red Baron well if i had no choice to choose Peace & it was A time of War i would of half to Kill The Red Baron if he was about to kill me 4 being a Ace Pilot & protecting my Country
i would do what I was told to do in the royal army. to stay alive
well i cant Picture My self in that time pirod becuz I wasnt existing that time it is A good thing to read about history to educate yourself even though it is sad to read about war its how we learned are deeper sources & roots of the way of Life
During a time of war & how war was its sad to read about it
well thats how life itself operates is through the chain of money,sex,violence,cruelty, Peace & God.

This WAS Good subject 2 read about The Red Baron
I thinck They should make A Movie about the Red Baron so people could get a better Idea what it was Like to see a war hreo name Roy Brown A ace Pilot in action during a dog fight against the RED Beron so we could give more respect to war heros & war vetrons as a memoral & contribution to are soldiers served & died In Action.

JUST to let you know im not a war buff I was just interested who was the Red Beron realy it will be good if they could make a up to date Red Beron action pack movie that could be a contribution 4 his honor & A honor To do it in respect of the WAR HERO THAT SHOT HIM DOWN.
good buy & write me Back.
Of war a Hero,s welcome.

Arline Nivens - 10/28/2003

I would like to get help in finishing medical school could Catherine Reynolds help me reach that goal. How would I go about proposing this question to her does she have an email address where she reviews such requests?

Arline Nivens
520 Rosetta ave apt2
Miamisburg Ohio 45342

Arline Nivens - 10/28/2003

I would like to get help in finishing medical school could Catherine Reynolds help me rech that goal. How would I go about proposing this question to her does she have an email address where she reviews such requests?

Arline Nivens
Miamisburg Ohio

Sonia Broadley (nee Bauch) - 10/28/2003

I have only just learnt that my father Erich Bauch was one of the children on the Winton's List who arrived in England in 1939 from Teplice nr Prague. It appears that he was listed as "Movement" and helped by the Youth Aliyal Farm School and was sent to Castle Gwyrch in North Wales. I have yet been unable to find details of his sister Stella Bauch but will keep looking. Although my grandparents and father and aunt have now passed away they were lucky enough to be reunited and lived a happy life in England due to the goodness of Nicholas Winton.

I recently visited Teplice and found the house that my grandparents and father and aunt lived in before they were forced to leave. Teplice is a lovely city and it must have been frightening for all those families torn from their friends and homes during this dreadful period. My grandfather Emil Bauch was a cleric in the town and I believe also owned a margarine factory. My grandmother was Martha Bauch.

If you have any further information to offer I would be extremely grateful if you could reply to my e-mail address as follows;-

Kind regards.

Sonia Broadley (nee Bauch)

james - 10/26/2003

this is very interesting

Richard - 10/22/2003

Windschuttle does not "deny that unsavoury things did occur". He has backed some cases of frontier massacres, notably by Police at Coniston in NT, and rejected others. To date his only (1) published book on the subject has dealt with Tasmania alone. News reports say he is planning a book on Queensland so we will just have to wait to see what he says of Urqhart, who certainly sounds like a war criminal to me.

Windschuttle's main theme is that historical evidence standards are lower in this field. I don't think he ever said that Australian frontier history was without violence. He is objecting to the current fashion to equate "The Destruction of Aboriginal Society" with the state planned genocides of Nazi Germany etc. Nothing of the sort occured and colonial documentation is sufficient to prove there was no such policy.

Dr. Robert M. Zamora - 10/18/2003

I didn't like Cromwell that well but neither do I like this film either. I am
getting rather weary of film makers vaunting their biases and ideologies and excuse it claiming artistic licenses. A lie,is a lie, is a lie! I can appreciate the attempt to give clarification of the spirit of an era and an
interpretation of a character but not at the expense of an outright untruth.
Why do I bother to write. If you don't care about the veracity of your own history why should I. We have such careless and disengenous people on our side of the Atlantic.

Dave Livingston - 10/17/2003

A mite late getting around to a response to Iaci's query, nonetheless:

Approximately 26% of those G.I.s who actually served in-country in Viet-Nam were draftees. My source, "V.F.W." magazine, March, 1993

MURIEL - 10/15/2003

during war all are victims even some military who are forced to serve

gino - 10/11/2003

Eduardo this is Gino. Remember we met in London. If this is you reply to me.

Regds Gino Hardial Singh

PAUL BROCK - 10/5/2003

I read this article with great interest. If I may be permitted to address Mr Winton personally for a minute (please pass this on to him): what you have done is surely of great historical importance, and much to look back on.

One thing that concerns me, however, and that is: you are now nearing the end of your life. Becuase of thi, do you as yet know Jesus Christ as your own personal Lord Saviour and Messiah? Because when you pass from this life, you will have to stand before him one day, and you will give an account of your life to him. But one thing you will be very much "tested" on here is: WHERE DID JESUS CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD, FEATURE IN YOUR LIFE?

Mr Winton, P L E A S E for your own eternal sake, risk going to an eternity without Jesus. You must be washed in his blood to make you clean before the Lord.

David Martinez - 10/2/2003

As far as you and I know Hitler was never was expelled from the Catholic faith. But if you want to level that charge at the Catholic church, then you must level the same charge to all other Christian faiths. Where were the baptists, anglicans, lutherans, episcopalians, methodist, presbyterians, and all other Christian faiths at the beginning of the atrocities leveled at the Jew's? In addition, which faith suffered more casualties than did the Catholic faith in terms of priests and nuns?

Christian Dunlap - 10/1/2003


Like the previous post by Madeline Kleinpaste, I am interested in finding any interview transcripts with Paul Hansen, Gerd Fleischer, Agnes Moller Jensen for a research project. Ideally, I would perfer to contact them personally, but feel they have probably been bombarded with questions concerning their harrowing past over the last year.

Madeline, if you have suceeded in contacting any of these indiviuals I would be ingratiated to you for sharing whatever imformation you can. I can be contacted via email at



tamer mohamed abbas - 9/30/2003

I wouid like to know about you services

Larry C. Tooker - 9/29/2003




214 529 0676
510 Meandering Way
Fairview, TX 75069

Della Gehrmann - 9/28/2003

Hello, I am posting for my husband Eduard Gehrmann, he is a war child with an unknown identity. We believe he is a lebensborn child. Could someone please put us in the right direction to find out if he is or where we could search for answers. Thank you in advance. We would greatly appreciate any assistance. Yours truly, Della Gehrmann

absolom - 9/25/2003

Michael. have a test for menashe tribes to proof if they have a trace of jewish chromosome by means of genetic test

editor - 9/19/2003


Joe Hunkins - 9/19/2003

NPR, as usual, *Rocks* by interviewing the best subject to discuss the key question from the film! Noting the graphic and overwhelming scenes of violence I'd wondered if this was historically accurate or simply more of the delusional hollywood mystique that portrays sex, violence, and social dysfunction as more common than they are. Thanks to the prof I know it was historical revisionism played inside a beautifully accurate historical wrapper.

Vicki Pavlova - 9/15/2003

I think that Mrs. Reynolds is doing wonderful things! I am a student at the College of William and Mary, VA and I know from my personal experience how an individual CAN make a difference. If it was not for that, my dream would have never come true. If there is anything I can do to contribute to the cause - please let me know. Thank You, Mrs. Reynolds for doing great things you do for us, young generation. People like you inspire us to keep going towards achieving our goals.


Vicki Pavlova

Bernd Tessmann - 9/12/2003

Please check our new Pomerania Worldsite .
Schauen Sie mal in unsere Pommern Weltseite

Bernd Tessmann , Tampa - USA

Angela Thomas - 9/10/2003

You took the words right out of my mouth, Chris. Most of the foundations are tax loopholes for the rich and they basically pass grants back and forth to each other. Nobody will even look at your idea, if you're not affiliated with a prestigious university or institute -- as if individuals are not creative and worthy! I'm working on something to revolutionize study in Egyptology involving translations of French and German works into English to allow nonscholars access to fundamental publications, but it's been slow going, struggling to survive and all and it's destroying my health -- but I won't give up. My next job will probably be receptionist or some other waste of all my talent and my great education. Reception work takes a certain temperament, contrary to popular belief not everyone who can talk can do it! What a waste of a life! And there are millions of us out there. "Education is the key" -- yeah, right, what planet do those live on who claim that?

Oswaldo F. de Melo - 9/4/2003

I would like to know the following: in what year was The Times London's oldest daily Newspaper, first published?



Rayola Knudsen - 9/2/2003

Attn: Catherine Reynolds Foundation
September 2, 2003

You were turned down for a great idea on "60 Minutes", Aug 24; would your foundation consider a slightly different idea which could be accomplished with $125,000 per the U. of Minnesota.

Our son, Chuck, was born 44 years ago with Cerebral Palsy and a severe hearing loss (95db loss). In spite of a multiple handicap he has educated himself and has held a full time job driving a school bus for 24 years. However, now with age he is losing what small amount of hearing he had and has been told he is a perfect candidate for a cochlear implant which could not only restore but give improved hearing and be able to retain his job; however, his HMO insurance excludes this surgical procedure.

His bus driving pay nor our social security allows us to pay for this hope of the gift of hearing, but we keep dreaming of a solution. Would appreciate any consideration from your foundation or suggestions to help us in obtaining this goal of giving Chuck this chance to enjoy and participate in a hearing world.

Our sincere thanks for any considerations.

Ms. Rayola Knudsen
370l Baillif Place
Bloomington, MN, 55431
phone: 952-881-1552

Mario Cassinelli - 9/1/2003

God Bless you, i would like to share this information about the very creation of the united states of america, where is the original act of foundation? the wrong interests from a bunch are still painting the part of history, what do we now about NESARA?, im just in that discovering and i dont like what im finding, i would like to share this information with you for your own discernment and decision.

I hope Catherine Reynolds know about it and put her voice on the sky!
NESARA is being delayed by the same terrorism that have cocreated the economic and socials systems on our planet, but now they are losting the battle, because we want things get better fot everybody!

We keep on discerning and feeling the Truth

Fatima Parsa - 8/28/2003

Ms Reynolds is my new hero. As a mother of 2 teenagers I certainly appreciate and admire her efforts for giving our kids people to aspire to. I have always been thinking along the same line s and wanted to do something that would have the similar effect on our kids value system. Ms Reynolds is putting her wealth into shaping the minds and souls of our youth where they should go instead of always only seeing athlets/entertainers as their heros.
Ms Reynolds, please let me know how I can help with your noble pusuit. I will be happy to volunteer at any level.
Much Respect, Fatima Parsa, Orinda, California

Al Giordano - 8/27/2003

Iam a Contractor in DC,I would love to put together a plan, with the Reynolds, to build "The American Heros Home" somewhere in DC.

Al Giordano

Della Gehrmann - 8/27/2003

Hello, I am posting for my husband Eduard Gehrmann, he has an unknown identity because of the war. He was shipped from Copenhagen Denmark to Germany in 1947 where he was germanized and given the name Eduard Gehrmann and a date of birth of April 12, 1943 he was with a foster family (Ilg) for about 4 years and then placed in the Reich Waisen Haus an orphanage in Lahr (Black Forrest) W. Germany then several other orphan homes. Is there any way someone can lead us in the right direction to find information? The German International Red Cross in Oct. 2002 states a well known lady who knew him taken him to Copenhagen in 1947 and left no information on him. Two days ago we recieved information from the Danish Red Cross and they said that we may have success in contacting the Landsarkivet for Norrejylland in Viborg but it cost a certain amount of money. I am hoping to here good news from them. Is there any way of finding out his biological name and date of birth also his family or where he came from? My husband is 60 years old and has lead a sad life but is still a wonderful person. We would greatly appreciate it if someone can lead us in the right direction. Thank you so very much for any information you may be able to provide. Sincerly, Della Gehrmann

Andrew B. White, Sr. - 8/26/2003

This is one of the best of "60 Minutes"
& I've been watching for a looooong time !
What a magnificent credit this dear Lady is to America, our history, preservation of our culture, mores & way of life !!!
Thank you Lady Bountiful !
With respect and admiration,
WW2 1941-1945 U.S. Marine, South Pacific.

C. Oakley - 8/26/2003

I am a college student looking for funding for my 2nd year of college. I was watching 60 minutes last weekend and saw Mrs. Catherine Reynolds' interview. She spoke about helping today's youth and she wanted to do an exhibit at the Smithsonian. Anyway I would like to know if she helps normal everyday students in need of funding for college. I would appreciate a response I know everyone is so busy these days. Thank you for your time.

Claudine Oakley

Patricia Lynne Williams - 8/26/2003

This whole thing from the Smithsonian curators revolt, to the rejection of Washington society has to do with the fact that Ms. Reynolds is very smart, very sexy, very attractive AND most importantly - completely unapologetic.

Let's face it, her to request to have input into the project that her millions was to finance is hardly out of line. Her suggestions were reasonable and arguably would have been beneficial. The reason the Smithsonian's curators and Washington's crusty society reject her is because Catherine Reynolds is not a boring "talking head", she's sexy, she's attractive, she's vivacious and sadly that terrifies most people: they need to degrade her to justify their own existence. I have never understood why people can not use others greatness or seemingly impossible accomplishments to let themselves be inspired.

As a woman, it's ok to be rich if you married it and are humble and quiet. As a woman if you worked for your money you better be fat, ugly, or decidedly unsexy. Period. Now introducing a woman who's rich, beautiful, intelligent and confident. Nobody knows what to do with that! You're right Catherine these people don't know you: this has nothing to do with you personally and everything to do with what you represent. They are terrified of you and are acting out of animal fear. You exist outside of their paradigm and to comprehend you blows all of their circuits! You're not allowed to have so much to offer, you contradict all of the unspoken rules! Congratulations Catherine for pulling out and sticking to your guns! Thank you for being a sexy, smart ,woman.

Let this be a lesson to us all. No matter how committed you are to a marriage, a job, a project, don't be afraid to change your mind if after several attempts, people refuse to play fair. It's very clear your intentions were honorable to anybody who has a shred of integrity.

Now for some inspiration....

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on";

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son!

Rudyard Kipling

Patricia Williams

Ted Roycraft - 8/25/2003

Catherine Reynolds is obviously very serious about the wealth she bestows on institutions, organizations, individuals, important happenings around the world which are expected to be of short duration by many knowledgable people.

Where would you suggest I contact her to introduce her to this unbelievable situation?

Patricia Williams - 8/25/2003

I scrolled through this chat list and it appears many of you are looking to contact Ms. Reynolds. The website of the Catherine B. Reynolds Foundation is This site has all of her contact information.

Like many of you, I agree that she should help people with true need rather than focus on the successs of others - I am pleased to report - after viewing the website her foundation does fund programs to benefit the truly needy.

Do not be so hard on Ms. Reynolds for the glamourous aspects of philanthropy. She deserves to keep her life intersting too!

The website's

Chuck Neumaier - 8/25/2003

Trying to reach Cathrine Reynolds by email, can you help.

Thank You

Charles Neumaier
501 Pinerose Ct
Roseville CA 95747
916-783-5501 Office
415-786-0517 Cell


As a business owner myself, I was impressed by the offering you gave to the Smithsonian Institute.
I am a Board Member for the Lake County Arts. 325 N. Main St. Lakeport, CA 95453. I am always looking for our Arts to be funded Moneys either through Grants or Entrepreneur.
The State budget has been passed,we are aware there "is NO MONEY"IN IT for the California Arts Counil's Local Partners' Program. We live in a Rural community, approximately 56,000 in the County of Lake. Without this funding all activies will end, for our children and adults.
I would appreciate a contact, please, answer my call for help! Sincerely, Sandi Ciardelli
I am also owner of SANDI'S INTERIOR DESIGNS, 1259 SO. MAIN ST. LAKEPORT, CA. 95453 PHONE(707) 263-8132

Mary Joe C. Gardner - 8/25/2003

I find this article most disturbing! Imagine them not wanting to allow Ms. Reynolds to finance a project that is most helpful in describing the articles in the museum. Imagine a third-grader going into the museum and seeing an article, not described as to what it is, why it is useful, what era it came from,etc. Also, why not use her name? They used other contributators names. If the museum does not want her money, tell her she can send it to Westminister Catawba Christain School here in Rock Hill, S.C. It is a private Christain School, and it a very good school, but it can use financial help.

Thank You,

Mary Joe C. Gardner
4285 Mockingbird Lane
Rock Hill, S.C. 29730

Also, I could use the money, as I am unemployed due to cost reduction from Springs Ind. where I had worked for 30 years.

Catherine Foote - 8/25/2003

I was impressed with your interview with Catherine Reynolds. I was even more impressed with her and her husband. Here we have an amazing American woman who has earned her financial status by working for it. Even more spectacular and unusual is that she wants to share her wealth and make America better. I feel that Washington's "High Society" needs to get off their self indulgent pedalstools and follow her actions. If more upper class Americans gave back to this country, it would make all the difference. I applaud her efforts and hope that she will continue to be a generous donator to society as a whole. Maybe one day the Smithsonian will wake up and realize that this was not just a missed opportunity for them, but for all of America. The Smithsonian doesn't belong to the curators. Maybe someone should inform them!!!

JERUSALEM POST - 8/25/2003

Double vision:[Daily Edition]

Abraham Rabinovich. Jerusalem Post.

Three decades after the Yom Kippur War, Ashraf Marwan has been all but revealed as Israel's secret savior - or was he its most cunning betrayer? Abraham Rabinovich is presently writing a book on the Yom Kippur War.

Almost 30 years after the Yom Kippur War, an answer has been offered to the most intriguing mystery remaining from that epic event - who warned Israel of the impending attack at almost the last moment?

An Israeli historian living in England, Dr. Aharon Bregman has named the agent as none other than Ashraf Marwan, son-in-law of former Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser. Still a prominent figure in the Egyptian establishment, Marwan was then a member of the inner circle around Nasser's successor, Anwar Sadat.

Bregman contends that Marwan was actually a double agent who was serving Egypt at a time when Israel considered him a super spy on its behalf. It is a contention that will doubtless raise numerous eyebrows in Israel.

"The Source," as the agent is referred to in the report written by the Agranat Commission of inquiry into the war, was a "walk-in" who entered an Israeli embassy in a European capital in 1969 and offered his services for cash. Such an offer would naturally be received with suspicion, but the Mossad concluded after an extensive check that whatever his motives, the man was not a double agent. The information he provided in the coming years on Egypt and the Arab world would be reckoned priceless by the heads of Israel's intelligence community and defense minister Moshe Dayan.

In his book The Watchman who Slept, Uri Bar-Yosef notes that The Source's reports were considered so valuable that instead of being summed up by military intelligence along with other reports, they were distributed in their entirety to the top political and military leadership. The bulk of the information he provided proved accurate, but he was sometimes wrong, as in December 1972 and the spring of 1973, when he warned of war which did not come.

It was The Source who informed Israel that Sadat would not go to war until he had acquired long-range bombers that could hit Israeli airbases and Scud missiles that could serve as a deterrent against Israeli strikes at the Egyptian heartland. This came to be known in Israel as "the concept" - Sadat's concept - which in turn became the basis of an Israeli belief that there was no danger of war with Egypt until those conditions had been met. Thus, despite mounting signs of Arab war preparations in the period preceding Yom Kippur 1973, the head of Israel's military intelligence branch, Gen. Eli Zeira, insisted that Egypt was not going to war because it had only one squadron of long-range bombers and no operational Scuds.

By late 1972, however, Sadat had abandoned "the concept." Instead of waiting for the Soviets to provide long-range bombers and Scuds, he decided to stage a limited attack into western Sinai in order to shatter the status quo and spur the international community to set a political process in motion that would end with Israel's return to the international border. The Source failed to notify Israel of this change in policy, either because he was unaware of it or, as the double-agent school might contend, because he was part of the Egyptian deception.

Gen. Zeira, in a book published 10 years ago, was the first to express the belief that The Source was a double agent who had lulled Israel into believing Egypt would not go to war. Zeira noted The Source's two earlier false reports of war, and the fact that his final warning, on the eve of Yom Kippur, left insufficient time, in the Egyptian view, for the IDF to mobilize.

Zeira's critics say his double-agent theory is a transparent attempt to shift blame from himself to the Mossad, which "ran" The Source and certified his legitimacy. Zeira was forced to leave the army as a result of the Agranat Commission's findings. He subsequently developed a successful career as an adviser on intelligence matters to foreign governments.

IT IS known that The Source contacted his case officer in the European capital Thursday evening, October 4, some 40 hours before Egypt and Syria launched their attack. He asked to meet with the head of the Mossad, Zvi Zamir, and let drop a code word for war. Zamir flew to Europe on Friday, and met that night with The Source, who said war would break out at dusk the next day, about 6 p.m., and spelled out changes in the Egyptian war plan - a plan which was known to Israel. It was Zamir's phone call to Israel in the early hours of Yom Kippur morning that set the alarm bells ringing. The chief of staff, Gen. David Elazar, was wakened at 4:30 a.m. after prime minister Golda Meir and Dayan had been called, and he ordered the military machine put in motion.

The Source had given the wrong zero hour - the war began at 2 p.m., not 6 p.m. - but zero hour had indeed been 6 p.m., and had been changed only the day before his phone call at a meeting in Damascus between Syrian and Egyptian officers.

Brief as it was, The Source's warning was critical. It gave the Israeli leaders some 10 hours in which to adjust their mindsets to the prospect of imminent war, to start planning and to begin the mobilization process with decorum, not panic.

Had the warning not been received, the Golan Heights would almost certainly have fallen the next day. As it was, hundreds of Syrian tanks broke through the Israeli lines during the night and captured the southern half of the Heights. When they got underway in the morning to complete the job, they found their way blocked by the first Israeli reserve tank units, which had mounted the Heights at dawn. Had it not been for the few hours' warning provided by The Source, there would have been nothing to stop the five Syrian divisions from overrunning the Heights. They would have been able to encircle the Seventh Brigade, which was holding the northern half of the line, and complete their plans to draw up a defense line along the Jordan River at the foot of the Golan to prevent the reserves from mounting.

Had the Golan fallen, it presumably would have obliged the IDF to shift forces northwards from the Egyptian front, where Israeli forces were already reeling - two-thirds of a tank division had been knocked out in the first day's fighting.

That Israel was spared these desperate scenarios - the ones it was experiencing were desperate enough - was due entirely to The Source's warning, which makes it difficult to accept the thesis that he was a double agent.

Bregman first alluded to Marwan in an article he wrote for Yediot Achronot last September, when he said The Source was a relative of Nasser and was referred to within the Mossad as "the in-law." Until then, any Israelis in the know had been careful not to allude in any way to the identity of The Source, presumably not to harm him but also not to harm the chances of recruiting other well- placed sources in the future. When word of the article reached the Egyptian media, they deduced that the reference was to Marwan, who had married Nasser's daughter, Muna. He had carried out sensitive diplomatic missions on behalf of the Egyptian government, served as bureau chief for Sadat, and was said to be a liaison between the president and the intelligence services. He has since become a wealthy businessman who owns 3% of the Chelsea soccer team and spends much of his time in London.

The Cairo newspaper Saut al-Uma asked Marwan to comment on the insinuation in the Yediot article.

"An absurd detective story," he replied.

The Al-Ahram newspaper then interviewed Bregman, who confirmed that he had been referring to Marwan. Noting Marwan's dismissive remark, Bregman justified himself by saying "I have to defend my good name as an historian, and I cannot accept this."

Bregman evidently did not think that his allegation would result in Marwan's being strung up in Cairo's Tahrir Square as a traitor, since he portrays him as an Egyptian hero.

"I am one of his greatest admirers," Bregman is quoted in Al- Ahram as saying. "I think that he was a model spy. He was a very professional spy. He succeeded in tricking Israel. He is the person who more than anyone else should be credited with Egypt's success in deceiving Israel before the war."

Bregman does not reveal the source of his allegation, but he is apparently the first person to publicly echo Zeira's double-agent thesis.

The revelation, if such it be, raises the interesting question of a double-agent's role in history. In Egypt, if the Zeira-Bregman thesis is accepted there, he would be honored as the man who brilliantly deceived Israel and set it up for a stunning blow. In Israel, he will be remembered as the man who saved the country from catastrophe.

Photo; Caption: Prime minister Golda Meir and IDF chief of staff David Elazar visiting with a released POW after the '73 war. Why did 'The Source' fail to notify the Israeli leadership of a momentous change in Egyptian strategy? Ashraf Marwan. Was Nasser's son-in-law an Israeli spy, or an Egyptian double agent?

tj schaffer - 8/25/2003

Dear Ms. Reynolds:

You and I, both CPAs, sing from the same book, concerning public integrity and responsibility. I would like very much to have your email address, or that of a close friend; I want to share some ideas you might like to know about. (Free!)

I have absolutely no percuniary ambitions about your money. I do have good ideas that promote public school academics.

I liked your interview.

Linda Moore - 8/25/2003

That story / interview was great & honest !! Way to Go !! It is a shame how corporate america is everywhere . I can defintely relate to Mr. & Mrs. Reynolds . People can make a difference . It is not only important to know who makes history but also what occured in that individuals' life to set them in that direction -what inspired them - what was that turning point in their life that made them set forth and pave the way for others to follow . My husband & I are persuing a similiar goal in bringing people's awareness about autism . There is so much misunderstanding about the condition - it's not even funny - yet it is the 3rd most common developmental disorder in children - more common than Down Syndrome or cystic fiborsis . 10 years ago the birth rate was 1 every 10,000 now it's 1 every 250 . We have created a website and have recently become a non-profit organization .

Respectfully ,
Linda Moore

Ed Fraga - 8/25/2003

I am an nationally recognized visual artist with paintings in major art museums. I was moved by the segment on Catherine Reynolds. I am very interested in contacting her foundation regarding a project I am currently working on. If you could provide a contact person who I could call or mail info regarding this matter along with my resume and catalogs of work I would be very grateful. Thank you, Ed.

Ed Fraga - 8/25/2003

I am an nationally recognized visual artist with paintings in major art museums. I was moved by the segment on Catherine Reynolds. I am very interested in contacting her foundation regarding a project I am currently working on. If you could provide a contact person who I could call or mail info regarding this matter along with my resume and catalogs of work I would be very grateful. Thank you, Ed.

David C. Page - 8/25/2003

Catherine Reynolds and her husband are perfect examples of how it is most often INDIVIDUALS who make a difference in history....INDIVIDUALS who battle the "institutional status quo" and INDIVIDUALS who start movements. Want proof? Take a look at history and the brave PEOPLE and their actions that changed it!


Joan - 8/25/2003

please tell me how I can get in touch with Catherine Reynolds. thanks.

rev. david clark - 8/25/2003

First, give yourself to God; he can do more with you than you can. A small gift is better than a great promise. he doubles his gift who gives it in time. What you are is God,s gift to you; what you make of youself is your gift to God. the wise woman does not lay up treasure. the more she gives,the more she has. Always keep in mind, the essence of generosity is self-sacrifice. she who gives to me teaches me to give. It is better to give an inexpensive gift with a smile than an expensive one with a frown. But remenber no person has ever been honored for what she has received;always, for what she has given. Little is much when God is in it. God bless your bones,today

Karla O'Connor - 8/25/2003

Dear Mrs. Reynolds, I watched the 60 min. interview tonight and was really surprrised that people would turn down such a generious contribution to enlighten people, I for one would like to thank you for all your endevors, I have Grand children and I'm happy people want to invest in their future knowledge. Plus I want to say Kudos to you for being a self made women, gives us encouragement that others will achive and follow in your foot steps.Sincerely Karla O'Connor

ANN R. STODDARD - 8/25/2003

Dear Ms. Reynolds,
Your recent interview with Mike Wallace was amazing and inspiring. I have an artpiece entitled "Aspiration"
that has traveled from a humble small college campus gallery to a Tourist Welcome Center in Charleston and now is on exhibit at Washington University in St Louis. Please
see this work - It is similar to your concept...
Yes, I am an artist and yes, I am looking for support.
Not just for myself and my own work but for others hoping to meet their goals as well.
I agree with others, where it is all interesting and curious to create exhibits that are about those whom have accomplished something, there simply is not enough funding support available for those who are working hard to achieve their own goals. What an awesome accomplishment that would be , to offer funds,grants,fellowships,scholarships
to more people- helping them make their dreams become real too.


D. Wilkins - 8/25/2003

My husband and I are interested in knowing whether Catherine Reynolds gives grants or loans to small businesses, and where we can get an application to apply.

John C. - 8/24/2003

I am not going to try and con anyone but I told my daughter years ago that if she did well i our single parent home that I would do whatever I needed in order to send her to the college of her choice.
She now a Freshman at Auburn University and I am retired Army and things are very tight.
Please forward to Ms. Reynolds. Maybe she would like to be my daughtr's fairy god mother.

Don Hickey - 8/24/2003

No surprise that at the side of a wealthy attractive philanthropist stands Bill Clinton ... can you say Denise Rich?!

Diane Xie - 8/24/2003

I would like to know if Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds would be interested in making an effort for global environmental improvement?
From an environmental researcher

Pep Stofen - 8/24/2003

How can I send free information to Catherine Reynolds imterbiewed by Mike Wallace on 60 minutes reltine to her gift to the institute.

Mike, if you wish to have this information, just send me your e-nail address and I will get this very important information to you.

Kindest personal regards


Cliff Sandoval - 8/24/2003

I think it's great what she is doing to educate others about the people and not just the personal belongings that belong to them. Which brings me to my main reason in responding to you about your interview I manage a girls Under 17 soccer team in Ventura CA. (SoCal United Blue GU-17) I put alot of time as well as our trainer Alverardo "Lalo" Alvarado in educating our girls to look at the accomplishments that others have done and give them a possitive motivation through soccer that they to are great kids and that all things in life are possible. I would like to know if I could have Mrs. Reynolds e-mail address, I am always looking for donations to help our girls out please sir if you could I would greatly appreciate your forwarding this to her or forwarding her e-mail to me thank you Cliff Sandoval

Gary Carr - 8/24/2003

I hope this can be passed on to Mr. and Mrs Reynolds. First this was a terrific interview. I am a 59 year old history teacher and I can only tell you that history is made by individuals. If the so called leaders at the Smithsonian are this arrogant not to realize this then they should visit the beginning of U.S. History and the ability of individuals to have the insight to write a Declaration that still stands today. Where would we be without these individuals.

Marva Black - 8/24/2003

Re: Catherine Reynolds
Maybe you need to purchase your own museum,and do what you wish with your money since it appears some of your donations are not really appreciated.
Maybe you could consider individuals with worthwhile community projects for future donations.Is it possible to get an email address to send proposals that could be considered to receive a donation.

Erin Simkins - 8/24/2003

What a wonderful role model for young women today. I have worked many years trying to become successful like Catherine Reynolds and find her story very encouraging. Thankyou for running her interview.
Erin Simkins
Post Falls, Idaho

S. Peterson - 8/24/2003

It is truly sad that the Smithsonian sees fit to have corporate sponsors as their "puppet masters" but when an individual wants to give and actually help with the project they are met with such opposition. Bravo to Catherine for withdrawing her gift. A more worthy cause will surely present itself.

Colleen Towle - 8/24/2003

My husband and I are curious as who Catherine Reynolds is - we were intriguied that someone can give away as an individual $100 Million-is she an heiress?
Thank you

Dr.Dona Anderson - 8/24/2003

I think these people are god sent.
I am a Doctor who is involved in trying to assist and educate young unwed mothers. To do so takes funding and we are desperate. I would love to contact this woman and see if she is "truly" interested in educating and elevating the lives of these young woman, as well as truly making a difference in the future of thier children.

Thank you and keep up the good work.
Dona Anderson
7715 Greenridge Way
Fair Oaks (Sacramento) Calif.

Prof. Edward Gobetz - 8/24/2003

I have nothing but admiration for Catherine Reynolds who has so marvelously succeeded by means of her talents, knowledge, and heard work and now wants others to succeed by offering financial help and bringing to their awareness good role models to inspire them. There is a tremendous need for both!

I am so glad that she is not discouraged by unjust attacks.

cheryl ades - 8/24/2003

Hi! I really liked the story on Ms. Reynolds. I would like her email address for her foundations. I would like to email her. Would you please give me her website address?
Cheryl Ades

Dr. Adam Makkai - 8/24/2003

Dear 60 Minutes: I was awed by the stupidity of the Smithsonian.
I am the Executive Director of a 501-c-3 organization, called ATLANTIS-CENTAUR. This is an acronym which stands for Association for Translation, Literature and New Talent Instigation Studies followed by Charting Evolving National Themes and Understanding the Races. We are a Hungarian Cultural Organization in Chicago publishing books. poetry and short stories. We have a project in mind that would probably interest Mrs. Catherine Reynolds, called PROJECT CHILLTRANCE. This stands for Chicago Literary and Linguistic Translation Center and could be tied to the UIC campus or to Northwestern. I need to find out Mrs. Reynolds' address. Would you dear people please let me have it? I hold a B.A. from Harvard, an M.A. and a Ph.D. from Yale; I will be 68 in December 2001. I came here from Hungary on January 1, 1957, from the devastation of Hungary's anti-Soviet Uprising. Soon to retire, CHILLTRANCE would be my lasting contribution to thousands of tongue-tied immigrants in America's "second city." Please help me find Mrs. Reynolds! Million thanks,
Dr. Adam Makkai
Preofessor of English and Linguistics
University of Illinois at Chicago

R.W. Kruppa - 8/24/2003

How do I get in contact with Catherine Reynolds? I would like to start a classical music foundation and would be interested in she would like to sponsor it. Thank you.


Karen - 8/24/2003

I just say your program on Caterine Reynolds. I just took my neice to D.C. this summer to see the history. Anyway, my program needs matching funds. I need her help. Where can I find her?

sharon wells - 8/24/2003


Stuart Lovett - 8/24/2003

I applaud Catherine Reynolds for her integrity and effort that she has put forth with sincerity.

The hierarchy of the Smithsonian Institute is not unlike many old and stale, antiquated structures that, rather than fully serve the community, try to protect it's own power.

Those who have not earned the sword that they wield often are fearful of those who have fully earned their right to bare and share their tributes.

I also applaud 60 minutes for creating the space and unbiased atmosphere portraying the events between Ms. Reynolds and the Smithsonian Institute as they occurred.

robert johnson - 8/24/2003

It ia quite remarkable that Mrs Reynolds was wanting to be so giving of herself to the Smithsonian. Most corporations are in it for the name only!!! At least Mrs. Reynolds has the spunk and charisma to do what she wants without any help from the BIG Dogs!!!!!!

Mylissa Dee Nelson - 8/24/2003

I loved hearing about a person eager to give money away to her(Catherine Reynolds)judgement of a 'cause'. I was a little heart broke to hear the struggles w/recieving the money. I would love to suggest - to what in my opinion is a good cause- to a foundation to help the millions of Americans w/out Health coverage.
I would like to see a story on this topic and see politicians recognize this is a GREAT problem in our country.
I am a single mom (34 years old), I work fulltime at a non-profit church - child care center as a Director. My daughter is 7 and does not have health coverage and was recently diagnosed w/ 50% hearing loss in one ear. How can I afford to get mediacl assistance? I have serious health issues and do not seek mediacl care due to the cost. Physicians want money down and all want monthly payments there after. I do not qualify for any kind of assistance (I make $80 too much in a month).
There IS NOT ENOUGH focus on this issue and I know people are dying due to this problem...that sad.
Sincerely, Mylissa

Sheryl Mayle - 8/24/2003

Is it possible to get Catherine Reynold's E-mail address in order to correspond with her about her investment opportunities or even if she has a web-site available.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Anne Casbeer - 8/24/2003

I am a single parent and have 3 boys currently in college and one working on masters degree. Another about to start a masters degree. I am as well as my boys of meager means since I have been a single parent for 22 years. Their dad has had no help for school and little visitation over the years. He died a difficult death of brain cancer 2 years ago still leaving no money to my boys. I would like to know how to contact Catherine Reynolds in hopes she could help us pay for our education loans and help us get a second start. My boys will when graduated contribute well to society. AS a family we struggle financially to get them thru their education. I thank you for your help.
Anne Casbeer



i would like to know if Catherine Reynolds ccould donate 1 million dollar to heart to heart a new business this business is for betta fish vases thank you very much

sharon wells - 8/24/2003


Theresa Sanders - 8/24/2003

I would like to know how to contact Catherine Reynolds. Could you please help.

Marlo Soorkraj - 8/24/2003

As I viewed the report on Catherine Reynolds by Danile A. Afful; I was left with one question in my mind at the end of the report.

Why not take the same $38 million dollars look back to the state that she grew up in and realize how many other are just dying for such and opportunity as she received?

Now, in my "humble" opinion such an opportunity would make a big difference in an individual families life. Look at the possible chain reacion---Remember "Pay it forward"?

I have lived in the state of FL for the past 12 years and quite honestly it is persons like Catherine Reynolds who could have the greatest impact on providing a good strong leadership role for the young women in Florida. I grew up in NY and know first hand how important it is to see these women who have succeed through "opportunities" turn around and give "opportunities" to the future generations of America.

Do you know it wouldn't take millions to have this impact...but it just could produce millions?

Sharon Richardson - 8/24/2003

How can Ms. Reynolds be reached ?

Lori LaRose - 8/24/2003

I believe that Mrs. Reynolds should take the 38 million dollars and buy a property somewhere in the vicinity of the Smithsonian. Mrs. Reynolds should then build her own museum to exhibit individual people in history and to show their importance to different historical events. Why should the world be denied a museum of this importance? Just because some shallow minded curators at the Smithsonian do not think people play important roles in history. I think that things in a museum like Julia Childs' kitchen are a waste of space, it doesn't tell me anything about her or any important role she played in her lifetime. Mrs. Reynolds please "build" the vision that you had for the Smithsonian.

Marie - 8/24/2003

I had never heard of Catherine Reynolds until watching this interview. On the surface it seems as if she wanted just a say in the way her 38 million dollar donation would be handled. Who wouldn't! I realize there are 2 sides to every story but why wouldn't the Smithsonian give theirs. That seems suspect along with their disapproval of some "off handed comment" she allegedly made about wanting Oprah Winfrey on the wall of fame. I believe that Oprah would be someone deserving to be on this kind of wall.

Anyway, I agree with Mrs Reynolds in removing her withdrawl of her donation. As far as her comment that nobody wants her money, well I am here to ask for a donation. I am training for the Disney World Marathon held in January for the American Stroke Association. The entry fee is $2000 with all proceeds for the ASA. So here is at least 1 person who would gladly take whatever donation Catherine would be willing to give.


Marie Pippio

Jason Lassiter - 8/24/2003


I really enjoyed the 60 minute show with Catherine Reynolds. She appears to be very caring and open with people. I was wondering how I could write to her or get in touch with her to see if she would donate a small amount to my company. I have a transportation company that caters toward the elderly and a donation would really benefit the company to provide more services for them. Please contact me for information on how I could contact Catherine.

Best Regards,

Jason Lassiter
President of E-Z-R Transport Solutions, Inc.

Unseld Robinson - 8/24/2003

I had an opportunity to view your interview with Catherine Reynolds. I would like to obtain some contact information about the Reynolds foundation to assist inner city children. I have assisted a group of inner city boys and girls from New York City and Long Island to learn about the Civil rights Movement. Many of the students that participated on the trip were at-risk students. They had the opportunity to meet John Lewis, Dr. Martin Luther King III, Charles Evers, Dr. Bernard Lafayette and Mr. Seganthal. I would like to continue this program with the assistance of Catherine Reynolds.

Thank you,

Unseld Robinson

M. Schroeder - 8/24/2003

Just saw your repeat of the show......Mrs. Reynolds could make a difference in lives of children AND response to herself...IF SHE WOULD DONATE TO NEEDED STUDENTS WHO ARE STRUGGLING TO MAKE ENDS MEET TO COMPLETE THEIR COLLEGE EDUCATION!!!.....I have two nieces who don't have help from their families and are intelligent young women, working 3 jobs just to stay in school.....what is wrong with Mrs. Reynolds????The Smithsonian is the last place that needs her money.....
Can't she establish a college trust and let needy students apply???? Cheezzeeeee!!!!!!! The lady has NO idea what real need is!!!

Nannette Sloan - 8/24/2003

I am pleased that Ms. Reynolds is trying to show all aspects of our history. So many musuems are pictures and do not tell the story of how we got where we are today. If she is ever in Texas maybe she could help out our musuem who do not do a good job of telling our story of the connection to the rest of these United States.

Thank you for trying Ms. Reynolds.

Nannette Sloan

gwen brown - 8/24/2003

can you please give mean e-mail address so thati may e-mail catherine reynolds.

dante raphael - 8/22/2003

I am a Roman Catholic, and I would like to suggest to my church: Wake up already! We are "sleeping giant", and must move on to the next level of evolvelization... Most of us Catholics know that Christ is already on the Earth... The Vatican knows this..How long are we going to wait for our Master:another 2000 years? Wake up because we are... I support the church, but somehow you are hiding many secrers from us, and we are tired of the idiosyncracies... This is the reason many Catholics leave the church... No to mention, the idiocracy of the Protestants who are completely schizophrenic in their conviction, and who detest our Blessed Mother...If we the potente that we say that we are, we need to arise from our sleep...Christ is here on the Earth, I myself have had prophetic dreams where he has told me that he is here on Earth, right now... If you want the church to continue, you must allow truth to prevail not the facist consciousness... The Lord said that there were others flocks that we did not understand.... Deo volante, I pray that you will refrain from holding sacred veritas truth from us...Mr. Dante Raphael post script: About nazism: Why have you cover so much regarding the Jewish people... God is going to send his judgement on us if we holding any cryptic information to this matter.... Pray and pray hard, for the bible says: "... thatwhich is in the dark shall come out into the open..."....

dante raphael - 8/22/2003

I am a Roman Catholic, and I would like to suggest to my church: Wake up already! We are "sleeping giant", and must move on to the next level of evolvelization... Most of us Catholics know that Christ is already on the Earth... The Vatican knows this..How long are we going to wait for our Master:another 2000 years? Wake up because we are... I support the church, but somehow you are hiding many secrers from us, and we are tired of the idiosyncracies... This is the reason many Catholics leave the church... No to mention, the idiocracy of the Protestants who are completely schizophrenic in their conviction, and who detest our Blessed Mother...If we the potente that we say that we are, we need to arise from our sleep...Christ is here on the Earth, I myself have had prophetic dreams where he has told me that he is here on Earth, right now... If you want the church to continue, you must allow truth to prevail not the facist consciousness... The Lord said that there were others flocks that we did not understand.... Deo volante, I pray that you will refrain from holding sacred veritas truth from us...Mr. Dante Raphael

dante raphael - 8/22/2003

I am a Roman Catholic, and I would like to suggest to my church: Wake up already! We are "sleeping giant", and must move on to the next level of evolvelization... Most of us Catholics know that Christ is already on the Earth... The Vatican knows this..How long are we going to wait for our Master:another 2000 years? Wake up because we are... I support the church, but somehow you are hiding many secrers from us, and we are tired of the idiosyncracies... This is the reason many Catholics leave the church... No to mention, the idiocracy of the Protestants who are completely schizphrenic in their conviction, and who detest our Blessed Mother...If we the potente that we say that we are, we need to arise from our sleep...Christ is here on the Earth, I myself have had prophetic dreams where he has told me that he is here on Earth, right now... If you want the church to continue, you must allow truth to prevail not the facist consciousness... The Lord said that there were others flocks that we did not understand.... Deo volante, I pray that you will refrain from holding sacred veritas truth from us...Mr. Dante Raphael

dante raphael - 8/22/2003

I am a Roman Catholic, and I would like to suggest to my church: Wake up already! We are "sleeping giant", and must move on to the next level of evolvelization... Most of us Catholics know that Christ is already on the Earth... The Vatican knows this..How long are we going to wait for our Master:another 2000 years? Wake up because we are... I support the church, but somehow you are hiding many secrers from us, and we are tired of the idiosyncracies... This is the reason many Catholics leave the church... No to mention, the idiocracy of the Protestants who are completely schizphrenic in their conviction, and who detest our Blessed Mother...If we the potente that we say that we are, we need to arise from our sleep...Christ is here on the Earth, I myself have had prophetic dreams where he has told me that he is here on Earth, right now... If you want the church to continue, you must allow truth to prevail not the facist consciousness... The Lord said that there were others flocks that we did not understand.... Deo volante, I pray that you will refrain from holding sacred veritas truth from us...Mr. Dante Raphael

Joel Easter - 8/21/2003

She is unbelievable. Is it posssible to get a letter or e-mail sent to her personally.


Scott Z - 8/17/2003

How absurd to suggest that "no race has beared the burden and still bears the burden of ill treatment by all, like African Americans." Native Americans were virtually wiped off the face of this earth. Those that are left have a higher rate of alcoholism and unemployment than any other race in America. Surely one is hard pressed to suggest that African Americans have been more mistreated than Native Americans.

laci - 8/10/2003

Do you know the exact number of Draftees who served in the Vietnam War. And what about the number of volunteers. Percentage-wise.
If not, where could I find that infor?

- 8/6/2003

- 8/6/2003

Tom Shay - 7/25/2003

Sir - Has this book been translated to English ?


Mark Weigand - 7/24/2003

Where is the Ossuary now and is it on display?

Muhammad Li - 7/21/2003

Dr Jose M.R. Delgado mutilated people's brains in human experimentation with polictical prisoners. He is currently working in the U.S. govenment defense agency research project agency. Please contact the International Criminal Court's prosecutor if you want to submit his book as evidence against him. See and www.mindcontrolforums, stimoceiver and Dr. Jose M. R. Delgado.Let's prosecut him .learn mor , and get him off the street.

Kathleen - 7/15/2003

Excellent input from the professor. Scorcese used his artistic license and too much blood for my taste but still compelling.I found the movie fascinating as I find New York City to be utterly so. Most of my ancestors were Irish. Although I haven't delved much into their history, this movie told me quite a bit about what life was like for them, and it picqued my curiosity. I've wondered how much of the movie was true. Now I recognize that many of the brutal incidents really happened but without quite so much blood and thunder. I'like to know more, perhaps read the original book if I can find it in a library. I'm not sure about the author. This commentary mentions Herbert Asbury as author in 1927, but I think the credits at the end as the film unrolled said Jay Cocks... Am I way off? Maybe JC did the screenplay.

James Hood - 7/5/2003

amazing clarification. We ae often mislead by motion pictures because they are always dressed up for the sake of public appeal. I was glad to learn of the histrical facts that were the basis of the movie so that i could receive a well rounded education on the subject.

DOMINIC JUMA - 7/4/2003

Hi, I am interested in MI5, MI6,CIA and KGB history. Would tou please inform me of any development in the subjects. I wuld be very grateful.


EAC - 7/3/2003

There's an easy way to defame someone, here's how:

- Praise someone so much,

- then defame another person so much.

Now. The ones who respected the defamed person will be upset and then will start think negatively of the one who is praised so much.

That's why in the Qur'an it's stated to not mock other people's God, since that they will in return will mock your God.

As for schools.

Schools are one of the methods that the anti-Christ used to spread their propaganda.

There's NO use to take the children to another school, because chances are that school also already affliated itself with the anti-Christ.

If you want to give your children an education that you agreed on, I suggest that you ask someone you trust to teach your children. It's the traditional method that has been proven for thousands of years.

Now... If you're affraid that your children will be taken from you if you don't put them in school, then don't.

Besides, schools are NOT the only way the anti-Christ spreaded the propaganda, eliminating just one way wouldn't do much good, especially if the consequences of it isn't good.

As for Muhammad and the future.

Being the last messenger, what he told about the future is no different that what the previous messengers said.

And some of the things already passed, only some people don't recognized it.

For example, do you realize that the 1000 years kingdom of God that was told in the Book of Relevation was the 1000 years Islamic kingdom?

Yes, folks, the 1000 years kingdom has passed. Now we are living in the era where Satan were let loosed. Now... If you don't know that one, how do you know of the other stuff that was told to you about the future? Don't be too hard on yourself though, I mean that there are still some people today who are still waiting for the Messiah when he already came!

Anyway. Until you see a mobile fortress (Dajjal's white donkey, or should we say Dajjal's "White Base"?) and people living in the skies (that bound to shooted by Ja'juj and Ma'juj). It's safe to say that, the days when the anti-Christ ruled in total supreme is still far ahead.

John Kohn - 6/5/2003

Sensational revelations on the massacre of Sabra and Shatilla

UK-based Israeli historian Dr Ahron Bregman, who has recently exposed Dr Ashraf Marwan, President Nasser's son in law, as a top Mossad spy (in his book A History of Israel), now comes up with new revelations on the 1982 massacre in the Palestinian camps of Sabra and Shatilla. In his newly revised book Israel's Wars: A History Since 1947 (Routledge, 2003) Bregman claims that "contrary to Israeli official statements Israeli paratroopers of the 35th brigade were present in the camps of Sabra and Shatilla while the killing was still under way or immediately after it" (p.176). This is nothing but sensational!

Martin HOrwitz - 5/28/2003

Congratulations on publicizing an important part of the "new Russia", a Russia making a serious attempt to face its past and educate its children.
The Jewish Community Development Fund, of which I am the Director, is proud to have given the Perm Gulag Museum successive grants to do Oral History and,most recently, a Travelling Exhibit.
This Travelling Exhibit has just returned from visiting another provincial Russian city, Voronezh, which is home to an enterprising group of teachers who have created curricula and do teacher training int he area of Teaching of Human Rights.
For more information, please don't hesitate to contact us at
Martin Horwitz (New YOrk)

David Koblick - 5/6/2003

In an article by Frederic Frommer appearing today in several newspapers, he quotes Donald Ritchie as saying that no one went to jail as a result of Senator McCarthy's HUAC hearings. Well,
either Frommer or Ritchie or both had better brush up on their history. Had they never heard of the Hollywood Ten? A friend of mine, Alvah Bessie, was one of those who was jailed for one year for not responding to McCarthy's questions. And Donald Ritchie is a historian? Ha! I'd enjoy some feedback to this letter, from anybody concerned. David Koblick, American pensioner living in Austria.

Klaus Gensheimer - 5/5/2003

Dear Klaus,
Never in a million years did I think there would be another Klaus Gensheimer. Please e-mail me and lets start a dialogue.
Klaus Gensheimer
Cohasset, MA

Alex Marshall - 5/5/2003

Thank you Mr Wilson. I've been listening to Dr Ferguson on radio talk shows here in New York with mounting disbelief. One further point to add to those you make so well: what is the impact of imperialism on the colonising country, its society and its citizens?

Dr Ferguson seems to argue that it did Brits a lot of good to get away to sunnier climes. Maybe so, but the other, darker side of that is the welcome British society has given to immigrants from the Commonwealth. Have they and their descendants been absorbed into British society and accepted as full and equal citizens? The suicide bombing by British kids in Tel Aviv last week seem to indicate otherwise. At least some of our young people feel excluded and alienated.

Imperialism and racism go hand in hand. You can't even think of empire without at least an assumption of superiority over the people you claim to rule.

The United States has spent 227 years grappling with the implications of a multi-ethnic society. One of the founding premises is that all men [people] are created equal. What happens to that premise, what happens to the US in the new imperial age?

DANIEL A.AFFUL - 5/2/2003


DANIEL A.AFFUL - 5/2/2003


Roelf Schrik - 5/2/2003

Two years ago I had the honour to become friends with one of the surivors (taken POW by the Germans) Mr. Herm Sulkers during his visit here in Holland. I regularly email with this fantastic man and he is planning to come to Holland again in a couple of months.

Please tell me when exactly you are going to explore the wreck of the Athabaskan. I certainly intend to follow the exploration perhaps even from the port from where you conduct the exploration. I know Mr. Sulkers will be there with you and I want to surprise him with my visit !

Please keep me posted

Roelf Schrik

james miller - 4/30/2003

As a soldier with the 90th inf.div. I was wounded dec. 11 1944 in the siegfried line near dillingen germany. I have often wondered what it loos like in peace time. would there be any place I could get photos of that area as it looks today. sincerely james miller

whiteny davis - 4/28/2003

hi whtieny how are you ! you look great today youre awesome talk t you later bye bye love you

editor - 4/23/2003

NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE (Vol. 9, #18; 23 April 2003) by Bruce Craig <> National Coalition for History (NCH) Website: ******************************************************************

1. Experts Mobilize to Salvage Iraqi Cultural Institutions 2. Outsourcing Update -- Good News for DOD History Program and Bad News for National Park Service 3. Bits and Bytes: White House Conference on History Rescheduled; NARA Proposed Rule - Facilities; NARA Proposed Rule - ERA Requirements; New Legislative Sourcebook; Underground Railroad Grants 4. Articles of Interest: "Rethinking Presidential Advice" (Washington Times; 22 April 2003)

1. EXPERTS MOBILIZE TO SALVAGE IRAQI CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS On 17 April 2003 an international group of over 30 cultural resource experts whose expertise spanned multiple disciplines met in Paris to exchange information and develop a strategy to deal with the Iraqi heritage crisis.

During the meeting conducted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), participants agreed to send an emergency "fact-finding mission under UNESCO coordination" to Iraq to assess damage to cultural institutions and to investigate the circumstances surrounding the looting that followed the fall of Saddam Hussein's government. Participants called on Coalition forces to "observe the principles of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict" to protect threatened cultural sites and museums in Iraq. They also endorsed an appeal for the United Nations Security Council to impose a temporary embargo on the acquisition of Iraqi cultural objects.

Representatives of several nations, including Italy, Qatar, France, Britain, Egypt, and Germany pledged either financial assistance or technical expertise and personnel to help restore Iraq's devastated museums and recover looted artifacts. At a Department of Justice news conference, American officials, including FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, also pledged "do whatever we can in order to secure the return of these treasurers to the Iraqi people." To that end, global police alerts have been issued, the World Customs Organization has been notified, and Interpol and other international police entities are monitoring Internet art sites and other venues of black-market trade. Thus far only one item believed to have been stolen from Baghdad has been seized by Customs officials at an American airport, reinforcing fears that the bulk of Iraqi heritage is headed for the collections of high-end private collectors, particularly those in the United States (which comprises about 60 percent of the illegal market), Japan, and western Europe.

As the meeting was being held, evidence continued to mount suggesting that the theft at the Iraq National Museum was, in the words of one expert, "a very very deliberate planned action." According to Dr. McGuire Gibson of the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute and President of the American Association for Research in Baghdad, "it really looks like a very professional job" with the theft probably being orchestrated "by the same gangs that have exploited and destroyed sites in Iraq over the past 12 years." Although some of the looting may have been systematic, much of it also was haphazard.

Because of communication difficulties between Iraq and the rest of the world, it remains unclear, however, exactly what has been taken or destroyed and what managed to survive the looting and thievery. Experts claim that establishing a data base will be key to finding what survived and what was stolen. It probably will take weeks or months to compile a comprehensive list, but web sites listing the stolen objects have or will soon be launched. One such site will include over 2,000 images of objects believed to have been pilfered or destroyed.

News of the destruction at the National Library saddened librarians and archivists. Except for the wooden card catalog and intricately carved-wood service counter that somehow managed to escape flames, nothing is left in the National Library's main wing except charred walls and ceilings. All Iraqi doctoral theses, rare books relating to Baghdad and the region, antique handwritten manuscripts on Arabic linguistics, and manuscripts from the Ottoman and Abbasid periods of Middle Eastern history were all destroyed.

2. OUTSOURCING UPDATE -- GOOD NEWS FOR DOD HISTORY PROGRAM AND BAD NEWS FOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Recently, we have reported on the federal government's "outsourcing" efforts targeting professional positions in the Center for Military History (CMH) and the National Park Service. We now have an update.

Under the Bush administration outsourcing initiative, some 850,000 federal government jobs identified as "commercial in nature" may be impacted. At the CMH, efforts by military history supporters to categorically exempt the CMH from an A-76 study were rejected, but a "compromise" that protects (temporarily at least) targeted military history positions reportedly has been reached. Sources state that under the proposed compromise solution, only the West Point facility would be granted a full exemption, while the CMH and the Army War College would be coded in the outsourcing data base as "pursuing an alternative to A-76." In all likelihood some type of public-private partnership, perhaps under university sponsorship, would be pursued. The proposed solution has yet to be finalized in writing or signed off by top military brass.

In the National Park Service, history, museum, archives and a host of other cultural resource related positions are now at risk. Director Fran Mainella recently renewed her pledge, "to fulfill the National Park Service portion of the competitive sourcing initiative." Some 1,708 of the Service's 14,000 full-time permanent positions are scheduled to be assessed this fiscal year. At risk are not just security guard and laborer positions but agency professionals, including archeologists, museum curators, archivists, maintenance workers, architects, computer technicians, and virtually the NPS's entire corps of scientists. Mainella's plan includes an unusual provision -- that 900 jobs would be "direct conversions," with and additional 808 slots being subjected to private sector competition in accordance with the governmental A-76 circular contracting-out guidelines.

The National Coalition for History (NCH) managed to secure a copy of the draft conversion plan. It reveals that Mainella is seeking to directly convert positions in such areas as museum support, archival cataloging and conservation, national register nomination services, preparation of history studies, and cultural landscape inventory services. An NPS spokesperson, however, stated "no present NPS employee would lose their job" --that all these "direct conversion" positions are for the most part "unencumbered positions," being "new, proposed, vacated for one reason or another, or the individual filling the slot is scheduled for retirement." NPS insiders, however, questioned the accuracy of the spokesperson's statement.

The decision to directly outsource half of the targeted jobs rather than subject them to competition appears to run counter to the administration's stated emphasis on using competition to make the government more cost efficient. When contacted by the NCH, Interior department officials stated that the plan has not been formally submitted for Interior review (though a NPS spokesperson stated that the plan has been forwarded to Interior) and the department may not agree with all aspects of the draft plan.

Approval of the plan in its present form is expected to prove tricky for the NPS as the majority of the positions targeted for direct conversion are maintenance workers, security guards, and laborers whose ranks include a disproportionately large number of minorities. In Washington D.C., for example, 89 percent of the positions targeted for assessment or conversion are currently held by minorities. As one NPS insider stated, "if allowed to go forward, this plan will literally change the color of the face of the NPS."

The total cost of the NPS competitive study effort now under consideration is now estimated at upwards of $3 million. None of the needed monies have been specifically appropriated by Congress, meaning that central and regional offices and parks (or some combination of the three) will have to absorb 100 percent of the costs associated with the outsourcing studies. NPS spokespersons are unsure how the studies will ultimately be financed. Mainella's implementation plan cover letter predicts "serious consequences for visitor services and seasonal operations." Some NPS insiders report they have already been told to expect massive cuts in seasonal hiring this year and in FY 2004. Typically, upward of 8,000 persons -- including some long-term seasonals, college students, and high-schools history and science teachers -- comprise the seasonal workforce.

3. BITS AND BYTES Item #1 -- White House Conference on History Rescheduled: A White House Conference on the Teaching of History, Civics, and Service that was supposed to take place 17 February 2003 but was postponed due to inclement weather has been rescheduled to 1 May 2003. The event will take place at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History. Both Laura Bush and Lynne Cheney are scheduled featured speakers.

Item #2 -- NARA Proposed Rule - Facilities: The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has published a proposed rule modifying its regulations for using NARA facilities. Existing regulations specify conduct rules on NARA property, which is defined as property under the control of the Archivist. NARA is proposing to add "threats" as prohibited behavior because of the risk to persons and property potentially posed by such acts, and because of the increased number of email and telephone threats received in NARA facilities. The proposed rule also seeks to specify the types of corrective action NARA imposes for prohibited behavior and specifies procedures to be followed when banning individuals from NARA facilities; an appeal procedure is also proposed. The proposed rule appears in the 18 April 2003 Federal Register at page 19168. For additional information, tap into: <>;. Comments are due 17 June 2003.

Item #3 -- NARA Proposed Rule - ERA Requirements: The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is seeking public comment on the draft Electronic Records Archives (ERA) Requirements Document. ERA will be a comprehensive, systematic, and dynamic means for preserving virtually any kind of electronic record, free from dependence on any specific hardware or software. The ERA, when operational, seeks to make it easy for NARA researchers to find records they want and easy for NARA to deliver those records in formats suited to their needs. The Draft ERA Requirements Document specifies at a high level the capabilities that the ERA must possess. NARA seeks comments on whether the requirements for ERA are complete, comprehensive, consistent, and understandable. The draft requirements can be viewed at: <>; Comments are due 23 May 2003.

Item #4 -- New Legislative Sourcebook: The Law Librarians' Society of Washington, D.C., Inc. (LLSDC) has announced the availability on its Legislative Source Book Website ( a new webpage entitled, "Selected Congressional Research Service Reports on Congress and Its Procedures" ( The site includes some 36 alphabetically arranged CRS reports, most of which have never been made available on the Web. The site also links several other CRS reports on the Internet as well as proposed, current, and past federal legislation that mandates CRS reports be posted on the Internet. In addition, LLSDC's Legislative Source Book includes two scanned CRS reports on presidential documents entitled, "Presidential Directives Background and Overview" and "Executive Orders and Proclamations".

Item #5 -- Underground Railroad Grants: The Underground Railroad Educational and Cultural Program of the Department of Education provides grants to nonprofit educational organizations that are established to research, display, interpret, and collect artifacts relating to the history of the Underground Railroad. Some $2.235 million in grant funds are available to nonprofit educational organizations that are established to research, display, interpret, and collect artifacts relating to the history of the Underground Railroad. Typical awards are in the $100,000 to $750,000 range.Additional Information is online at: <>;.

5. ARTICLES OF INTEREST One article this week: "Rethinking Presidential Advice" (Washington Times; 22 April 2003) by Bruce Fein, a lawyer for the Center for Law and Accountability, a public interest law group headquartered in Virginia. Fein argues that "confidentiality of presidential advice is pivotal to candor and enlightened decisions" but it "should bow to full disclosure to advance historical accuracy and public understanding of the office of the presidency." Tap into: <>;.

*********************************************************** The National Coalition for History invites you to subscribe to this FREE weekly newsletter! You are also encouraged to redistribute the NCH Washington Updates to colleagues, friends, teachers, students and others who are interested in history and archives issues. A complete backfile of these reports is maintained by H-Net on the NCH's recently updated web page at <>;.

To subscribe to the "NCH Washington Update," send an e-mail message to according to the following model: SUBSCRIBE H-NCH firstname lastname, institution. To unsubscribe send an e-mail message to according to the following model: SIGNOFF H-NCH. You can accomplish the same tasks by tapping into the web interface at and at the "network" prompt, scroll down and select H-NCH; enter your name and affiliation and "submit". **************************************************************

Lazy Guy - 4/16/2003

This didn't help with mah damn project. Hmm...perhaps I shouldn't write this and then click submit...someone might get annoyed...

Ah well, at least I didn't use vulgar language.

I'll probably get hacked now. Never mind, eh?

Amber Boyatsis - 4/10/2003

I have no idea what you are talking about, our Anzacs were the most heroic people ever to fight in the first world war. I think your retarded, your veiws are completely insane. You hipocrititical loser dont you understand what this tradition means to us Australians. You are an embarracement to the human race. Remember to cherish our history forever and ever!

Jarrad Lenegen - 4/10/2003

Yeah! That's right!

Chris Reddy, - 4/10/2003

Catherine Reynolds, I wish you would support individuals that can be achievers - help them reach their goals instead of giving away your money to create exhibitions on those who reached their goals.
The world need people who support people and not more of hyping up peoples achievements so that people can not achieve.
I wish you read this and think about it.

Jerry K - 4/9/2003

the US's Operation Phoenix terminated 50,000 civilians, according to US and ARVN sources. There's some guy who performed these Phoenix ops, some ex-CIA agent or something like that... who writes about how terrible he felt doing this. I think morally speaking, things are equal, just not in quantity.

the Geneva Accords of '54 promised an national election that would reunify South and North Vietnam, the victor would be the official government. The US and South Vietnam, believing the elections would favor the North, cancelled the elections, breaking the Accords, and thus leading to war.

Also, Cambodia's Khmer Rouge was invaded by the Vietnamese government, and I believe smashed up quite a bit by them. Dominos that fall on each other aren't supposed to fight each other. Also, the Vietnamese fought the Chinese at some point. And the Vietnamese never cared for Comintern policies from Moscow, (nor did anyone else, really), which removes the concept of "international" communism. Then Vietnam did a very uncommunist thing by saying it was OK to trade with capitalist America. Nevermind that China began saying that too, during the war itself.

Indonesia's massacre of up to a million Communist civilians in the 60s, with US backing (recently revealed by the State dept), is not something to be proud of.

The whole war was a waste. It served no purpose. Had the North won the Geneva elections, there'd have been no war, and Vietnam would have done the same things it did after the war anyway. It might have smashed Cambodia faster, it certainly would not have supported "international communism", it had no real desires to do so, or means to do so either. It would have opened its borders to capitalist trade. Yes, it still would have killed thousands of people. But far less, since a war that killed 3 million people did not occur, and there would be far less revenge-like purges to commit.

Jo McIntire - 4/5/2003

My uncle Jo Dallet died in Spain fighting against Franco's fascist. According to a letter from the US Consular Office in Spain, his body was left in a marked grave in Spain.

I would be most grateful if I might be able to contact EMILIO SILVA (Founder, Association for the Recovery of Historic Memory).

USA 904 461 3175

Dr. FAROOQ ALVI - 3/31/2003

History repeats itself
American YANKS have not learnt a lesson
They will ,God willing, will certainly
experience themselves
A dacoit has no heart
Owner of house fights for his land and honour.
He can sacrifice his life for that fearlessly.
As he believes to be RIGHT. and deserves HEAVEN in the hereafter

werner doecks - 3/22/2003

i am trying to find the cartoon strip by the name of

Patrcia Iona Duchess of argyll - 3/22/2003


Serious and credibile information suggests that Saddam Huseinhas been secreted ina secure building in the city of samara north of Baghdad and he is continuing to issue orders fron this location via couriersand taped maessages to troops loyal to his bathist members. Informatin suggests that COMMUNICATION he has been injured and that he is in the throws of attempting to set up a singular massive strike of Scud missiles from the western desert north of a lne from samarra and the Northern Jordanian border in the 12 hours. There is a potential for the few ( 12 ) scud missiles to have both chemical and vx addapted war heads, This information is recieved from sources close to personel who are acting under duress. This appears to be a last stand as the wounds that Saddam and his Son udei recived in the past 48 hours.U has direct direct secure none transmission comunication for the launch which is set for approx 0445hrs 18th


D. L. van Weye - 3/20/2003

In regards to Keith Windschuttle, his indignation at being accused of plagiarism appears to be a case of 'the pot calling the kettle black'. Take off your 'white blindfold' Keith and admit that you made a mistake; though not as big a mistake as turning from a leftwing radical ratbag in the 60s to a right wing neo-fascist conservative in the noughties.
However, his plagiarism is a minor flaw in this sordid, unscholarly work from a self-styled 'historian'. The kind of misconceptions and selective presentation of 'facts' are redolent of gutter journalism. Interesting that his only experience as an 'academic' was his time as a lecturer in media studies. Shame on you Keith.

lisa james - 3/20/2003

wuz up homies

suzanne gray - 3/20/2003

I would be grateful if you could forward my email to Peter Popham please.
I work for London Weekend TV/Granada Media on a programme that looks at television from around the world - concentrating mainly on the weird, wacky and outrageous. In your Independent coloumn THIS EUROPE recently you made a reference to a naked news cable tv programme in Gela, Sicily. We would like to be able to view/consider this footage for our programme and I am hoping you could help me with more information please i.e. which cable company?

Any leads would be much appreciated.
Thank you
Suzanne Gray
Film Researcher
"Tarrant on TV"
London Weekend Television/Granada Media
17 Hatfields, London SE1 8DJ, U.K.
Tel: +44 (0) 207 737 8335 / Fax: +44 (0) 207 261 3019

Reid Mitchell - 3/16/2003

Computers models! Based on what?

I've no idea if Roy Btrown killed the Red Baron but this Discovery Channel claim is based on moonbeams and mushrooms.

As for the Red Baron, he was a coldblooded killer, useful in war, but not heroic.

Ray - 3/16/2003

HI I am wondering if this movie is going to be shown again at any time? Is it being made into a movie that I can possibly check out at Blockbuster in the future?

Ashley - 3/13/2003

I'm having a school project on the Danish Resistance and I really want to know what the Danish Resistance is.All I know about it is that they were people that faught underground,buyt I need more information about,so if you would please email me at and tell me more about it.(I need it before the 20th of this month)Thanks!
Student in need,

janet horwith - 3/11/2003

It amazes me that this subject just isn't big news. It's terrific that we suddenly see evidence of a HISTORICAL Jesus (and his family) and that it can be seperated from that of the JESUS OF RELIGION. It's also very heartwarming to me to see the HOLY FAMILY in a new light, in that of just an everyday family with a Dad & Mom, children and maybe even a dog! They were as we are, no different, they lived day to day, worked, cooked, cleaned, went to school and skinned their knees like we all did. It makes you look at Jesus in a whole new light, knowing he lost his baby teeth just like you & me. Thank You, JBH.

dec - 3/11/2003

But see¬Found=true

Gene Barnette - 3/11/2003

How would some one from Jacksonville Florida find out the name and website address for Mrs Catherine Reynolds Foundation. I am interested in learning more about Mrs Reynolds and her interest in perserving for our children our great American heroes. Indian Country (Native American Indians) would like to talk with her as well and learn if she could assist them. Thanks for your help and assistance. Gene Barnette

Paul Clark - 3/10/2003

I am currently working on a PhD entitled American Slavery in the North: 1620-1800. I intend to turn this project into a book that will reconstruct the story of Northern slavery from its birth to its death from the perspective of the slaves' experiences. I would welcome any advice/comments on this. As you pointed out, slavery in this region of the US is severely understudied by historians, which is problematic, as popular belief tends to see slavery as a "southern problem" which is clearly not the case.
Any responses to this message will be greatly appreciated.

jazzmine evans - 3/10/2003

hello, i was wondering if i could get your hepl.
im a student studying my hsc and im doing my hsc drama peice on truganini and i have looke3d everywhere for infrmation and im finding it hard to get information on the good parts about her life. can u help me?

thank you

jazzmine evans

Eduardo Marino - 3/9/2003

War brutality and savagery have not changed.
In 1945 the bombing of German cities and the killing of civilians was the 'correct' thing to do in the name of democracy and freedom, equating the cruelty of Nazi bombing with the atrocity of Allied bombing.
Today, in the name of democracy and freedom (not in the name of oil wells control, of course!) the US are going to bomb Iraq, knowing that thousands of civilians will be killed and thus equaling the savagery displayed by Al-Qaeda when they destroyed the Twin Towers.

editor - 3/7/2003

NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE (Vol. 9, #10; 7 March 2003) by Bruce Craig <> National Coalition for History (NCH) Website: ********************************************************************

1. President Issues Executive Order Launching "Preserve America" Initiative 2. Legislation Introduced in Both Houses -- The American History and Civics Education Act 3. House Passes Resolution Celebrating Emancipation Proclamation Anniversary 4. Historians And History Supporters Among National Humanities Medal Recipients 5. Bits and Bytes: Conference on Innovations; TEACH Act Online Resource; National Coalition for History Policy Board Meeting Date Set 6. Articles of Interest: "For Pentagon, A Memorial 'Like No Other'" by Steve Vogel (Washington Post)

1. PRESIDENT ISSUES EXECUTIVE ORDER LAUNCHING "PRESERVE AMERICA" INITIATIVE On 3 March 2003, President Bush signed an Executive Order (EO) entitled "Preserve America" stating that, "It is the policy of the federal government to provide leadership in preserving America's heritage by actively advancing the protection, enhancement, and contemporary use of the historic properties owned by the federal government, and by promoting intergovernmental cooperation and partnerships for the preservation and use of historic properties" ( That same day the President's wife, Laura Bush, formally announced the new "Preserve America" program in a speech before some 1,700 representatives of the National Association of Counties during their annual legislative conference in Washington D.C. (

Executive Order 13287 was crafted with a number of objectives in mind. First, it provides a philosophical umbrella for federal agency historic preservation efforts. It sends a clear statement from the White House to all agency heads of their ongoing historic preservation responsibilities under Sections 110 and 111 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and other federal preservation laws. To that end, the EO requires all federal agencies to examine their policies and procedures and to ensure that their actions "encourage, support, and foster public-private initiatives and investment in the use, reuse, and rehabilitation of historic properties to the extent that such support is not inconsistent with other provisions of law."

Rather than delegate historic preservation responsibilities to lower ranking officials in the federal bureaucracy, agency heads are directed to "designate a senior policy level official" who will have oversight responsibility for agency historic preservation programs. According to the EO, "This senior official shall be an assistant, deputy assistant secretary, or the equivalent. " To assist agencies in meeting the other requirements of the EO, the National Park Service, working in consultation with the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation (ACHP), is to develop and to make available to agency heads education, training, and historic property awareness materials.

Second, the EO lays out the Bush administration's framework for improving stewardship, planning, and accountability in federal agency historic preservation programs. A central thrust of the EO mandates an assessment of the current use of all federal historic properties. When appropriate, the EO directs agencies to consider making such properties available to non-federal entities to advance local community and economic objectives, provided they are "consistent with agency missions." To this end, by September 2004, all federal agencies must have inventoried their historic properties and evaluated their potential for "community economic development," including such uses as heritage tourism and public-private partnerships. Agency findings are to be made to the Secretary of the Interior and to the Advisory Council. In these assessments, agencies must examine opportunities for enhanced "public benefit from, and access to Federally owned historic properties."

Third, the EO also seeks to promote historic preservation through heritage tourism. ACHP observers report that the current chair of the Advisory Council, John Nau III, considers heritage tourism to be a central component of any successful long-term effort to preserve surplus federal historic buildings. Thus, the EO directs agencies to work with the Advisory Council, state governments, Indian tribes, and local communities to promote the use of historic properties for heritage tourism purposes, thus insuring long-term "productive use" of such properties.

Historic preservationists have been expecting this EO for some time. An initial draft of the EO was developed late in the Clinton administration as part of the Democratic president's "stewardship" initiative. With the election of President Bush, however, the EO was reevaluated by the ACHP, modified, and then sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for internal review. Discussions between Advisory Council and OMB officials extended over a period of months. Insiders report the ACHP draft EO was crafted in close coordination with the Department of Commerce, the National Park Service, and other federal agencies. Drafts were submitted to a broader group of federal agencies twice for review and comment.

Because the EO is so new and its ramifications have not entirely been fleshed out by preservationists, it has yet to attract much praise or criticism within the non-federal preservation community. Privately, some preservationists express the opinion that the EO has "great potential" for state and local preservation interests, and there is a general recognition of new "partnership opportunities" in the future. Some express reservations, fearing that the "devil may be in the details." For example, given the tremendous controversy generated several decades ago over the National Park Service's modest and not entirely successful foray into the historic leasing program, preservationists will be watching with keen eyes to see whether federal agency missions are impacted by what is expected to be a broad push toward privatization and more "productive use" of federal historic properties.

A second concern is funding and administrative infrastructure. While the Veterans Administration (VA), for example, may be able to compile a huge catalog of historic properties under its jurisdiction with relative ease thus meeting the technical requirements of the EO's inventory mandate, whether the VA will have sufficient staff and funding to manage other new responsibilities required by the EO is questionable. Most federal agencies are strapped for funds now, and this EO is perceived by some agency insiders as yet another "unfunded federal mandate." In this vein, some preservationists view the EO as a useful philosophical framework but see little infrastructure for carrying out the program. Some also fear that after seeing last year's dramatic cuts to the National Park Service's National Register Programs ($765,000) and cuts to the state historic preservation programs ($6 million), the administration may attempt to "raid the Historic Preservation Fund to help pay for the program."

In her comments to the National Association of Counties, Laura Bush spoke of her pride in serving as honorary chair of the "Save America's Treasures" initiative which, along with several natural resource initiatives, ultimately may be repackaged as part of the "new" initiative. Though details are sketchy as to what exactly is to be part of the broader "Preserve America" Initiative above and beyond the issuance of the EO (preservation insiders expect an awards program and possibly some small amounts of grant money to assist in implementing the initiative), according to Mrs. Bush, in its broadest sense, "Preserve America will promote historic and cultural preservation and encourage greater public appreciation of our national treasures."

2. LEGISLATION INTRODUCED IN BOTH HOUSES -- THE AMERICAN HISTORY AND CIVICS EDUCATION ACT On 4 March 2003, in his maiden speech on the floor of the United States Senate, freshman Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) introduced "The American History and Civics Education Act" (S. 504), legislation, according to Alexander's floor statement (, designed "to put American history and civics back in its rightful place in our schools so our children can grow up learning what it means to be an American." A companion bill was also introduced in the House (H.R. 1078) by Rep. Roger Wicker (R- MS).

Modeled after a program Alexander initiated in Tennessee when he was governor in 1984, the measure authorizes up to twelve "Presidential Academies for Teachers of American History and Civics" and up to twelve "Congressional Academies for Students of American History and Civics." These would function as residential academies for two-week teacher and four-week student summer institutes that would seek to "inspire better teaching and more learning of the key events, persons, and ideas that shape the institutions and democratic heritage of the United States." With a $25-million authorization for what the Senator envisions as a four-year pilot program, the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) would be the entity to administer and award two-year grants to eligible institutions after subjecting applications to a peer review process.

The legislation also authorizes the creation of what is termed as "a national alliance of American history and civics teachers." Federal funds would be authorized to connect these individuals via the internet. The alliance would "facilitate sharing and best practices," said Alexander, and is modeled after an alliance the Senator helped initiate in the 1980s to put geography back into the American school curriculum.

Part of Alexander's floor statement attributed a decline in emphasis on American values and principles to greater attention being placed in schools on what he termed "so-called reforms" during the 1960s and 1970s --multiculturalism and diversity. Alexander stated, "During this time, many of our national leaders contributed to this drift toward agnostic Americanism....These leaders celebrated multiculturalism and bilingualism and diversity at a time when there should have been more emphasis on a common culture and learning English in unity." These comments immediately struck a raw nerve in the Civil Rights community.

Some leaders found the Senator's words unsettling at a time when minorities chafe over racially insensitive remarks by former Senator Majority leader Trent Lott (R-MS). "To criticize multiculturalism and bilingualism sounds very nationalistic and betrays the fact that Lamar Alexander did not grow up in a multicultural society....From his perspective, becoming more American means becoming more white," said Nashville attorney and activist Fred Ramos. Speaking to reporters in response to criticism, Alexander bristled at the association of his comment with Lott's remark and bluntly stated, "unity is more important than diversity."

Coming at a time when America is poised for war, the strong patriotic overtones in Alexander's speech won the praise of several colleagues. The Republican Majority leader and fellow Tennessean Bill Frist said of Alexander's speech, "This concept of unity, this concept of patriotism, this concept of the essence of what being American is all about has been a real focus for all of us throughout our lives." Another Republican colleague, Senator Michael B. Enzi (R-WY) commented that "it was an outstanding and inspiring speech....I feel tremendously more patriotic now than when I came in."

Irrespective of laudatory comments by colleagues, Tennessee newspapers are now weighing in through their editorial pages. In The Tennessean, for example, editors state, "The need for a common culture should never exclude diversity that made this country great. A history lesson for Congress would be in order before the legislation is passed." (

Alexander's bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions for action.

3. HOUSE PASSES RESOLUTION CELEBRATING EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION ANNIVERSARY On 26 February 2003, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 36) encouraging the people of the United States to honor and celebrate the 140th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation and commending President Abraham Lincoln's efforts to end slavery.

Introduced by Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-VA), the resolution states that Congress "recognizes the historical significance of the 140th anniversary....[and] encourages its celebration in accordance with the spirit, strength, and legacy of freedom, justice, and equality of all people of America and to provide an opportunity for all people of the United States to learn more about the past and to better understand the experiences that have shaped the Nation." The anniversary of the famous proclamation that freed the slaves in insurgent states during the American Civil War is 22 September 2003.

In her floor statement, Rep Davis stated, "Much has been accomplished in our nation since 1863 by freed men and women and their descendants in every sphere of our national life....We must never forget our history, we must never forget the steadfastness of the President who was rightly call the Great Emancipator. We must never tolerate mental or physical slavery in our nation or any nation."

Several other members of Congress rose to speak in favor of the resolution including three Illinois members -- Rep. Danny Davis ( D-IL), Ray LaHood (R-IL), and Jerry Weller (R-IL) as well as members Todd Tiahart (R-KS), and Ron E. Paul (R-TX). By a recorded roll call vote, the measure passed --415 years, 0 nays, with 19 members not voting.

4. HISTORIANS AND HISTORY SUPPORTERS AMONG NATIONAL HUMANITIES MEDAL RECIPIENTS In a White House awards ceremony held 27 February 2003, President Bush presented National Humanities Medals for 2002 to six people and two organizations. The winners were recognized for their contributions to the nation's understanding of and engagement with the humanities. Among the winners are Donald Kagan, a professor of classics and history and a former dean at Yale University and Brian Lamb, founder and chief executive officer of C-SPAN. In the organization category, the Mount Vernon Ladies Association, the preservation group that has maintained George Washington's estate since 1850, was selected as a recipient.

Professor Kagan has written many books and articles, and is particularly known for his scholarship on war in the classical world and his commentary on the challenges faced by contemporary America. Mr. Lamb is host of the network's "Booknotes" and "Bookends" programs, which have profiled a variety of history and nonfiction books and their authors. In 1999, he was the host of the network's American Presidents series, which won a Peabody Award. The Mount Vernon Ladies Association describes itself as the oldest historic-preservation organization in the United States and is widely known for its dedication to preserving George Washington's plantation home.

The award, established by Congress in 1988, seeks to honor those individuals and entities that have contributed to the nation's understanding of the humanities. The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) presents a list of recommendations to the president who then selects the honorees. The names of all of the honorees were advanced to the President through the internal vetting procedures of the NEH.

Other recipients included the late Frankie Hewitt, producing artistic director of Ford's Theater in Washington D.C; Art Linkletter, the radio and television personality; Patricia MacLachlan, the author of Sarah Plain and Tall (1985), which won the 1986 Newbery Medal; Thomas Sowell, a senior fellow in public policy at Stanford University's Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace; and the Iowa Writers Workshop of the University of Iowa.

5. BITS AND BYTES Item #1 -- Conference on Innovations: On 26-28 June 2003, the American Historical Association, the National Council for the Social Studies, and the Organization of American Historians will hold an "Innovations in Collaboration Conference" in Alexandria, Virginia. The meeting is designed to showcase model programs where history educators are working together in innovative ways to enhance the teaching of history. More than 100 individuals from elementary and secondary schools, community and four-year colleges and universities, museums, historic sites, government, and the private sector are expected to be involved as participants. Additional information, registration and program materials may be found at: or by contacting Cliff Jacobs,

Item #2 -- TEACH Act Online Resource: The American Library Association Office for Information Technology Policy has published a white paper to provide initial guidance on the technological requirements of the TEACH Act for Distance Education. As with all copyright law, institutions must assess their own needs and values, and determine their own legal interpretations in order to develop policies. This paper provides guidance and background information for that deliberation. The paper outlines the various considerations regarding technology that must be taken into account by institutions intending to rely on TEACH in their distance education activities. To access the paper, tap into: <>;.

Item #3 -- National Coalition for History Policy Board Meeting Date Set: During the upcoming meeting of the Organization of American Historians 3-6 April 2003 in Memphis, Tennessee the Policy Board of the National Coalition for History will convene on Friday, April 4, at 8:00 am in the Executive Director's Presidential Suite at the Memphis Marriott Downtown, 250 North Main Street, Memphis (901) 527-7300). A continental breakfast will be served. A correction in the OAH program announcement (p16) -- the meeting should be over no later than 9:30 am.

The National Coalition for History's "Hill Rat Open Forum" is a session designed to engage NCH institutional supporter representatives and other interested parties in a discussion of current Congressional initiatives of interest to the historical community. The session takes place Saturday, April 5, from 1:15-2:15 pm in room 204 of the Memphis Cook Convention Center. This forum will include updates on various history and archives related appropriation measures, including the Bush Administration's various history initiatives; pending legislation, including Senator Alexander's "American History and Civics Education Act" and an update on executive order and court challenges being advanced by historians. As always, additional topics may also be raised by participants.

A "CRM Roundtable" session is once again scheduled to provide an informal session for cultural resource practitioners from the governmental and the private sectors to meet and exchange ideas and issues of concern. One issue that will be discussed is the A-76 "outsourcing" of federal archeological and history office functions as well as other matters brought to the table by participants. The Roundtable will be held Saturday 5 April from 2:30-3:30 pm in Room 204 of the Memphis Cook Convention Center.

6. ARTICLES OF INTEREST This week we highlight an article describing the memorial that will be built in honor of those killed at the Pentagon on September 11. What is envisioned is a park with 184 cantilevered benches -- one for each victim. Tap into: "For Pentagon, A Memorial 'Like No Other'" by Steve Vogel (Washington Post 4 March 2003): <>;.

*********************************************************** The NATIONAL COALITION FOR HISTORY invites you to subscribe to this FREE weekly newsletter! You are also encouraged to redistribute the NCH Washington Updates to colleagues, friends, teachers, students and others who are interested in history and archives issues. A complete backfile of these reports is maintained by H-Net on the NCH's recently updated web page at <>;.

To subscribe to the "NCH Washington Update," send an e-mail message to according to the following model: SUBSCRIBE H-NCH firstname lastname, institution. To unsubscribe send an e-mail message to according to the following model: SIGNOFF H-NCH. You can accomplish the same tasks by tapping into the web interface at and at the "network" prompt, scroll down and select H-NCH; enter your name and affiliation and "submit". **************************************************************

editor - 3/7/2003

The New York Times
March 3, 2003, Monday, Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section E; Page 1; Column 1; The Arts/Cultural Desk
HEADLINE: Panel on Nazi Art Theft Fell Short, Experts Say
A Clinton administration commission on Nazi plunder failed to examine critical records pertaining to traffic in looted art before, during and after World War II, some leading scholars who worked on the inquiry now say.
The experts, historians and economists who worked from 1998 to 2000 on the panel, the Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States, say that as a result it came up with a report that broke little new ground and failed to come to grips with the question of how much stolen art passed through American controls.
Several of the panel's leaders defend the work or say that shortcomings were results of lack of time, but in many quarters the report is perceived as a lost opportunity to provide definitive answers to questions that in many ways are being asked more now than anytime since the days just after World War II.
"The tents were folded much to the chagrin of many of us," said former Representative Benjamin A. Gilman, Republican of New York, and one of the commission's 21 members. "I felt we should have been doing much more than we did."
Objections to the panel's work were so strong that some staff members said they contemplated writing a minority report. Their comments, and similar ones from leading experts in the field, were not publicly expressed when the commission reported its findings and came out in recent interviews about the search for missing Nazi plunder nearly 60 years after World War II.
Stuart E. Eizenstat, the former deputy Treasury secretary who urged the panel's creation and served as a member, acknowledged that the report did not go as far as he had hoped. "Lack of time was a major problem," he said. He added that the panel's mandate had proved too narrow and that its work had fallen short of what similar inquiries had uncovered in Europe.
The chairman of the commission, Edgar M. Bronfman, president of the World Jewish Congress and the former chairman of Seagram, praised the overall work of the panel, which wound up two and a half years of work in December 2000 with a 313-page report, "Plunder and Restitution." But he said missing records and a lack of time made the inquiry into looted art difficult. "We didn't do as good a job as we could have," he said, adding that the commission had more success with its inquiries into missing financial assets.
The report concluded that American authorities in Europe had made "extraordinary efforts" to find, safeguard and return art and other victims' assets but that their work had been compromised by conflicting wartime and occupation priorities and occasional acts of thievery by G.I.'s.

editor - 3/7/2003

Fox News Network


March 4, 2003 Tuesday

Transcript # 030406cb.263

SECTION: News; International

HEADLINE: Slavery Was Rampant in the North Too

BYLINE: John Gibson, Heather Nauert

GIBSON: Let's go back. Before Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, slavery was, of course, the institution in the South. But to this day, few people know that slavery was also rampant in the North. Heather Nauert has that story.

NAUERT: Yes. It's a fascinating story, and with archaeological studies and routine land excavations in many Northern states historians are now discovering treasures. Bits of China, tools and other artifacts which weave a tale of unknown enslavement.

NAUERT (voice-over): Read some history books and you'd think slave plantations were just a fixture of the South. Not so. Until the mid 18th century, New York City had the largest urban slave population in the northern colonies.

KEN JACKSON, NEW YORK HISTORICAL SOC.: Slavery was a major institution in American history. Yes, it was predominantly in the South, but it was not only located in the North, but the Northerners somehow made their peace with it in the Constitution of the United States.

NAUERT: New York's Shelter Island was once home to an 8,000-acre plantation. Philadelphia's liberty bell is the site of the first White House, where George Washington had slaves. Just north of New York City in the Hudson Valley sits Philipsburg Manor. Its owner was a wealthy sea merchant. But he also owned and traded slaves from the late 1600's to the early 1700's. The historians here, today, coming to terms with that past.

MICHAEL LORD, PHILIPSBURG MANOR: We need to dispel the notions that the North was the opposite of the South in colonial times. This system of brutality was as significant in New York as it was in Virginia or the Carolinas.

NAUERT: Slaves here had a hard life, working through the summers and harsh winters. And they were listed on this inventory as property.

LORD: Slaves were considered more valuable than livestock, yes. And the tragedy is, however, they're still considered property to be listed on somebody's probate inventory.

NAUERT: And they were bought and sold in common rooms like this. Today, the curator's goal -- teaching current generations what life was like then.

(on camera): This bed doesn't look particularly comfortable.

LORD: Sometimes you would stuff it with anything that would be soft, even a variety of rye grains and such. And after working sunup to sundown, you're pretty tired and you're willing to sleep on anything that is even suggestive of being soft. So, Mr. Philips, when he did sleep in this area, had a canopy bed that was very warm, very comfortable, and significantly improved upon any of these conditions.

NAUERT (voice-over): The North phased out slavery years before the South did. But the fact remains that the Yankees started it.

NAUERT: Now Philipsburg Manor had great records and artifacts. That's how they were able to put all this information together. Other sites in New England and the mid-Atlantic states are still discovering much of their past. So, we'll certainly hear a lot more about this.

editor - 3/7/2003

The Times (London)

March 5, 2003, Wednesday

SECTION: Home news; 3

HEADLINE: Was Oxford's most famous Marxist a Soviet mole?

BYLINE: Ian Cobain

Christopher Hill failed to declare his Communist Party membership while working in Military Intelligence and at the Foreign Office during the war, reports Ian Cobain

ONE of the most influential historians of the 20th century, who went on to be Master of Balliol College, Oxford, stands accused today of taking a dark secret to his grave: he was a Soviet mole.

Christopher Hill, who died last week aged 91, concealed his membership of the Communist Party to serve first in Military Intelligence, then at the Foreign Office, during the Second World War.

Declassified government papers suggest that Hill used his position as head of the Russian desk at the Foreign Office to push pro-Soviet policy, and that he was a close associate of another Soviet agent.

He was confronted by a fellow historian who had unearthed the papers while researching a book about Soviet espionage in Britain. When they met, however, Hill is said to have begged his colleague to keep the discovery a secret, and the two men agreed that he would not be named as a mole during his lifetime.

"The first thing he said to me as he took a seat in my living room was, 'You're not going to unmask me, are you?' " Anthony Glees said. "He was a sad, rather pathetic figure, he appeared to have had a stroke, and I took pity on him."

Hill never made any secret of his left-wing sympathies and was open about his membership of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) in the postwar years, before resigning in 1957. However, his name appears to have been kept on one of the CPGB's secret membership lists. He joined at some point between taking a first in history at Balliol in 1934 and returning as a tutor in 1938. He spent ten months in the Soviet Union in the intervening period. Hill established his academic reputation by offering a Marxist interpretation of the events surrounding the English Civil War and was elected Master of Balliol in 1965.

The existence of a group of spies at Oxford, similar to but less successful than the infamous Cambridge spy ring, was discovered when the KGB briefly opened its files four years ago. However, while researching his book in 1985, Dr Glees came across a series of previously confidential Foreign Office papers which, he says, suggest that Hill operated as an "agent of influence" for the Soviet Union during his time as a civil servant.

Dr Glees wrote to Hill in September that year to request a meeting. "He rang me a couple of days later and asked to see me immediately, before catching a bus from his home near Banbury to visit me at my house in Oxford."

During their 90-minute meeting, Hill explained to Dr Glees that he assumed he had been vetted by MI5 before being recruited to Military Intelligence in 1940 and seconded to the Foreign Office three years later. However, he escaped identification as a Communist by simply not declaring his party membership.

Hill had first worked as a liaison officer with Soviet military engineers who were in Britain to inspect British tanks and had then been assigned to a small unit that was preparing to be parachuted into the Baltic states to foment rebellion.

When that mission was shelved, he was seconded in 1943 to the Northern department of the Foreign Office, and as a fluent Russian speaker was quickly appointed head of the Russian desk.

Among the papers discovered by Dr Glees was a proposal, signed by Hill, that all White Russian emigres teaching Russian at British universities and schools should be sacked and replaced with Soviet-approved staff. Polish exiles were to face similar treatment after the war.

Hill suggested that Churchill should make this offer to Stalin at the 1945 Potsdam Conference, but Lord Cherwell, Churchill's scientific adviser, wrote back to him to say: "I am a little surprised that the Foreign Office wants to put so small a matter on the agenda." The documents show that Anthony Eden, then Foreign Secretary, also took exception to Hill's plans.

Dr Glees discovered that Hill had forged a relationship with Peter Smollett, the head of the Russian desk at the Ministry of Information, and that the two men had formed a committee to help to develop future British government policy towards the Soviet Union.

Smollett, an Austrian-born former journalist at The Times, whose real name was Smolka and who was a friend of Kim Philby, was a Soviet spy. Among his successes, as an agent of influence, was to persuade a number of publishers to reject George Orwell's Animal Farm. He was later exposed and fled to the Soviet sector of Vienna.

Dr Glees found a number of policy papers which showed that the department in which Hill worked had become convinced that Stalin would not pursue westward expansion of his empire into Central and Eastern Europe after the defeat of Germany.

Intriguingly, he also discovered a briefing note about a Soviet diplomat in London named Grigori Saksin, who worked with Hill's committee and who had revealed something of Stalin's plans for Poland and Hungary.

Saksin was recalled suddenly by the Kremlin in September 1944, the note reported, possibly to be shot, and probably after being denounced by one of his British contacts.

Dr Glees, Reader in Politics at Brunel University and the historical adviser to the Home Office war crimes inquiry of the 1990s, says it was inconceivable that Hill would have been appointed to such a sensitive wartime post had the Security Services known about his CPGB membership.

"Much of what Eden was reading about the Soviets would have first been seen by Hill," he said. "His failure to own up to his party membership was outrageous, sinister and highly suspicious."

While at the Foreign Office, Hill wrote a book, The Soviets and Ourselves: Two Commonwealths, which he published after the war under the pseudonym K. E. Holme, with the help of Smollett. In the book he extolled "Lenin's genius", claimed that all Soviet citizens enjoyed the vote, and described the Stalinist purges of the 1930s as "non-violent" and comparable to the Chartist movement.

Colleagues say that Hill rarely discussed his wartime career and his family say that he never spoke about it at home. One obituary noted last week that "this was, to put it mildly, an intriguing period, about which he rarely let much detail fall".

Hill's son, Andrew, 44, said that he was not surprised about the accusation against his father but added: "He never discussed that period of life with me."

He said that it did seem strange that his father should have been working at the Foreign Office while a Communist Party member. "It is a period that I have always been fascinated about."


Anthony Blunt: one of KGB's "Magnificent Five" -the Cambridge graduates who spied for the Soviet Union in the 1940s and 50s. Blunt, an MI5 officer and the Queen's art adviser, confessed in 1964. Publicly exposed in 1979. Knighthood taken away.

Died in 1983.

Guy Burgess: Blunt's lover at one time. Worked at British Embassy in Washington.

FBI said he was a louche, foul-mouthed homosexual given to seducing hitch hikers.

Donald Maclean: defected with Burgess in 1951.

Kim Philby: Britain's head of anti-Communist counter-espionage 1944-46. Philby warned Maclean that MI5 had exposed him. MI5 began hunting down "Third Man" who helped Burgess and Maclean. Disappeared while a journalist in Beirut and turned up in Moscow. Died there in 1988.

John Cairncross: fifth Cambridge graduate recruited in the 1930s. In 1941 delivered 3,449 classified documents to the Russians, including nuclear secrets.

Exposed in 1991. Died aged 82 in 1995.

Melita Norwood: great-grandmother, 87, exposed by The Times in 1999. Secretary at the British Non-Ferrous Metals Research Association, passed nuclear secrets for 40 years. Escaped prosecution but was exposed by KGB archivist who defected to West.

George Blake: British Secret Intelligence Service officer turned double agent.

Served in Berlin during Cold War. Told the Russians about a secret tunnel to tap communications. Betrayed by Polish defector in 1961. Jailed in Britain. Escaped Wormwood Scrubs in 1966. Fled to Moscow, where he lives.

Frederick Rutland: Glittering RAF career during the First World War. Recruited by Japanese naval intelligence years before the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Interned in Britain in 1941.

editor - 3/7/2003

The Independent (London)

March 5, 2003, Wednesday




Claretta Petacci: Stuck to the dictator till the end; Mussolini: Executed by the side of his mistress

THE MISSING letters are the stuff of a librarian's nightmare. Scholars of Italian history have waited more than half a century to get their hands on the correspondence Claretta Petacci sent to her lover, Benito Mussolini, between 1933 and 1945.

But this week, announcing, with the passage of exactly 70 years, the opening of the archive's first year, Maurizio Fallace, the superintendent of the state archive at Rome, had to confess that letters and diaries from one of the key years of their liaison, 1937 - the year of the Rome- Berlin-Tokyo Pact, the crucible of the Second World War - were missing. Petacci, Mussolini's "air-headed and unlosable last mistress" according to one ungallant historian, was 29 years younger than Italy's Fascist dictator and stuck to him like a limpet; she was executed by his side in 1945, then in the final humiliation her body was hung upside down next to his in a Milan square.

Nobody knows exactly what is in the 600 letters and 15 volumes of diaries that Petacci wrote during the long and bumpy love affair, or if they know they are not telling.

When Petacci's sister Miriam returned to Italy from Spain in 1950 the letters had disappeared into the files of the Ministry of the Interior.

She went to law to get them back, but the Supreme Court ruled in 1956 that the state had a right to hang on to them because of their historical importance.

The claim, though scarcely credible, is that nobody has so much as taken a peek since.

Mr Fallace succeeded as superintendent last October and, preparing to open the first batch of documents for inspection, he discovered the loss. All 170 of the archive's employees were pressed into hunting them down, without success.

"There are 100km of documents here," Mr Fallace lamented; every inch of every stack was scoured. Then the police were called in.

The supposition now is that they have been stolen, though by whom and for what purpose is likely to remain a mystery.

editor - 3/7/2003

The Age (Melbourne)

March 5, 2003 Wednesday

SECTION: News; Features; Pg. 13

HEADLINE: Man Of Steel, Heart Of Stone

BYLINE: Robert Manne

He was nothing more than a tyrant, nothing less than evil. Robert Manne examines the legacy of Joseph Stalin, who died 50 years ago today.

In November 1940, during the period of the Nazi-Soviet pact, Soviet foreign minister Molotov visited Berlin. "I know that history will remember Stalin," Hitler told him, "but it will also remember me."

Hitler was right. Both he and Stalin were destined to be remembered as the 20th century's two most consequential political figures and the two most terrible tyrants known to history.

Stalin died 50 years ago today. He was born, as Iosif Dzugashvili, of poorest Georgian peasant stock. The family was not close. Stalin's father was a cobbler, a wife beater and a drunk. From the time he left the Orthodox seminary to join the Bolshevik party in 1904 to the year of her death in 1937, Stalin met his mother on no more than four occasions. With the partial exception of his first wife, who died in 1907, Stalin appears to have experienced throughout his life no attachment to any human being.

The Bolshevik party was the most extreme tendency of Russian Marxism. Before the abdication of the tsar in February 1917, Stalin worked as a professional revolutionary, and he was arrested and exiled several times. By the time he was voted onto the Bolshevik Central Committee in 1912, he had become the party's expert on the problem of the empire's non-Russian minority nationalities.

While Stalin's personal role in the almost bloodless seizure of power in Russia in October 1917 was considerably less glorious than he would later pretend, he did play a significant part in the military victory over the White Armies in the unbelievably savage civil war of 1918-20.

Yet, at that stage, even his more brilliant comrades continued to look down on him as a nonentity, as the "grey blur", or as Leon Trotsky put it, the "outstanding mediocrity". Stalin never forgot a slight. For their condescension, Stalin's comrades would later pay a high price.

Lenin suffered a series of strokes between November 1922 and his death in January 1924. During these months his misgivings about Stalin grew, because of his brutal administrative style, and the unheard of insolence he displayed towards Krupskaya, Lenin's wife.

In his final political will, Lenin suggested removing Stalin from the general secretaryship. Because they feared Trotsky and not Stalin, and because Lenin had been less than complimentary about all of them, Stalin's colleagues helped to suppress Lenin's will.

During the 1920s, the members of the post-Lenin Politburo became absorbed in a fierce and complex political struggle. The stakes were high - not merely the Lenin succession but the very future of the revolution, which all accepted was the most important historical event in the movement towards ending class oppression and emancipating humankind.

In the first phase of the struggle Trotsky was isolated and defeated by all his colleagues. In the second phase the "Right-Centre", led by Bukharin and Stalin, routed the Zinoviev-Kamenev "Left". In the third phase, Stalin detached himself from, and politically destroyed, the Bukharin "Right".

Why did Stalin triumph? In part, he triumphed because his opponents took each other far more seriously than they did Stalin, until it was too late; in part because Stalin had an unparalleled capacity to separate questions of power from questions of ideology; in part because, as general secretary, Stalin possessed vast resources of political patronage, which he dispensed with great skill; and in part, it must be said, because in his cunning and unscrupulousness, and also in the sensitivity of his antennae to the mood of the Bolshevik rank and file, Stalin proved to be far superior politically to his more theoretically gifted colleagues.

By the late 1920s Stalin's victory over his rivals was complete.

Stalin now lurched violently to the policies of the ultra-Left. In the space of a few months in 1929-30, in conditions of indescribable chaos, the Stalin leadership used an iron broom to sweep the entire peasantry from their ancestral communes onto vast state-controlled collective farms. As part of the collectivisation drive, millions of slightly more prosperous peasants, the so-called "kulaks", were either deported for resettlement to the remotest regions or transported, as forced labour, to the Soviet concentration camp system, the Gulag Archipelago.

Collectivisation coincided with Stalin's decision to industrialise the Soviet Union at breakneck speed. The most immediate purpose of collectivisation was to force peasants to deliver grain to the regime, either to feed the factory workers, or for the export income needed to pay for the imports of foreign machinery Soviet heavy industry required.

In the early 1930s, Stalin collected grain quotas even when there was nothing for the peasants to eat. In his "man-made famine" of 1933, perhaps five million Ukrainian peasants starved to death.

The Communist Party celebrated the economic achievements at the Congress of Victors in 1934. Stalin was acclaimed, not merely as the leader of the party, but as a towering, universal genius in every human sphere.

Beneath the surface, however, reality was more complex. At the congress, corridor discussions about removing Stalin from his post as general secretary took place. In the secret ballot for the Central Committee, more than 100 of the 2000 or so delegates crossed out Stalin's name. Only three had crossed out the name of the popular Leningrad party boss, Sergei Kirov.

The Congress of Victors marked a turning point in the history of the Soviet Union. Stalin no longer trusted the Communist Party. As an immediate measure he arranged for the assassination of Kirov, whose death he ostentatiously mourned. More important, he decided that there existed inside the Soviet Union a vast anti-socialist conspiracy. Stalin was convinced that the leader of this conspiracy was the man he most feared and loathed, Leon Trotsky.

Unfortunately, because he had been sent into foreign exile by Stalin, Trotsky was not available for arrest, trial and execution. However, Stalin was also convinced that the Trotsky conspiracy inside the Soviet Union was led by Zinoviev and Kamenev. Both were arrested and, in 1936, were put on public trial where they confessed abjectly to heinous crimes. They were executed without delay. Stalin soon came to the opinion that the conspiracy had spread to the Right. In 1938 the show trial of Bukharin and his supporters took place.

In an atmosphere of hysteria, a Soviet-wide drive to root out the entirely fictitious Trotskyite conspiracy began. In 1937 and 1938 - the most horrific years in Russia's long and terrible history - almost one million "counter-revolutionaries" were executed, while perhaps five million were dispatched to the Gulag Archipelago, where the vast majority died.

Stalin personally signed thousands of death warrants. He often took pleasure in taunting former comrades with hints about their impending deaths. In these years, more than half the delegates at the Congress of Victors disappeared.

Stalin believed that the conspiracy had reached the Soviet army. Three of the army's five marshals and 15 of its 16 army commanders were executed. As the Soviet dissident historian, Roy Medvedev, puts it: "The shocking truth can be stated quite simply: never did the officer staff of any army suffer such great losses in any war as the Soviet army suffered in the time of peace."

During the 1930s, Stalin became the champion of the international anti-fascist movement, and the withering critic of the appeasement of Nazi Germany by the democratic powers, Britain and France. It was because of this that many left-wing intellectuals joined communist parties at this time.

By mid-1939, as the German invasion of Poland loomed, Stalin was effectively offered a choice between a military alliance with Britain and France or acceptance of a non-aggression pact with Germany. The West offered Stalin participation in the front-line of a continental war, while Hitler offered him the mirage of peace, the occupation of eastern Poland and the Baltic states, and more time to arm. Stalin chose Germany.

Between August 1939 and June 1941, he was almost fanatical in his determination to do nothing that could be construed as a provocation to Germany. Consequently, when the massive German attack inevitably came, on June 22, 1941, the Soviet Army was militarily and psychologically unprepared. For the only time in his life Stalin's resolution broke. But it soon returned. According to his Russian biographer, General Dmitri Volkogonov, while Stalin was not a brilliant supreme commander of the Soviet armed forces he was highly competent. He listened to his talented generals; he developed a broad strategic grasp; he showed judgement in his refusal to evacuate Moscow and in his appeal to old-style Russian patriotism rather than proletarian solidarity.

On the basis of the 1930s industrialisation, the USSR became one of the world's great arsenals. In order to secure victory over Germany, Stalin was unconcerned about how many millions of his soldiers or civilians died. Nazi Germany was essentially conquered on the eastern front. This represents Stalin's one and only contribution to the improvement of mankind.

Soon after the defeat of Germany and Japan in 1945, the Soviet-British-American alliance began to fall apart. The British and Americans encouraged the Soviet Army into eastern Europe. Generally, they were sympathetic to Soviet border claims and demands for the creation of "friendly" governments in the lands between Germany and the USSR. They found it impossible, however, to reconcile themselves to Soviet political methods or the gradual imposition of single-party dictatorship in the areas the Red Army occupied. By 1948 Europe was effectively divided between a Soviet East and an Anglo-American West. Eastern Europe was swiftly Stalinised. In response to the Soviet military threat, NATO formed. In Germany, a dangerous military stand-off over the Soviet blockade of West Berlin arose. The Cold War had arrived. A third world war seemed more likely than not.

As always, inside Stalin's mind, morbid suspicions, mirroring the situation in the external world, took hold. Stalin dispatched to the Gulag vast numbers of returned Soviet soldiers who were tainted by knowledge of another, non-Soviet, reality.

Then, following the creation of Israel, Stalin's thoughts turned to the Jews. In 1952, he brought the leaders of the wartime Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee to trial. A vast anti-Semitic action was, most likely, being planned. As his health deteriorated, Stalin's gaze turned towards those around his bed. The organs of Beria's secret police began to investigate what was called "the doctors' plot". On March 5, 1953 - most likely to the genuine anguish of the Soviet people and the no less genuine relief of the members of his close entourage -Stalin finally died.

Stalin left after him nothing but the taste of ash in the mouth. He was not responsible for the creation of the brutal single-party dictatorship in Russia. Credit for that belongs to Lenin. Yet upon the Leninist foundations a number of possible futures - none that was likely to be democratic or prosperous - might have been built. That it was Stalin who succeeded Lenin, and not Trotsky or Bukharin or someone else, mattered a great deal.

For it was Stalin who was responsible for the needless deaths of perhaps 20 million human beings. And it was Stalin, more than anyone else, who cut the utopian 19th century idea of socialism from its humanitarian moorings and transformed it into a 20th century nightmare of economic irrationality and privation, mind-numbing ideological conformity and hypocrisy, barracks-style social regimentation, primeval leader worship, and universal fear.

Robert Manne is professor of politics at La Trobe University.

The life and times of a cobbler's son

1879 - Iosif Vissarionovich Dzugashvili born in Gori, Georgia. He later changes his name to Stalin, which means "man of steel".

1895 - Stalin establishes contact with the underground groups of Russian revolutionary Marxists.

1899 - He is expelled from the Tbilisi Theological Seminary for propagating Marxism.

1912 - Stalin is voted on to the Bolshevik Central Committee.

1917 - Tsarist government overthrown.

1918-20 - Russian civil war.

1922 - Stalin becomes General Party Secretary to the Central Committee and begins to increase his power while Lenin is ill after suffering a series of strokes.

Lenin writes a political testament claiming that Trotsky should take over from him when he dies, but this is never publicised.

1924 - Lenin dies and Stalin takes control.

1929 - Stalin launches the campaign for the collectivisation of agriculture during which millions of peasants will die.

1939 - Stalin signs a non-aggression pact with Hitler.

1941 - Germany invades Russia.

1953 - Stalin dies, aged 73.

Mike Tennant - 3/5/2003

What a surprise! One branch of government lies to cover its you-know-what, and another branch uncritically accepts its word.

Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find out that some, if not all, of the Supreme Court justices in the original case knew the Air Force was lying and ruled in its favor anyway. By this time the court was full of Roosevelt and Truman appointees who treated the Constitution and the American tradition of liberty with the same utter contempt their appointers did. It was in their interest, as much as it was the Executive Branch's, to augment the power of the federal government at the expense of the people's freedom and right to know what their government was doing.

Lest we think that the present Court's vacating of this decision, should that occur, will lead to more openness and honesty in government, let us bear in mind that the federal government is still covering up the Roosevelt administration's machinations which led to Pearl Harbor.

Government is the enemy of truth and freedom. Never forget it.

editor - 3/4/2003

Wall Street Journal

The Presidents
Aside from Reagan, what other "right" men have been in the White House?

Monday, March 3, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST

Liberals have their pantheon of presidents, established by the New Deal historians. "Great presidents," in their view, are those who expand the size and scope of the federal government in the interest of the masses against the interests of the classes. By this criterion Franklin Roosevelt is one of the greatest presidents, in a line that includes Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Wilson.

Later Democrats, alas, are not easy to classify as great. And when one looks back on the liberal pantheon, one finds that few precisely fit the Franklin Roosevelt template. Washington was supported by the Federalists, the one American party that identified with the classes against the masses, and that accordingly disappeared. American politics ever since has been a struggle of the masses versus the masses.

Jackson believed in an extreme form of economic laissez-faire, and would have been aghast at FDR's public-works projects. Lincoln was a Republican and, had he lived, this former railroad lawyer would surely have favored economic policies the New Dealers abhorred. And history, we have learned in the past quarter-century, does not always move left. The masses sometimes decide that in their name you have expanded government too much and should pare it back.

The American presidency is by its nature not a very conservative office. The Federalist called for "energy in the executive": Presidents do things, they don't just let things be.
But conservatives these days are tempted to build a presidential pantheon of their own. Ronald Reagan is their template, as FDR was for the New Dealers: hence Grover Norquist's project of getting things named after him. George W. Bush is often advanced as another Reagan, and a decaffeinated case can be made for his father as well. But who else? Gerald Ford was opposed by Mr. Reagan. Nixon started EPA, OSHA and racial quotas and preferences, went off gold and inflated the currency, and entered into détente with the Soviets. Eisenhower was the quintessential liberal Republican. Hoover built great government institutions. Coolidge's picture was on Mr. Reagan's wall, but he is not Rushmore material. A case can be made for Harding, but never will. Taft was defeated for re-election and signed the income tax. And so on.

Washington and Lincoln can certainly be claimed as great conservative presidents. Yet Washington was also, literally, a revolutionary, and Lincoln vastly expanded the government, levied an income tax, debased the currency and often violated civil liberties. You can justify Washington's revolution as a response to tyranny and Lincoln's big government as a response to rebellion, and argue that they were conservatives in a larger sense. But they're not a perfect fit for the Reagan template, any more than Jackson was a perfect fit for the New Dealers' FDR template.

So rather than try to construct a pantheon of conservative presidents based on today's definition of conservatism, it is more useful to see what part presidents have played in furthering the conservative enterprise in government--to create a framework in which market economics can work its miracles, to pass laws which preserve liberty and encourage virtuous behavior (and to repeal laws which encourage vicious behavior), and to defend the nation against enemies foreign and domestic. In our decentralized system of government and with our rich civil society, only some of the work of furthering this enterprise is done by presidents.

Consider the question of creating a framework in which market economics can thrive. For that you need a stable currency, enforcement of contracts, a rule of law that enables people to accumulate and invest capital. For most of our history, these things have not been presidents' work. In Washington's administration, Alexander Hamilton established a central bank and a funded debt. But the work of establishing a rule of law was done by Chief Justice John Marshall and the Supreme Court, by state courts and by state legislatures, which passed incorporation laws. Presidents have debased the currency--Jackson by abolishing the central bank, Lincoln by printing greenbacks, Wilson and Roosevelt through wartime inflation, Nixon by going off gold. But stabilizing the currency and steadying financial markets have been mostly the work of others--J. P. Morgan for a time and later the Federal Reserve.
Presidents have played a role in passing laws which have a conservatizing effect on society. Lincoln's Homestead Act and land-grant colleges, Franklin Roosevelt's FHA and VA home mortgage loans and the G.I. Bill of Rights. These laws encourage, subsidize, reward and honor those who educate themselves and accumulate wealth.

The Founders thought that one reason their republic could prosper was that almost all voters owned property; by the early 20th century that was no longer so, as the big cities filled up with a propertyless proletariat. Laws that transformed a nation of renters into a nation of homeowners have made America inherently more conservative. Similarly, the securities laws which have enabled ordinary people to invest with confidence have transformed us from a nation where most voters do not have financial wealth into a nation where most voters do. Inconveniently for those who would construct a conservative pantheon, the presidents who signed these laws are usually classified as liberals.

Many conservative policy successes have not been the work of presidents at all. Welfare reduction and crime control, the great successes of the 1990s, were the product of state and local officials like Wisconsin's Gov. Tommy Thompson and New York's Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. Bill Clinton was just an interested and occasionally helpful bystander. The Bush education policy, similarly, just builds on the work of governors whose ranks include Mr. Bush himself. But there is no consistent conservative position on how the state should balance the claims of liberty and of morality. Today's conservatives opt for morality on abortion and liberty on guns; liberals the other way around.
In the past, Stephen Douglas argued for the liberty of the slaveowner, Lincoln for the morality of restricting the expansion of slavery--an easy issue for us, but controversial at the time. Prohibition was another such issue: Was it conservative to allow people to drink or to pass laws to encourage them to live virtuous lives? Classifying presidents as conservative on such issues is not useful work.

Providing for the common defense seems a conservative cause, and yet the work of maintaining a military establishment and mobilizing for war profoundly changes society: war, usually, is the health of the state. Before the Spanish-American War, America was, in Walter McDougal's term, a "promised land" in which presidents concentrated on protecting and expanding the U.S. Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase, John Quincy Adams's aggressive diplomacy, Polk's war against Mexico and Lincoln's Civil War all contributed to this goal; but were they conservative? Since 1898 America has been, in McDougal's words, a "crusader state" determined to advance American interests and American ideals in the world. With increasing success: Wilson in World War I, Roosevelt in World War II, Truman in undertaking the Cold War and Mr. Reagan and the first Mr. Bush in concluding it.

We have come to think that the willingness to defend and advance America's interests is a conservative enterprise. But it has often been the enterprise of liberals as well. George W. Bush's policy on Iraq is supported not just by conservatives but also by liberals like Joseph Lieberman and Richard Gephardt.

"Put not your trust in princes," Lord Strafford said as he was facing execution, abandoned by his master Charles I. Conservatives who rely on presidents to achieve their goals will mostly be disappointed. The success of the conservative enterprise depends on individuals in the marketplace and the efforts of Burke's "little platoons" in promoting virtuous behavior. George W. Bush's policies of enlarging the space for individual choices in education, health care and Social Security, and his policy of defending the nation in the war on terrorism, serve conservative purposes. But by themselves they do not achieve conservative goals. That is up to all of us.
Mr. Barone, a senior writer at U.S. News & World Report, is a contributor to the Fox News Channel and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics (National Journal).

editor - 3/4/2003

from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2003, Issue No. 19
March 4, 2003


A 1953 Supreme Court decision that is one of the cornerstones of national security secrecy policy relied on false government information, the Court was told in a startling petition filed last week.

The decision, United States v. Reynolds, is the judicial foundation of the "state secrets privilege." It provides the precedential basis for asserting that there are "military matters which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged," not even to a federal court.

The Reynolds case originated over 50 years ago when the widows of three crew members who died in a 1948 crash of a B-29 Superfortress bomber requested accident reports on the crash. The Air Force denied the request and filed affidavits with the Supreme Court claiming that the withheld reports contained information about the aircraft's secret mission and described secret electronic equipment on board that had to be protected from disclosure. The Court, citing that claim, ruled in favor of the Air Force and established the state secrets privilege.

"But it turns out that the Air Force's affidavits were false," according to the new petition filed by the surviving widows or their heirs. The recently declassified Air Force accident reports contain nothing whatsoever about a secret mission or sensitive electronic equipment.

"In telling the Court otherwise, the Air Force lied," the Petitioners said.

The petitioners want the Court to vacate the 1953 Reynolds decision (345 U.S. 1 (1953). But they take no position on the body of law that derives from it. "Whether the legal principles established in Reynolds are right or wrong is for another day and another case."

"For petitioners, the only issue this Court must confront today is whether it will tolerate a fraud -- a fraud that struck at the integrity of the Court's decision-making process and that cheated three struggling widows and their children out of that which was rightly theirs."

See the February 26 "Petition for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis to Remedy Fraud Upon This Court" here:

A supplementary appendix including original case files and the declassified accident reports is here:

The Justice Department has not yet commented on the matter.

Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to
with "subscribe" in the body of the message.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email message to

OR email your request to

Secrecy News is archived at:

Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
voice: (202) 454-4691

editor - 3/4/2003

Analysis on the Iraq Crisis from The Saban Center at The Brookings Institution

By Daniel L. Byman *
March 3, 2003
Memo #12

The impending war with Iraq greatly raises the risk of a terrorist attack against the U.S. homeland, American interests overseas, or U.S. allies. When Saddam Husayn sees war as unavoidable, he may shed his recently acquired caution in using terrorism, either employing Iraq's own operatives more aggressively or working with al-Qa'eda against Western targets. Al-Qa'eda and its affiliates, on their own, will seek to strike at this time of maximum public attention. Small cells of unknown Islamist radicals, or perhaps even angry individuals inspired by al-Qa'eda, may also see the outbreak of war as a reason to strike. Al-Qa'eda and like-minded groups probably will try to take advantage of the expected rage in the Islamic world at the U.S.-led campaign to bolster their recruitment and fundraising—potentially making them more potent in the future.

The issues of Iraq and the war on terrorism will remain linked even after any war ends. The extent of the reconstruction effort and the nature of the post-Saddam government could shape the prospects for terrorism in the Middle East for years to come.


Although Iraq has repeatedly employed terrorism as an element of its foreign policy in the past, at least since the 1980s, it has carefully chosen its proxies and used them to pursue limited objectives. Baghdad, however, has often failed when trying to use terrorist violence successfully, suggesting that the regime's own capabilities are limited.

Iraq supported several terrorist groups in the past. For example, Baghdad has harbored the May 15 Organization—a Palestinian group known for bombing airplanes—and gave sanctuary to the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)—infamous for the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro and the murder of Leon Klinghoffer. Iraq helped form the Abu Nidal Organization (ANO), using it to assassinate Syrian and Palestinian opponents. Most of Iraq's support to these groups has consisted of logistical support, such as bases, training, and supplies. Nevertheless, the scale of its backing of terrorist groups was dwarfed by others like Iran, which tried to create large popular insurgencies from whole cloth.

Iraq has provided more extensive support to the anti-Tehran Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) and the anti-Turkey Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) as means of exerting pressure on their northern and eastern neighbors. In both cases, Iraq has helped these groups establish a safe haven in Iraq itself where they could base their guerrilla wars and plan terrorist attacks. Ties to the MEK are particularly close, and it has in essence become a wholly owned proxy of Baghdad for use against Iran.

Ties to these traditional associates have declined or become less important in recent years. The MEK remains active, but the pace of its attacks against Iran has fallen off as Baghdad has attempted to mend fences with Tehran. The PKK has become far less effective since the arrest of its leader, Abdullah Ocalan, in 1999. The PLF has not pulled off a major attack since 1992, despite the collapse of the Oslo Accords. ANO has been similarly inactive in recent years, and in August 2002, Abu Nidal himself died in Baghdad in a "suicide" that most suspect was Saddam's effort to distance himself from charges of harboring terrorists.

In general, Saddam distrusts what he cannot control. Thus, Baghdad has avoided close association with independent terrorist groups, preferring to work with organizations that it could dominate. Iraq worked with the Abu Nidal Organization and the PLF over which it exercised considerable control, but never forged strong relationships with Fatah, Hizballah, HAMAS, or other groups with a strong independent base and so would never be subservient to Baghdad. Even then, its support for ANO and PLF ebbed over time in favor of groups like the MEK which were even more tightly controlled by Iraq.

Baghdad's ties are not based on ideology. Iraq has worked with Christians and Islamic fundamentalists, with Persians and Kurds, with fellow Ba'thists and pure killers—as long as they have suited the regime's interests. Nor is Saddam a loyal paymaster. Despite Baghdad's close working relationship with ANO, it did not hesitate to expel the organization in 1983 to gain Western goodwill during its war with Iran.

Whenever it has sought to attack the United States itself, Iraq has preferred to rely on its own operatives. Thus, Iraqi agents—not terrorist proxies—were involved in attempted bombings of U.S. facilities in Indonesia, the Philippines, and Malaysia during the first Gulf War. Similarly, Iraq used its own people in the failed assassination of President Bush in 1993. Even though ANO conducted numerous attacks against Americans during the 1970s and 1980s, these were not believed to be at Baghdad's behest.

Iraq's terrorist operations in the past have been startlingly inept. Former Director of Central Intelligence William Webster noted that during the Gulf War the Iraqi intelligence officers used sequentially numbered passports. As a result, once several officers were arrested, the rest were easily discovered and detained. Nor have Iraqis hidden their hands well. One of the bombers arrested in Southeast Asia even asked that the Iraqi Embassy be notified of his detention. In 1993, the assassination team in Kuwait used explosives similar to those of previous Iraqi operations and did not practice phone security, making it easy to trace the origin of the plot.


If the United States goes to war, Iraq's reticence with regard to terrorism may disappear. In the days before the outbreak of a war and in its initial stages, Saddam will use terrorism primarily to intimidate and deter the United States. As the conflict progresses, however, defiance and vengeance will increasingly drive his actions.

Already, Iraq has made rather grandiose threats, such as Vice President Taha Yasin Ramadan's boast that Iraq would employ suicide attacks in the event of war.1 The regime's few realistic military responses to a U.S.-led campaign makes Iraqi-supported terrorism even more likely. Saddam is also infamous for his desire for revenge.

Yet terrorist attacks before Saddam perceives the war as inevitable—particularly any involving chemical or biological weapons—might trigger the very all-out confrontation that Saddam still hopes to avoid. Even deploying terrorist teams outside of the country in anticipation of a war is risky. The operatives could prove disloyal or continue Iraq's tradition of ineptitude. Either way, if they were caught it would greatly bolster the Bush administration's case for war.

Iraq's caution will decline once war is seen as inevitable and will disappear if Saddam's regime is on the brink of being overthrown. The range of targets that Iraq may strike is vast. It might attack U.S. facilities, particularly overseas facilities, believing that casualties would intimidate Washington and give credibility to the implicit threat that Iraq could resort to chemical or biological terrorism. As coalition forces near Baghdad, any remaining restraints will disappear: Saddam might opt to use biological or chemical agents in terror attacks in a desperate attempt to deter the United States from mounting the coup de grace against the capital, or merely as a final stab of vengeance. Either as part of a general effort to draw Israel into the war or simply to lash out against the Jewish state in a last-gasp effort to realize what he believes is his historic destiny to liberate Jerusalem, Saddam can also be expected to mount terrorist operations against Israeli targets.

To the extent that Saddam continues to rely on Iraq's own terrorist capabilities, its attacks probably will still be limited by the competence of its officers and the limits on its network. It is foolish to expect that Iraq will make the same simple blunders that hindered its operations in 1991 and 1993, but it is equally mistaken to assume that its capabilities are devastating. Although Iraq could conduct traditional truck-bomb attacks, assassinate soldiers and political leaders, and murder large numbers of unprotected innocents, Iraqi operatives may be unable to attack well-protected targets. In addition, highly sophisticated operations—such as those involving simultaneous attacks in different countries—may be beyond Iraq's capabilities. Baghdad may also focus on areas that already host many Iraqi nationals, such as Jordan, to enable its operatives to blend in better. In addition, Iraq may look to strike in poorly policed regions or countries, recognizing that most Western and Middle Eastern services will be watching carefully for Iraqi terrorism.

Although Saddam might want to try to employ terrorism as part of his wartime strategy to force the United States to halt operations short of eliminating his regime, it may prove difficult for Iraq to carefully calibrate such attacks. Saddam has traditionally shown a reluctance to allow subordinates latitude on such important decisions as when and whom to strike. In contrast, Saddam risks losing the ability to control the use of terrorism if the military campaign goes swiftly and if regime communications are disrupted or known to be intercepted. As a result, Saddam may be forced to rely on his operatives to break with past patterns and show considerable discretion and initiative or may delay the decision to deploy operatives outside of Iraq even though it hinders overall operations.

Indeed, to ensure that he can take his final vengeance and to maintain a last-ditch deterrent, Saddam may even predelegate some strike authority to terrorists. Predelegation risks numerous complications if the terrorists do not practice careful tradecraft and do not adjust their plans to the rapidly changing strategic situation, but Saddam's likely desire to demonstrate that he can hurt the United States probably will lead him to try to retain at least the option of using terrorism as part of his final blow.


The Bush administration has argued that Iraq is working closely with al-Qa'eda. Although much of the evidence is contested or fragmentary, taken together it suggests at least some degree of tactical cooperation. At the very least, it appears that Baghdad is keeping its options open in anticipation of a war with the United States. In any event, war makes strange bedfellows, and the United States needs to brace itself for their cooperation to deepen if hostilities commence. In particular, Baghdad may reach out to al-Qa'eda if it finds its own operatives' efforts stymied. In the past, Baghdad has not hesitated to forge new ties even with ideological enemies in times of crisis. In the early 1980s, Iraq worked with the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood (a group with intellectual leanings similar to al-Qa'eda) against the regime of Hafiz al-Asad, despite the Muslim Brotherhood's antipathy toward Ba'th secularism.

Their mutual interests in a time of crisis create the possibility that Iraq could offer al-Qa'eda money or logistical support, allowing al-Qa'eda to use its already extensive network more effectively. Al-Qa'eda is already determined to strike the United States and would presumably need little inducement to mount further attacks. Saddam may also believe that by aiding al-Qa'eda and keeping it viable, he can distract the United States and prevent the Bush Administration from going to war against him.

Relying on al-Qa'eda or other organizations to carry out strikes on Baghdad's behalf is risky for Saddam, particularly before a war commences. Saddam knows these organizations seek a conflict with the United States and have no regard for the survival of his regime. Thus, they are more likely to be used actively only after Saddam decides war is inevitable.

As the threat to his rule grows, Saddam might even shed his reluctance to transfer chemical or biological weapons to al-Qa'eda—a capability they have long sought. The collapse of Iraq's intelligence services, or their demonstrated incapacity to act, might prompt Saddam to take such a drastic step. Saddam's penchant for revenge makes such a move even more plausible, as it would be a way for the Iraqi dictator to make his mark on history, even after his demise.

Cooperation, however, is not the same as control. Al-Qa'eda will remain highly independent, attacking according to the organization's needs, even if they do not mesh with those of Iraq. Both Iraq and al-Qa'eda, moreover, will probably remain at arms' length from each other. Bin Ladin's statement on February 11 walked a fine line—associating al-Qa'eda with Iraq's struggle against the United States while making it clear that he opposes Saddam's regime and its secular ideology.


Even without Iraqi support, al-Qa'eda retains sufficient capability to pose a tremendous danger and has numerous incentives to exploit the conflict with Iraq to conduct terrorist attacks worldwide. Bin Ladin and other leaders have long emphasized the supposed U.S. brutalization of Iraq as justification for their attacks. Bin Ladin's statement of February 11, in advance of hostilities, highlights the importance of Iraq to al-Qa'eda. The statement is particularly troubling, as Bin Ladin in the past has often telegraphed imminent attacks or changes in targeting through such statements.

In addition, al-Qa'eda is skilled at seizing the spotlight. Attacks linked to the war against Iraq would receive far more media coverage than would an attack related to Chechnya, Kashmir, or other struggles important to the jihadist movement. A successful attack would demonstrate al-Qa'eda's continued preeminence in the anti-U.S. struggle, aiding its recruitment and fundraising as well as striking a blow against the United States. A successful attack would also offer al-Qa'eda a chance to cement its leadership of the jihadist cause in general.

On the other hand, one of al-Qa'eda's greatest strengths—an unusual one for a terrorist group—is patience. Consequently, it may instead opt to postpone an attack if a prospective target's defenses are temporarily increased in connection with a war against Iraq, or otherwise delay an operation in order to ensure its success. Al-Qa'eda leaders may also prefer to wait for an operation already being planned to reach fruition rather than to rely on poorly planned operations that are more likely to fail. Thus, there is no guarantee that al-Qa'eda would strike during a war against Iraq if it believes that U.S. counterterrorist preparations would make such an attack unlikely to succeed. However, it also means that even after a U.S. victory against Iraq, the risk of an al-Qa'eda attack would not substantially diminish.


Al-Qa'eda, of course, is both a group itself and an organization dedicated to forming links among like-minded radical groups and inspiring sympathetic Muslims. Numerous local Islamist cells that support al-Qa'eda's vision and oppose the war with Iraq may also attack the United States and its allies during a conflict. Al-Qa'eda does not control these groups, but it does inspire them. The war may prompt these groups to conduct attacks against Americans or symbolic targets to demonstrate their solidarity. For example, European counterterrorism officials have stated that groups with links to the Chechnya struggle are planning attacks should war break out with Iraq.

Indeed, it is also possible that individuals like Hesham Mohamed Hadayet—who attacked the El Al counter at Los Angeles airport and killed two on July 4, 2002—may come out of the woodwork during a conflict. The FBI has warned that individuals inspired by al-Qa'eda or angered by the war may strike in the event of conflict. These groups and individuals do not have the skill of al-Qa'eda, but they could still prove lethal.

In addition, heretofore independent groups focused on local struggles may decide to affiliate more closely with al-Qa'eda and its global agenda. HAMAS's spiritual leader, Shaykh Ahmed Yassin, issued an open letter regarding the crisis with Iraq that stated: "Muslims should threaten Western interests and strike them everywhere."

The already high risk of an attack becomes even higher if groups with primarily a local or regional focus such as HAMAS or Hizballah do adopt al-Qa'eda's agenda and see America as their greatest enemy. These groups are capable and have an extensive overseas infrastructure—particularly Hizballah. In keeping with their current focus on Israel, they might attack targets that highlight American support for Israel like U.S. facilities in Israel, U.S. citizens (particularly military and diplomatic personnel), or arms manufacturers who supply the Israel Defense Force.


The war against Iraq could easily exacerbate already-high anti-U.S. sentiment and improve recruitment for al-Qa'eda and its allies. U.S. intentions are widely distrusted in the region: perhaps 40 percent of Arabs doubt al-Qa'eda's responsibility for the September 11 attacks, and polls taken before the war appeared imminent suggest the United States is deeply unpopular even (or particularly) among the populations of close allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The current military buildup, a war, and years of occupation by Western-led peacekeeping forces may reinforce the sentiment that the United States is anti-Muslim. Washington is widely seen as picking a fight, thus giving credence to the image of the United States as a bully that Bin Ladin is trying to foster.

A successful war, however, offers several advantages in the struggle against al-Qa'eda—particularly in the long-term. Removing Saddam's regime dramatically changes the military balance in the Persian Gulf in favor of the United States and its allies. The large military presence deployed to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states in the 1990s could, after Iraq is occupied and rebuilt, be drawn down considerably, perhaps to an "over the horizon" posture similar to that employed before the first Gulf War. Such a drawdown would reduce (though hardly eliminate) Islamist anger at the United States.

In addition, the U.S. campaign may disprove Bin Ladin's argument that America is weak. Even after being routed from Afghanistan, Bin Ladin scornfully noted a supposed "fear and cowardice and absence of the fighting spirit among American soldiers." A decisive victory in Iraq would help dispel this myth. Indeed, Bin Ladin himself said on videotape "...when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse."

The United States may also gain greater clout in the region from a victory against Iraq. In 1991, Desert Storm demonstrated the United States' overwhelming power to Syria, the Palestinians, and others opposed to the United States. These anti-U.S. leaders swallowed their pride and worked with Washington for several years, producing unanticipated and dramatic progress in the Middle East peace process. A similar victory today may produce a similar boost in prestige that will help the United States in the war on terror.

Much depends, however, on what is done after Saddam is ousted. An Iraq in chaos would be a playground for Islamist radicals, enabling them to operate more freely and to attract recruits. Washington should strive to ensure peace is maintained, Iraq's governance improves, and its oil wealth goes toward helping the Iraqi people—and equally important, that the perception is created that Washington is promoting these goals rather than retarding them.

1 Suicide bombings appear unlikely, but not impossible. Iraq's regime commands little loyalty, making it unlikely that an individual would die for nationalistic reasons. The regime's repression of Islam makes it similarly unlikely that religion would motivate a bomber. However, the PKK in the past has used coercion to force an individual to carry out a suicide attack. Baghdad could hold a family hostage or otherwise compel an individual to kill themselves "voluntarily."

* Daniel L. Byman is a Nonresident Senior Fellow with the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at The Brookings Institution, and an Assistant Professor with the Georgetown University Security Studies Program.

The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 797-6000

For more information about Brookings events and publications, please call the Office of Communications at 202/797-6105, or send an e-mail to us at:

You are currently subscribed to brookings_iraqmemo as: []
To unsubscribe, forward this message to

Stephen Middleton - 3/3/2003


I am pleased to hear of your promotion to full professor at CUNY.
If ever a scholar deserved such an honor, you are one. Continued
success with your scholarly career.

Warm regards,


Paul O'Shea - 3/1/2003

Hitler, Himmler, Bormann, Goebbels and other Nazis from Catholic backgrounds had left the Church by virtue of their actions. Catholic Canon Law makes is quite clear that membership of the Church although given through baptism is built on an active participation in the life of the Church. To do things contrary to Christian faith and morals is to effectively cut oneself off from the Church. The crimes of the Nazis ispso facto excommunicated them from the Catholic Church. There was never any need to formalise it from a canonical perpsective. A public act of excommunication would have had little effect. It could have had the reverse effect. Many German Catholics supported Hitler. If the pope excommunicated the Fuhrer many may have seen this as justifying leaving the Church themselves. The German bishops were keen to avoid an open rift fearing that Catholics would leave the Church. I think the material emerging from the Archives demonstrates a consistent line with the published material readily available. I doubt there are any "smoking guns."

Jessika - 2/27/2003

i agree

Diane - 2/27/2003

As an amateur genealogist, I was very interested in this movie. My mother's ancestors on both her parents' sides came to NYC in the 1880s and 1890s, so none of my ancestors were here during the period depicted in the film. I am always interested in learning about the city's beginnings and that was the appeal of this movie for me. However, I don't think all the bloody carnage was necessary in getting the message across that the city was a dangerous place. My hands covered my eyes throughout much of the movie. The very last scene was incredibly moving, at least for me. To hear Amsterdam's words in voiceover as he stands over the graves of his father and Bill the Butcher, saying something to the effect of "No one even remembers us now," and then to show teh graves decay as the city grows and our final image is of the Twin Towers in the skyline - this really got to me. I just started crying at that point. So, I'm sure this is a dumb question, but was there ever really a little gravesite or cemetery at the place, with that view of the city? It had me wondering why he would have buried his father and Bill together in Brooklyn. Didn't make sense.

John Weedy - 2/27/2003

I have received an intriguing email from someone and here is part of it:

Hello! im Brian Born Hull 1948.
Grandad Joseph Wright had close contact with Qenn Mother and Queen Elizebeth.coronation parade in Hull 1953,54.met secretly in City Hull.tok photo of me,Queen mother was their and prince philip and somebody else.have seen the photo on Finnish "the 100 th jubelee"backflash of wahat happend that day. will not go into more do you ahev any photoes of this, or is it in the Quenns personal album?my Grandad had Got a pocket Gold watch from them. want to know why in secret and wanting to photo mother took me to a waiting privat bus for meeting Queen Mother.on (the road to Hull university.was the road newland ave,a wall was there with a stone mother said"this is arranged you sit here and when the Queen Elizebeth comes,LOOK STRAIGHT INTO HER EYES,that she wont forget,i did..But so much Secret and not understanding what it was all Grandad also said that he : or a close relation was "THE FIRST HORSE MAN for the Queen. im not shure if i should go deep into this or just forget it???my mother was Polish......

His english is not perfect but the text is as I received it,
he has asked me if I can help him with his enquiries!
He contacted me through my site
can anyone help

editor - 2/25/2003

Untitled Document

Press Release: KC Johnson 2-24-03


I am delighted that this long process has come to a successful conclusion, and am grateful to both Chancellor Goldstein for recommending and the Board of Trustees for voting to award me tenure and promotion to full professor. From the start, I only had asked for a fair process, in which my candidacy for tenure and promotion would be evaluated according to academic standards on the basis of the material in my personnel file. Chancellor Goldstein's courageous decision to appoint a select panel of distinguished scholars from other CUNY institutions allowed such an untarnished evaluation to take place.

Since January 5, 2002, when the campaign against me began, I had the good fortune to receive consistent support from current and former senior departmental colleagues-David Berger, Paula Fichtner, Leonard Gordon, Margaret King, and Jerome Sternstein. The students of the college, meanwhile, demonstrated their commitment to educational quality; dozens unselfishly gave of their time to make my case.

From outside of the college, I benefited from the 24 leading national historians who staked their reputations on my case. And the sage counsel of my attorney, Robert M. Rosen, helped me to demonstrate the ways in which the Brooklyn personnel process fell short of the minimum standards for fairness to which all tenure-track faculty should be entitled.

My case should serve as a reminder of the importance of academic freedom, and the need for personnel decisions at colleges and universities to be made on the basis of academic credentials-scholarship, teaching, and service-rather than ideological conformity. I hope that Brooklyn College will return to this standard in future personnel actions.

I look forward to a long career at Brooklyn, and hope that all members of the History Department can put behind them the unpleasantness of events since January 5, 2002. I am eager to return full-time to my scholarship, my teaching, and serving the students of the college.

bernhard radloff - 2/23/2003

Der Sirs:

What do British historians have to say to Churchill's proposal, in 1944, to blanket German cities in antrax, thereby killing millions of civilians?

To what extent has the role of Prof. Lindemann (Lord Cherwell), Churchill's "scientific" advisor, who supervised studies of the the technical feasability of killing the maximun number of civilians by using the "proper mix" of bombs, been illuminated in post-war British historiography?

Karenmary - 2/19/2003

Oh my God

Margaret A. Katter - 2/19/2003

As I watched the "60 Minute" - I felt a real connection with Catherine - and what she is doing with her life. She was a real inspiration - and encouraged me to stop this retirement thing and to try and find a way to bring "HOPE" to young people that society around here is "willing to throw away". I know what needs to be done - and how to do it - but I need help. I'm hoping that "my dream" - might be one that Chatherine could become interested.

I would like very much to communicate with Catherine Reynolds. I was so impressed by her philosophy about "wanting to change the world". I want to do the same thing! In your "60 Minute" Interview, you said that you were looking for people willing to step forward and "do something to change the world". I am that kind of person - I know what needs to be done here.

Is there anyway I can send a letter to Catherine? I understand that her mailing address is probably not easily found. I would gladly send a packet to "you" - and then you could forward the packet to her.

If there is a way that I might communicate with Catherine directly - please let me know.

I am a retired teacher/educator/administrator - not some "kook". I just want one opportunity to communicate with Catherine.

Thank you for your help.

Margaret A. Katter
4510 Wyndemere Lane
Fort Wayne, IN 46835


corby kemmer - 2/19/2003

I founds Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds very interesting and caring people. Their philanthropic donations are outstanding to say the least! People like the Reynolds, and what they accomplish makes the world and more specifically our great country a better place for all. They should be highly comended for giving hope and inspiration!

I would like to know how to reach their foundation threw mail or e-mail. I work for a small pulic university; Mayville State University, in Mayville, North Dakota. MSU has received national attention for its many successful achievements, but we struggle despirately financially. I would like to find a way to reach their foundation for support.

Thank You, Corby Kemmer Mayville St University Foundation Office.

Editor - 2/18/2003

Ottawa Citizen

February 7, 2003 Friday Final Edition

SECTION: City; Brown's Beat; Pg. F5

HEADLINE: Roy Brown himself hoped he hadn't killed the Red Baron

SOURCE: The Ottawa Citizen

BYLINE: Dave Brown

The great debate about who shot down and killed Germany's Red Baron, the greatest fighter pilot ace of the First World War, is back in the news and that's good news. Once again attention is focused on that awful war that didn't end all wars.

The latest stirring of these old ashes comes from a Discovery Channel documentary aired Wednesday night and reported in the Citizen yesterday. In this latest version, computer models and light beams are used to make the claim the angles of fire made it impossible for credit for the kill to go to Roy Brown of Carleton Place. The makers of the film called their version proof. If that video could be viewed by Roy Brown he likely wouldn't argue with it. He never enjoyed the notoriety of his war experience and never tried to trade on it. He died in 1944.

In 1997, I interviewed his brother Howard Morton "Rusty" Brown, who was then 94 and still recognized as an authoritative historian. He died in January, 2001.

He told me the best solution to the saga of the death of the German ace was in the words of his brother Roy. When asked if he was the man who shot down the Red Baron, Roy Brown would clarify the question. "Are you asking if I killed him?" The questioners invariably confirmed that was it, and all got the same answer. "I hope not."

Despite the marvels of modern science, I still believe Roy Brown has to take the blame. He, too, was an ace. It took five air victories to earn that title and he had 10, but considered them kills and didn't boast about them. Manfred von Richthofen had 80. Using aircraft to kill each other was the world's newest blood sport and newspapers were the cheering sections. The baron was world-famous. Roy Brown didn't want to be.

Last year, an issue of Vanguard, ("Canada's premier security and defense magazine"), also drew what it considered the final conclusion to the Red Baron mystery. It was an article based on an interview with Eric Abraham, 104 and one of only 14 Australian veterans of that war still living. He was vital, alert and marched at the head of Remembrance Day services in Western Brisbane last year.

He was there that fatal day and watched the air battle and saw the red Fokker fighter come down. He was aware credit for the killing shot was claimed by an Australian sergeant on the ground. It was based on angles that made no sense, said the old soldier. The red aircraft was trying to evade and as it jigged, jagged and yawed it presented itself to chase aircraft at many angles.

Mr. Abraham said he often shot at low-flying aircraft and to hit one would be a fluke.

In his version, Brown said he took a long-range burst at the red aircraft. His intent was to distract the pilot who was closing in for a kill on a pilot from Brown's squadron, Wilfred "Wop" May. (He would survive the way and become a legendary Canadian bush pilot.) If he hit him, Brown said, it was a fluke.

The Australian trooper didn't see it that way. He saw the red aircraft closing in on the fleeing Sopwith Camel, but the chase plane had used a dive to pick up speed and pulled in on the German's tail with only the length of two airplanes between them.

In 1972, another Australian put what he thought would be an end to the groundfire claim. Capt. Austin "Fritz" Frauenfelder went on record at a British Defense Department historic reunion. He had been an instructor of Brown's and said together they studied the German's tactics and worked out a plan to bring him down.

Ordinarily a squadron had 18 aircraft but the baron's had 19. He was the odd number flying 2,000 feet above the formation ready to swoop down on British planes breaking away from the action. The solution, they decided, was to go 2,000 feet higher and play the same trick on the baron. While engrossed in his kill, the baron was vulnerable. That, he said, was exactly what happened.

Brown later saw his dead opponent laid out for burial and said it made him feel miserable. "He looked friendly. Delicate. There was a lump in my throat. I cursed the war."

Carleton Place has a proud war history. The honour roll in the town council chambers has more than 200 names on it. Fifty-one have stars. They were killed in the line of duty.

Few survivors of war were better examples of its horror and stupidity than Roy Brown, who cursed it.

Editor - 2/18/2003

The Herald (Glasgow)

February 7, 2003


HEADLINE: Labour's Union of the Crowns plan criticised;'Rewriting history' claim over anniversary

BYLINE: Murray Ritchie Scottish Political Editor

LABOUR'S plans to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the Union of the Crowns appear certain to attract a year of bitter political controversy after opposition politicians set themselves firmly against the idea yesterday.

As Jack McConnell, first minister, praised the initiative as a potential fillip to Scottish tourism, the SNP reacted with suspicion and accused the Scottish Executive of trying to "rewrite history in the style of the old Soviet Union".

Mr McConnell extolled a planned year of celebrations as an opportunity to promote Scotland, but Michael Russell, SNP shadow education and culture minister, scorned the idea as a salute to a disastrous transfer of power from Scotland to England. "It was the Union of the Crowns which caused the departure of authority from Scotland to London and, in turn, led inevitably to the Treaty of Union - and it took us 300 years after that just to repair some of the damage," Mr Russell said, referring to the restoration in 1999 of the Scottish Parliament.

An advisory group set up by the first minister met yesterday to review options for the celebrations.

Mr McConnell said the anniversary - which falls next month, five weeks before the Scottish elections on May 1 - would help tourism which, he argued, made a "significant contribution to Scotland's wealth and pride".

The first minister said Eric Milligan, lord provost of Edinburgh, would chair the organising group and Pete Irvine of Unique Events would "bring expertise to the plans".

Mr Russell set the tone of the coming argument when he said: "In the old Soviet Union, they used to rewrite history for their own political gains and now we have Jack McConnell trying to do the same. Instead of celebrating the Union of the Crowns in a manner that seems to owe more to Disneyland than to reality, we should look again at the impact that the union had on Scotland and how we can learn from our past.

"It is a pity that we have an executive that is incapable of such a process, but is addicted to hollow political gestures."

Others on the advisory group are Graham Munro, chief executive of Historic Scotland; Malcolm Roughhead, marketing director of VisitScotland; Andrew Mathieson, chairman of the Scottish Tourism Forum; a representative from Cosla, the local government organisation; Professor Michael Lynch, the historian, and officials from the Scotland Office and the executive.

An executive spokesman said the group would review various proposals currently being developed and costed by Historic Scotland, VisitScotland and others.

Mr McConnell is keen to see other anniversaries "celebrated", his spokesman said. These are the 700th anniversary of the death of William Wallace on August 23, 2005, and the 300th anniversary of the union of the parliaments on May 1 2007.

Dave Livingston - 2/18/2003

Don Williams asked someone to answer three questions he then demonstrated he is closed-minded on the subject, not seeking answers at all. Nonetheless, here, from the essay "Vietnam's Ghosts" composed by Ernest W. Lefever as published in the "Wall Street Journal," 21 May 1997, are offered three good puposes our fighting the Viet-Nam War achieved: "First, Johnson and Nixon's firmness under relentless and often cynical domestic attack reassured our allies around the world. An America that would not coutand run in far-off Vietnam would haardly abandon its key allies in Europe and the Pacific.

Second, our steadfastness in Vietnam strenghtened nationalism and anticommunist forces elsewhere in Southeast Asia and the Pacific--notably in Indonesnia, Malausia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, all of which have remained free and independent.

Third, holding the line in Indochina as long as we dideventually led to a balance of power favorable to the states in the region and to us, a point Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew repeatedly emphasizes. Last December in Washigton he said that "by fighting and negotiating with the Niorth Vietnamese, [the U.S.] enabled Southeast Asia to get its act together." Without America's intervention in Vietnam, Mr. Lee added, today's "flourishing East Asia" would not have been possible."

Lefever quotes too Norman Podhoretz by saying, "the moral soundbess of our imprudent idealism was "overwhelmingly vindicated by the hideous consequences of our defeat." The KRouge killed an estimated one million of the nation's seven million people. The horrific bloodbaths there and in Laos, and the purges and concentration camps in South Vietnam, confirmed the much maligned domino theory."

As far as this Viet-Nam veteran is concerned, the moral soundness of our involvement was vindicated by a) the massive escape from South Viet-Nam by the Boat People, over two million of whom evidently aattempted to escape by sea, albeit thousands were apparently ;lost at sea in the effort. An aspect of the conduct of the war itself that persuaded me that we had the moral high ground was the habit of the Communists of murdering our helpless wounded whenever they had the opportunity. That certainly is something, Mu Lai apart, we never did.

It was so common of the Communists to murder the helpless whenever they could which led to the award of the Medal of Honor to chaplain Charles Watters at the battle of Dak To in 1967. Father Watters deemed it necessary to pick up the rifle of a fallen American Tooper of the 173rd Airborne Brigade and to fight with it against the Communists in a scucessful attempt to prevent the Communists from overruning spome of the 173rd's wounded.

Fr. Watterswas one of two chaplains to win the Medal of Honor in Viet-Nam. The other was a chaplain serving with a Marine Corps unit. Both were Catholic priests.

Peter Jackson - 2/18/2003

It would be nice to see if HNN could get a response from the History Channel. Are they really not showing it because it lacks "balance," or are there other issues here (is their evidence of fraudulent facts? Are its production values too poor for the History Channel?). We need more media outlets willing to show independent films, political or apolitical.

Still, the filmmakers assertion that "we just let the story tell itself" causes my eyes to roll back into my head a bit. Stories don't tell themselves. If they did, there would be absolutely no need for historians. And whenever someone begins their story by professing their pure neutrality going in, it makes me suspect the opposite.

The concluding statement, "This could prove a fatal blow to the largely leftist ideological agenda that is tyrannizing
American higher education and threatening to lead to a new and fatal polarization over the war on terrorism" seems to confirm my suspicions. Here we have a classic model narrative, used and overused in films and books over every political stripe: Earnest, naive heros begin to research a story, with no political agenda. Little did they realize they would uncover a vast left- (or right-) wing conspiracy! Sounds like a plot to a bad 70s movie.

Mario G. Merino - 2/17/2003

Saw the documentary. Very informative and fascinating. The computer 3D graphics were incredible. Unlike many documentaries, digital animation is used to depict submarine, rocket bomb, and conventional aircraft Kamikaze attacks against ships and aircraft.

Lawrence B. A. Hatter - 2/16/2003

It will be interesting to note the scotch response to 2007, three hundred years of the Act of Union that truely created Great Britain. Although the scotch weren't too happy at the time, it was the English courtier who came to rue the day with the exodus of "Northern Britons" to the rich patronage pickings of Hanoverian London. Looking at the recent Labour Cabinet the Earl of Bute might manage a a wry smile to see Gordon Brown in No. 11, Lord Robertson having recently departed the MOD for NATO, and Robin Cook leaving the FO for his philandering excesses of his firery scottish blood. I wonder who will have the last laugh?

Robert Simonds - 2/16/2003

It is quite remarkable when you consider how little media attention the formal end of Yugoslavia has received. A few years ago this region was the center of the world's attention. Now it is relegated to the back page. If the crisis in the Balkans was the epilogue of the Cold War, it seems we've begun writing a whole new book.

Irfan Khawaja - 2/15/2003

The fact that the UK report was plagiarized has no bearing at all on the justification for war, despite Gus Moner's tortured and illogical attempt to argue to that effect.

The basic reason for going to war with Iraq is not its connection (or lack of connection) with Al Qaeda. (Nor does Colin Powell's focusing on this relatively subordinate issue change what the real issue is.)

The real issue bears on WMDs. Iraq cannot be allowed to have WMD, and its failure to live up to its own agreement to disarm is sufficient reason for an invasion. Its possession of WMD, or even the failure to demonstrate non-possession, poses too high a threat to us to justify inaction. Like the stockpiling of weapons at Waco, it requires "dynamic entry" and forcible disarmament.

A few facts that Mr. Moner might want think about:

(1) There is absolutely irrefutable evidence that Iraq possesses biological and chemical WMD in defiance of the post-war agreements, a claim verified over and over and over and over and over and over for 11 years, and agreed to numerous times both by UNSCOM and UNMOVIC, including Hans Blix's comments on 14 Feb 03.

(2) UNMOVIC's chances of forcing disarmament and/or compliance are close to 0: if 6000 inspectors couldn't do it in 7 years, 200 inspectors aren't going to do it any time soon. Anyone who wants more inspections bears the burden of proving that inspections are guaranteed to work with the same efficacy as an invasion, a burden that they haven't bothered to acknowledge, much less meet. The same people who blather on about the deficiencies in evidence of WMDs produce nothing remotely resembling evidence that the UNMOVIC regime is in fact capable of detecting WMDs in the first place. (And please don't bring up UNSCOM's "successes" without acknowledging (a) its abject failures, and (b) UNMOVIC's relative inferiority to UNSCOM.)

(3) So the only open question is just how far along Iraq's nuclear program is, a question that can only fully be answered
if we (a) invade and find out, or (b) sit back and wait
for Iraq to become another North Korea (assuming it admits to
having the weapons) or (c) sit back and wait until the day that Iraq decides for its own reasons to blackmail us with the threat or by detonating a weapon out of the blue. Options (b) and (c) are not feasible ones.

The issues of plagiarism and of connections to Al Qaida are red herrings. Focusing on them will not make the WMDs go away or reduce the threat we face from them.

As for Mr. Moner's other claim, I'd be interested if he could produce some evidence--like satellite photos or phone transcripts--that the weapons being moved to the Iraqi cities are all defensive in character, and are being put there to defend those cities and their citizens against attacks. Putting anti-aircraft batteries around D.C. or troops around Heathrow is obviously defensive; is Mr. Moner sure that's true of what the
Iraqis are doing?

veronica m. puscian - 2/15/2003

I found this interview very interesting, amazed to learn that private individuals have so much personal wealth and how they share it with the country and the world. I have had this interview on my mind since it aired. Has Catherine Reynolds ever helped every-day individuals who find themselves in a hard place in their lives? If so, I would very much like to know what considerations are given and how one goes about contacting her organization. Also if there is a e-mail address for her organization, how does one go about getting it?
Thank you.

Tristan Traviolia - 2/14/2003

From the 1770's on the Great Plains tribes participated with increasing frequency in the European market for furs. This trade included buffalo robes. The "odd arrow" the author claims did not have an impact on the overall numbers of plains buffalo portrays the Native American tribes in the discredited 'noble savage' myth. The plains tribes efficiently killed increasing numbers of buffalo throughout the late eightteenth and nineteenth century in order to trade buffalo robes to European, Canadian, and European American traders. The Native Americans adapted to the changing world around them; even though they had a high spiritual regard for the Buffalo this did not keep them from pursuing material desires introduced to their culture through the fur trade, nor did it prevent them from perceiving the buffalo in some way as a commodity or from harvesting the animals in numbers that reduced the overall population.

Editor - 2/14/2003

The Guardian (London)

February 13, 2003

SECTION: Guardian Leader Pages, Pg. 22

HEADLINE: The opponents of war on Iraq are not the appeasers: Seumas Milne If Blair wanted to steer the US away from conflict, he is clearly failing

The split at the heart of Nato over George Bush's plans to invade Iraq has triggered an outpouring of charges of 1930s-style appeasement against those resisting the rush to war. A line of attack hitherto largely confined to US neo-conservatives has now been taken up by their increasingly desperate fellow travellers on this side of the Atlantic. On Tuesday, Jack Straw warned that if the west failed to use force against Iraq it would be following "one of the most catastrophic precedents in history", when Britain and France "turned a blind eye" to the fascist dictators' subversion of international law. Tony Blair alluded to the same period when he insisted that "all our history - especially British history" points to the lesson that if international demands are not backed up with force, the result is greater insecurity. Both were taking their cue from US hawks like Donald Rumsfeld, who claimed millions died in the 1940s because some countries had thought there wasn't "enough evidence" to be sure about Hitler's intentions. Rightwing tabloids in both Britain and the US - where France and Germany's bid to avert war has aroused something close to political hysteria - have now gone even further in their determination to see the current crisis through a second world war prism. Rupert Murdoch's New York Post demanded to know: "Where are the French now, as Americans prepare to put their soldiers on the line to fight today's Hitler, Saddam Hussein?" In Britain, the Daily Mail accused France and Germany of "unforgivable betrayal", while the Tory defence spokesman Bernard Jenkin declared that, without the US, "we would not have won the second world war".

Hitler analogies have long been the stock-in-trade of Anglo-American war propaganda - perhaps not surprisingly, since the second world war still retains near-universal legitimacy, just as Nazi Germany remains the archetype of an aggressive, genocidal state. Nasser was the first to be branded the new Hitler in the 1950s, while those who opposed the Suez war were damned as appeasers. But there have been a string of others, from Ho Chi Minh to Gaddafi, Milosevic to Mullah Omar. All were compared to Hitler while British or US bombs rained down on their countries. Just how devalued this currency has become was on show this week when the Tory historian Andrew Roberts argued that the Iraqi regime should be equated with the Nazis because both had "gassed their racial and political enemies" and Iraq fires at British and US aircraft patrolling the illegal no-fly zones over its territory.

It would be tempting to put these latest invocations of the second world war down to ignorance if it wasn't that those making them clearly know better. What they are in fact engaged in is a crude attempt to rewrite 20th century European history to justify a war of aggression in the Middle East. The parallel between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Nazi Germany is transpar ently ridiculous. In the late 1930s, Hitler's Germany was the world's second largest industrial economy and commanded its most powerful military machine. It openly espoused an ideology of territorial expansion, had annexed the Rhineland, Austria and Czechoslovakia in rapid succession and posed a direct threat to its neighbours. It would go on to enslave most of Europe and carry out an industrial genocide unparalleled in human history.

Iraq is, by contrast, a broken-backed developing country, with a single commodity economy and a devastated infrastructure, which doesn't even control all its own territory and has posed no credible threat to its neighbours, let alone Britain or the US, for more than a decade. Whatever residual chemical or biological weapons Iraq may retain, they are clearly no deterrent, its armed forces have been massively weakened and face the most powerful military force in history - Iraq's military spending is estimated to be about one per cent of the US's Dollars 380bn budget. The attempt to equate the Iraqis' horrific gas attacks on Kurds and Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war with the Nazi holocaust is particularly grotesque - a better analogy would be the British gassing of Iraqi Kurds in the 20s or the US use of chemical weapons in Vietnam.

Appeasement is in any case a misnomer for what was an attempt by rightwing governments in Britain and France in the 1930s to befriend Germany and accommodate Nazi expansion. There was certainly a widespread yearning for peace in the aftermath of the butchery of the first world war. But the appeasers were something else: effectively a pro-German fifth column at the heart of the conservative elite, who warmed to Hitler's militant anti-communism and sought to encourage him to turn on the Soviet Union. Chamberlain even hoped for an alliance with Nazi Germany. Fascist sympathies were rampant throughout the establishment, from Edward VIII to newspapers like the Mail which now denounce opponents of war on Iraq as traitors - while mavericks like Churchill and what would now be called the hard left resisted the Munich sellout. In none of this is there the remotest analogy with current efforts to prevent an unprovoked attack on sanctions-drained Iraq. And of course none of the opponents of appeasement in the 1930s ever argued for pre-emptive war on Nazi Germany, but for deterrence and self-defence.

Just as absurd, against the background of the European-US standoff, is the increasingly strident insistence of the war party that it was the US which saved Europe from Nazi tyranny in the 1940s. It isn't necessary in any way to minimise the heroism of US soldiers to balk at such a retrospective reworking of the facts. Quite what the Russians - who lost perhaps 27 million people in the second world war (compared with 135,576 US deaths in Europe), bore the brunt of the European fighting and, in Churchill's words, "tore the guts out of the Nazi war machine" -are supposed to make of this fable is anyone's guess. Particularly when Russia - along with France, Germany and China - is opposing the current war drive and is presumably therefore regarded by war supporters as ranked among the appeasers.

The idea that those opposed to US aggression against Iraq can be compared to the appeasers of the 1930s is simply risible. But if appeasement - unlike the form it took in the 1930s - is regarded as an attempt to pacify a powerful and potentially dangerous power, it sounds far more like the behaviour of Tony Blair's government towards the Bush administration. Of course Bush's America cannot be compared with Nazi Germany - it is far more in the traditional imperial mould. But Britain's apparent attempt to steer the US away from unilateral action, if that is what it has been, shows every sign of failing. Instead, Blair has ended up lining up behind a hard-right US republican administration with the political heirs of Mussolini and Franco in the teeth of British and global opinion - and helped to fracture the US-dominated post-1991 global order into the bargain.

Editor - 2/14/2003

The Columbus Dispatch

February 13, 2003 Thursday, Home Final Edition



Now it's official: Serbia and Montenegro are all that's left

Was it a coincidence? Last week, as Yugoslavia became history, Serbia announced it would auction off 13 luxury cars that once served in the motorcade of the late dictator Josip Broz Tito.

Many believe that Tito kept a cauldron of Serbs, Croats, Slovenians, Macedonians, Bosnians, Montenegrins and ethnic Albanians from killing each other during the several decades after he took power in 1945.

Peace lasted for maybe a decade after Tito's death in 1980. But in the '90s, the smaller Yugoslav republics parted ways with Serbia, the largest republic and the bully of the bunch. Slovenia and Macedonia managed to get away peacefully. Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina were less fortunate. Kosovo, technically part of Serbia, enjoys de facto independence after the 1999 NATO war on Serbia. Last week, Yugoslavia's federal Parliament ended the fiction of a union of the southern Slavs by ratifying an accord brokered by the European Union. The name Yugoslavia is consigned to history and replaced with a looser union called Serbia and Montenegro. As a carrot for the reluctant Montenegrins, member republics will be able to hold independence referendums in three years. Post-Milosevic Serbia, at least, has shed its status as a pariah state.

Going by news reports from Belgrade, Yugoslavia's formal demise was met with a nostalgia-tinged shrug.

The old Yugoslavia had its good points: Tito was ruthless, but under his rule Yugoslavia went its own way and stood up to the Soviets. It enjoyed a higher standard of living than other communist countries. The 1984 Sarajevo Olympics were a high point. Sales of cheap Yugo cars fed a small export boom -- until the cars started falling apart.

Speaking of cars, Tito obviously liked the higher end of the market. Among those to be auctioned off are a 1960 Rolls-Royce Phantom and two bullet-proof Mercedes limos. A group of auto historians opposes the sale, saying Tito's fleet should be kept intact as a national treasure. Their feelings are understandable: Not much else about Yugoslavia has been kept intact.

Editor - 2/14/2003

The Baltimore Sun

February 13, 2003 Thursday FINAL Edition


HEADLINE: Black Russian's profound effect on literature; Baltimore Vivat!

BYLINE: Carl Schoettler


Vivat! St. Petersburg and Black History Month converge this evening in celebration of Alexander Pushkin, the nonpareil Russian poet, at the Great Blacks in Wax Museum.

Pushkin (1799-1837), a world literary figure considered comparable to Shakespeare, was the great-grandson of an African slave named Abram Hannibal, who was brought to Imperial Russia as a boy from Turkey. Hannibal became a favorite of Czar Peter the Great, a brilliant engineer and an illustrious general. Peter's daughter, Empress Elizabeth, granted him vast estates and thousands of serfs. He also married the daughter of a Baltic German officer and fathered 11 children. At one point, says Allison Blakely, a Boston University historian, when Hannibal returned from six years of study in France, he was "one of the most highly educated people in Russia."

Blakely, 62, speaks at 7 p.m. at the wax museum on The Life and Times of Alexander S. Pushkin. And, he says, he'll talk a bit more on blacks in both Imperial and Soviet Russia. Professor of European and Comparative History at Boston U., he's the author of a pioneer work, Russia and the Negro: Blacks in Russian Thought and History, which won the American Book Award in 1988.

"I am going to give an overview of the black (presence) in Russia," he says, "at a gallop."

He's a soft-voiced, unprepossessing man not without a sense of humor, or irony. His scholarly resume runs nine pages. He's fluent in Russian (and Dutch, incidentally), and he's visited Russia often, starting in 1965, when it was part of the Soviet Union. He says he's going to try to give his audience members a sense of Pushkin's family in historical context and of his significance in a way they might not be able to get on their own.

Folks of a literary bent, of course, know that Pushkin wrote Eugene Onegin, a long novel in verse that is something like the Russian national epic Boris Godunov, the drama that became inspired operas by Mussorgsky and Tchaikovsky, numerous short stories and many more poems.

Pushkin is revered in Russia even more than Shakespeare is in English-speaking countries. Even illiterate Russians can recite his verse, they've heard them read so often. He set the models for the main basic forms in Russian literature: the short story, novel, plays, dramatic poems.

"Pushkin played a special role in the development of the written Russian language," Blakely says. "The literary language didn't really exist before the beginning of the 19th century. And Pushkin was really the first person to popularize a written form of Russian that more closely approximates the spoken language. That's one reason he immediately resonated so widely with the people.

"He was a people's poet and writer," he says. "He could speak to them in their language.

"I compare him to Langston Hughes in the black American culture. Hughes deliberately used jazz and the rhythms that go with (jazz) in writing his poetry, so he captured something that was African that can be reflected in his art."

Because Pushkin's maternal great-grandfather was African, he would have been legally black in parts of the United States. And in general attitude in America, he had the "one drop" of African blood that made him black.

But most Russians don't think of Pushkin as black, nor did his contemporaries, nor did he.

"He was very, very proud of his African ancestry but did not think of himself as black, per se," Blakely says. Pushkin thought of himself primarily as "a proud Russian nobleman."

His father's family had been ennobled for centuries. The Pushkin family was equal to the Romanovs, the professor says, until the Romanovs became czars.

"The kinds of insults he responded to publicly," Blakley says, "had more to do with people ridiculing him for being descended from a slave, as opposed to being black."

Being called a slave cast aspersions on his nobility.

"He was quick to point out that particular slave was a godson of the czar," Blakely says. "And he could list all the accomplishments, not only of his great-grandfather, but one of his grand-uncles who was the founder of a city in the Ukraine, a big war hero against the Turks."

But Pushkin, he says, could be easily identified with liberation, abolitionism and other issues that were of concern to people of black-African descent.

"He was in what you would call the radical part of the intellectual class in Russia. He sympathized with the plight of the American Indian, the liberation movements in Greece and in other parts of the world. He almost was arrested, and he might have lost his life, in connection with a revolt in Russia in 1825. Some of his close friends were actually executed."

Blakely, the son of an Alabama sharecropper, was himself a leading student activist at the University of California at Berkeley during the height of the free speech and civil rights movements of the 1960s. Even more remarkably, although firmly opposed to the war, he served as an Army intelligence officer in Vietnam, where he was wounded in a rocket attack.

"Nobody could give me a way out of Vietnam I was willing to accept," he says. "And so, not willing to run away, not willing to lie, not willing to go to prison ... I finally went."

He spent eight months training at the old intelligence school at Fort Holabird, in Southeast Baltimore near Dundalk.

"Where I was refused housing, by the way," he says, without noticeable rancor, "because I was black, even though I was in uniform."

In his book, Blakely quotes Pushkin's sharp condemnation of American shortcomings: "All that is noble, unselfish, everything elevating the human spirit is suppressed by implacable egotism and the striving for ... comfort; the majority an outrageously repressed society; Negro slavery amidst culture and freedom; genealogical persecutions in a nation without nobility ... "

"I really do think the poet in him took real pleasure in the sort of stereotypical notion of hot African blood," Blakely says.

Pushkin was, after all, a Romantic poet.

"I think that appealed to him a lot, in addition to his sympathies for the oppressed. I do think those kind of sympathies were actually reinforced by the knowledge of his own African ancestry."

Pushkin began a novel based on his great-grandfather called The Negro of Peter the Great. But he never finished it.

He died of a gunshot wound after a duel in which he was defending his wife's honor, which in fact was a bit dubious. He was just 37 years old.

Editor - 2/14/2003

The Washington Post

February 11, 2003, Tuesday, Final Edition


HEADLINE: A Fabricated Fan and Many Doubts

The cyber-pundits are piling on John R. Lott Jr., the embattled American Enterprise Institute researcher who acknowledged that he created an online fan, "Mary Rosh," to defend his work against critics.

The latest to weigh in is Timothy Noah, the Slate "Chatterbox" columnist who summarizes a cresting flood of online attacks against Lott. At issue isn't Lott's overactive imagination and faux fan, but a 1997 survey the researcher purportedly did to support claims in his provocative book, "More Guns, Less Crime." In particular, the UCLA-trained economist contended that merely brandishing a weapon successfully deterred criminal attacks 98 percent of the time, based on his national survey. Now his critics are asking: What national survey? Lott has been unable to produce the poll data, which he says were lost when his computer crashed.

Lott vehemently denies faking the study but does acknowledge that he created Mary -- an admission that has his critics suspecting the worst. "We know Lott invented an online persona. Did he invent the 98 percent figure? Did he invent the survey it purportedly came from? We don't know," Noah wrote last week.

Does all this sound familiar? Last year, Emory University historian Michael Bellesiles was unable to produce the data on which his prizewinning book "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture" were based. The study suggested that few people in frontier America had guns, a finding that displeased gun lovers. Bellesiles said his records were lost in a flood. A university investigation raised doubts, and he resigned. No comment, say AEI administrators.

EVERYTHING GOES BETTER WITH FRIENDS: In the war on Iraq and the larger struggle against international terrorism, size matters. The more countries that join with the United States in a coalition to defeat the enemy, the greater the chances of a lasting peace.

And that is why President Bush should be willing to wait a few weeks or even months to assemble an army of nations to march against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, argues Georgetown adjunct professor Andrew Pierre, author of a new book, "Coalitions: Building and Maintenance." The book is a product of a study sponsored by the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University and the American Academy of Diplomacy.

"It is important that we move against Iraq with a true international coalition, made up of as many countries as possible," Pierre said.

That's not to say that the United States should stop threatening to go it alone, Pierre says. The history of coalition building in the past decade suggests just the opposite: The noise of sabers rattling is just the thing to prod reluctant nations to join the coalition. "Coalition-building will be facilitated if it is clear that the lead nation has the will and the ability to act alone, if necessary," Pierre wrote.

Pierre says the United States doesn't need allies for the guns they would provide. "We need allies in a coalition because we want to be perceived by the world as doing the right thing," he said. "We want the support of the Arab world as much as possible. Unilateral action risks fueling instability in moderate countries in the Middle East."

ED SCHOLARS MAKE GOOD: Remember how we told you the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation was going to give away serious moola ($ 25,000) to some lucky (and gifted) education researchers? Well, the results are in: The winners for distinguished research on education are the University of Chicago's Anthony Bryk and Harvard's Paul E. Peterson.

Why the new prize program? "The good guys in education never win prizes. The decks are always stacked in favor of people with bad ideas," said Fordham head Chester E. Finn Jr.

PEOPLE: For the first time in its 10-year existence, Rand Europe -- the Netherlands-based branch of the Rand Corp. -- will have a European head: Dutchman Martin van der Mandele, a longtime management consultant who has served as a senior fellow in Rand's Santa Monica office since April. David Gompert, the current head, will return to the D.C. office as emeritus vice president.

Speaking of Rand, a researcher who resigned from the defense think tank last fall under murky circumstances has landed at the Hudson Institute. Laurent Murawiec became radioactive in July when he dumped on U.S. ally Saudi Arabia in a briefing before the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. He left Rand in September, and in January, he joined Hudson as a senior fellow in the Center for Mideast Studies.

The Council on Foreign Relations has hired Eric Schwartz to direct a new task force on post-conflict reconstruction in Iraq. He was a senior director for multinational and humanitarian affairs at the National Security Council. CFR also promoted Lisa Shields to vice president and director of communications.

The Cato Institute has a new director of foreign policy studies: Christopher Preble. Preble comes from Minnesota's St. Cloud State University, where he taught history.

Mark Iwry is joining the Brookings Institution as a nonresident senior fellow. Iwry was a Treasury benefits tax counsel under secretaries Robert E. Rubin and Lawrence H. Summers, and was a partner at Covington & Burling. He plans to practice law on a part-time basis.

Philip Merrill, Ex-Im Bank president and former Washingtonian magazine publisher, has committed a whopping $ 4 million to Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies to establish the Philip Merrill Center for Strategic Studies.

Editor - 2/14/2003

Sydney Morning Herald

February 11, 2003 Tuesday

SECTION: News And Features; Pg. 9

HEADLINE: History In The Remaking

BYLINE: Debra Jopson.

Continuing heated debate on Australia's early black-white conflicts is highlighting something else: that our historians are having a 'crisis of authority', writes Debra Jopson.

HOW do Australians get the stories of their past? It is a safe bet, says the historian Bain Attwood, that more people learnt about Aboriginal children being removed from their families by watching the movie Rabbit-Proof Fence than through reading the works of the academic historians Peter Read and Anna Haebich.

Not only are the flicks teaching droves of people about history; they carry "emotional power" which academics find hard to match in the written word.

Attwood, an associate professor of history at Monash University, speaks of the raw emotion evoked by the flicker of the largely grainy black and white film Schindler's List, which moved far more people to understand something of the Jewish genocide than through reading Saul Friedlander's weighty history of the Holocaust.

"The past has so much currency now," says Attwood. This popularisation of history should be marvellous for academic historians. But in their introduction to a book launched yesterday, Attwood and fellow historian Stephen Foster reveal the difficulties this presents for themselves and their colleagues. The "proliferation and democratisation of history-making" which has kept people busy doing their own genealogies and family stories, going on pilgrimages, staging re-enactments, creating memorials and getting enthralling versions of the past from museum displays, film, radio, TV and newspaper columns, has led to a "crisis of authority" for academic historians.

And that is not all, they say in Frontier Conflict: The Australian Experience, the collection of essays they edited for the National Museum of Australia, which speaks as much about historians embroiled in battle as it does about conflict in our past.

There is a second, even bigger crisis. The raging arguments about what really did happen in Australia's past, particularly on the colonial frontier, "reflect a crisis over the moral basis or foundation of the nation", they say.

The public has been given insight into both of these crises through the controversy over the renegade historian Keith Windschuttle's attack on the work of several academic historians and his questioning of numbers killed in frontier clashes.

He has rejected the estimate by the historian Henry Reynolds that 20,000 Aborigines died in frontier conflict. He has accused the National Museum of Australia in Canberra of factual inaccuracies in its Contested Frontier exhibit.

In his chapter in the new book (based on a forum held in December 2001) Windschuttle describes that museum as "a monument to nothing more than the politically motivated allegations of one particular school of historiography whose former dominance of the field is now visibly eroding".

He reiterates his view about the worthlessness of oral history unless there are corroborating original documents. He lists claims of "fictions and fabrications" by our academic historians.

So what impact has this conservative critic had on this field of study? The Monash University history professor Graeme Davison told the Herald: "Someone described me as a middle-of-the-road historian. But suddenly I looked up and there were a couple of lanes to the right of me."

Davison has written of Windschuttle: "He approaches history as a battleground on which good historians armed with facts rout bad historians misled by theory."

But why is our past so hotly contested, anyway? Why does it keep re-emerging as an issue and with such passion attached? Because it is all about who Australians are now, says Davison, author of The Use and Abuse of Australian History. The past is used "to develop a contemporary sense of identity". Many conservatives want an inspiring "heroic and monumental past" with heroes and heroines we can look up to. They are nervous of a past which appears uncertain and like a nation "to centre around some clearly articulated values".

Attwood and Foster describe as a "myth" the view at the cusp of the 19th and 20th centuries which celebrated British colonisation as "a peaceful act of discovery and settlement, whereby a progressive people and their venerable institutions were successfully transplanted and the land was transformed, thus resulting in the new nation of Australia".

The new phenomenon of "Aboriginal history" emerging in the late 1970s turned this on its head because it set a figure of tens of thousands of years for the land rather than two centuries and made the first discoverers indigenous.

British settlement became "invasion", producing Aboriginal dispossession and a racial discrimination which degraded communities. This newer way of thinking about Australia moved to the centre of national debate with reconciliation, the High Court's affirmation of native title in its 1992 Mabo decision and the Human Rights Commission's "stolen generations" inquiry.

"This has provoked a crisis of confidence or conscience for many Australians, particularly those born and educated before the 1950s," say Attwood and Foster.

In the new volume, the Australian National University history professor Ann Curthoys speaks of a "counter-history". Conservative politicians, she argues, "detest" this kind of history because when they deny indigenous demands they look like they are part of that "rejected past".

It is also abhorred by many other Australians "who, facing significant economic problems of their own, are in no mood to consider themselves as 'invaders' or the beneficiaries of colonisation".

"Many do not wish to be told their whole society was built on a process of invasion and child theft; they want, instead, to reassert pride in their history, institutions and culture," she has written. But Windschuttle has made it his job to "unpick" the way this "new" history has been produced. His 472-page book, The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, published late last year, attacked claims made by historians, including Reynolds and Lyndall Ryan, that there were widespread frontier killings of Aborigines by whites in Tasmania.

And he drew a little blood ironically from Reynolds, who according to Attwood, was already getting so much criticism from his peers about "overdoing the violence theme" that some historians started to warn of the danger of "Reynolds bashing".

Following the Windschuttle book, Reynolds admitted making a "bad mistake" when he misquoted George Arthur, the governor of Van Diemen's Land. But Windschuttle got bloodied, too, when the La Trobe University politics professor Robert Manne accused him of "soft plagiarism" because passages in his book bore a striking resemblance to the words of a US anthropologist. Windschuttle furiously denied the accusation.

The next stage of the debate unfolded yesterday when Melbourne University's Dean of Arts, Stuart Macintyre, launched the new book featuring 16 historians of the frontier, including Windschuttle.

Even with the publication of this new work by the National Museum, "we can expect further haggling over the number of corpses", Macintyre wryly remarked yesterday.

He called for sensitivity in investigating these stories of our past.

"The downward revision of deaths in the Holocaust is an activity that has brought censure on David Irving and the revisionist school," Macintyre said. "That might seem an odious comparison, so let me suggest another.

"Robert Conquest and others have produced numbers of the victims of Stalin's Terror and they range up to 20 million. But revisionist scholars of society history have objected that this figure includes those who died in famine and war, and that demographic analysis indicates a significantly lower figure killed by the regime. "I think we have to allow the possibility of such arguments, in Australia as well as Germany and the former Soviet Union though it is clear that legitimate revision can tilt over to offensive apologetics.

Meanwhile, the historians move on.

"It is even questionable whether frontier conflict was or is essential to our understanding of the larger picture," say Attwood and Foster. They quote the historian Klaus Neumann, who describes it as "cataloguing the bones of the dead".

Fighting words: views on the frontier conflict

Keith Windschuttle, author, The Fabrication of Aboriginal History

When it is closely examined, the evidence for the claims of widespread mass killings of Aborigines turns out to be highly suspect. Much of it is very poorly founded, other parts are seriously mistaken, and some of it is outright fabrication.

Graeme Davison, professor of history, Monash University

In Windschuttle's vision there are no shades of grey, no middle ground ... Important disagreements among Australian historians over the extent, character and motivation of Aboriginal resistance are ignored in order to reinforce the idea of an academic conspiracy, and bolster his own image as a historical whistleblower.

Bain Attwood, senior research fellow, ANU

Windschuttle's bellicose writings seem to have struck a chord among those whom he has called "dead white males" Anglo-Australians who, in the age of uncertainty, see themselves under siege, threatened by multiculturalism, Aboriginality and the like.

Lyndall Ryan, professor of Australian studies, Newcastle University

Windschuttle's forensic approach is an inappropriate tool for understanding the colonial frontier ... Windschuttle converts the term "widespread violence" used by Richard Broome and Henry Reynolds into "widespread massacres", and so transforms the whole meaning of frontier violence. He then moves to the next step: if some massacres can be proved not to have taken place, then frontier violence must have been far less widespread.

Henry Reynolds, senior research fellow, University of Tasmania

How do we know about frontier violence? Because the written evidence is both vast and various, and convincing. To pretend otherwise is to indulge in an affectation of ignorance.

John Mulvaney, emeritus professor, ANU

Must such oral testimony be derided, simply because it is not accompanied by a solid body of written evidence and conventional footnotes, or because it telescopes events and personalities? Surely the message is clear that considerable violence occurred.

Ann Curthoys, Manning Clark professor of history, ANU

The contest over the past is perhaps not between positive and negative versions, but between those that place white Australians as victims, struggling heroically against adversity, and those that place them as aggressors, forcing adversity onto others.

Editor of HNN - 2/14/2003

The San Francisco Chronicle



HEADLINE: Unjaundiced view of yellow journalism's creator; Documentary examines Hearst, the man behind the media empire

SOURCE: Chronicle Staff Writer

BYLINE: Peter Hartlaub

Ken Swartz has created more than two dozen documentaries for KRON, many of them biographies, and most including larger-than-life subjects. But none of them has been a more important figure in American history than William Randolph Hearst.

"I think Hearst stands alone," Swartz said. "That's why we chose the subtitle 'American Emperor.' In some ways, for good or for ill, that's the way that he conducted his life. Above the law. Above the citizens. He took on everything and everybody." The hourlong "William Randolph Hearst: American Emperor," which premieres at 10 p.m. Wednesday on KRON, is a shift from Swartz's previous production. "Day of the Gun," which premiered last fall, presented a focused look at George Jackson and his role in San Quentin's deadly 1971 prison riot.

The Hearst biography starts in the Bay Area ("Hearst was from San Francisco, a native son," the documentary explains in the first minute) but quickly takes on a global scope, exploring Hearst's influence worldwide on journalism, politics and entertainment.

Behind the scenes of the documentary, "William Randolph Hearst" presented a unique challenge for Swartz, who is used to tackling events that took place in a limited period of time. Hearst lived for 88 years, making an impact during a significant part of two centuries.

"Originally this thing started out as a two-hour documentary," Swartz said. "It became a one-hour, so now you're trying to hold on to a beginning, a middle and an end that gives the viewer a history, in broadcast terms and television terms, who this guy was."

Swartz gathered hours of Hearst file footage for the documentary, supplementing the historical film with recent interviews, including Hearst biographer David Nasaw, California historian Kevin Starr and director Peter Bogdanovich.

Although most of the documentary focuses on the past, Hearst's influence on the media's future becomes apparent.

"When you watch 'Entertainment Tonight' or read the tabloids, this whole idea of acelebrity culture that possesses this society, I think, in large part was driven by William Randolph Hearst," Swartz said. "He owned so many newspapers; he was into celebrity news."

Despite its trim running length, the biography manages to cover the oft-told stories (yellow journalism, the sinking of the Maine) and some of the lesser-known ones (Hearst was responsible for the term "cliff-hanger").

BORN IN 1863

It also focuses on Hearst from a San Francisco perspective. Born in 1863 in San Francisco, he ran the Examiner but left the city as soon as he had enough money to build a media empire on the East Coast. The Hearst Corp. sold the Examiner and bought The Chronicle in 2000.

"He writes to his mother and says he has come to hate San Francisco because it's so small," author Gray Brechin explains in an interview toward the beginning of the film. "He has greater ambitions than that. He wants to go to New York."

But he always came back to California, and was eventually laid to rest in Colma after a lavish Nob Hill funeral.

Swartz said he isn't coming close to running out of ideas for documentaries, and will continue to make them as long as KRON wants him to.

Swartz's next film is about the history of sex in San Francisco. He has a file filled with potential documentaries, and admits that he sometimes thinks about current icons and their potential for future films.


"I think if you go another 10 or 20 years, Willie Brown will still have that same kind of documentary cachet as Franklin Roosevelt or William Randolph Hearst," Swartz said. "He's an interesting, fascinating man, whether you like him or not."

Swartz doesn't get a large budget or several years to make a film the way Ken Burns does, but he said the Bay Area is an endless source of compelling characters.

"Could we do this in Kansas City or Detroit? I'm not so sure," Swartz said. "San Francisco is such a wonderful place of story -- from people and events, things that have happened here. It's just a wonderful place of story and impacting the world."

Editor - 2/14/2003

NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE (Vol. 9, #7; 13 February 2003) by Bruce Craig <> National Coalition for History (NCH) *****************

1. State Budget Shortfalls -- Bad Situations in New Jersey and Florida Demand Immediate Action! 2. Presidential Records E.O. 13233 Update 3. Legislation Introduced: Four Bills Proposed 4. Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission Meets 5. Bits and Bytes: Gilder Lehrman History Scholars Program; National Endowment for the Arts Gets New Head 6. Articles of Interest: "Fix This Loophole"(The Washington Post; 10 February 2003)

1. STATE BUDGET SHORTFALLS -- BAD SITUATIONS IN NEW JERSEY AND FLORIDA DEMAND IMMEDIATE ACTION! Facing grim financial health reports caused by enormous gaps between projected tax revenues and budgetary needs, state governments are taking drastic action to solve their budget woes. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, there is "no immediate end in sight" for the states' budget troubles; in fact, it's getting worse. By some estimates the collective budget shortfall for state governments currently stands at $25.7 billion, with next year's projected shortfall rising to a whopping $68.5 billion. At risk are the nations' historical and cultural institutions.

In two states -- New Jersey and Florida -- history and archives are the latest victims. In New Jersey, Democratic Governor James E. McGreevey has proposed a budget that deletes all funding for history and the arts and would abolish the New Jersey Historical Commission. And in Florida, Republican Governor Jeb Bush also proposes a simplistic solution to the budget plight -- close the Florida State Library, turn over the Florida State Archives to the parks department, and lay off over fifty employees.

If you've never written your state legislator or the governor, after learning the facts on these two situations, perhaps you will be motivated to do so!

In New Jersey, Governor McGreevey confronts a $5 billion deficit. He has proposed saving $43 million by eliminating all funding for history and the arts unless a stable source of funding for history, the arts, and tourism can be found. Two groups -- the Public Policy Center of New Jersey and the Coalition for the Arts, Tourism, Culture and History (CATCH) -- have proposed a fundamental restructuring to bring the states tourism, history, and arts programs together under a single agency.

CATCH proposes a broad-based 3% tourism tax on hotels/lodging and a 2% tax on restaurants, entertainment, and amusements. The new tax that could generate $250 million a year -- funds that would be dedicated by a constitutional amendment to fund tourism, the arts, history, and municipal aid programs. The savings to the state would be about $140 million in the FY 2004 budget alone. According to David A. Cowell, president of the Advocates for New Jersey History, "the CATCH plan would not only assure the future of New Jersey history programs, but also enable the state to create a heritage tourism industry where one does not yet exist." The group hopes to have the new tax go into effect as part of the FY 2004 budget bill and then have the measure become law via a referendum vote in November 2003.

The situation in Florida is particularly dire and demands immediate action. Under Governor Bush's proposed budget, the Library of Florida will be disbanded and the Florida State Archives will undergo a massive reorganization. In order to save $5.4 million annually, the governor proposes zeroing out funding for the library, eliminating 55 positions, and transferring the library holdings to Florida State University (FSU) in Tallahassee, an institution that according to inside sources, has "no money and no space" (there are an estimated 11 miles of shelving needed for the book collection alone) for the states library's holdings. Bush does not plan to reallocate any state financial resources to the university to care for the collections, in fact he has proposed a $17.6 million cut. Recent press reports state that FSU officials have told Bush that the university refuses to take the collection, but sources report that at least five other closing options remain under active consideration.

According to the Bush plan, some divisions of the library would be transferred to the Department of State (a department which also is slotted for a major overhaul) and the state archives would be transferred to the state parks department which is part of the Department of Environmental Protection. There, a reduced staff of fifteen employees would staff the facility. The records management division would also be split off and would operate with reduced staffing. The net effect of the plan is the wholesale dismantling of 50 years of systematic collecting of historical, genealogical, and archeological materials and shipping them of in fragments to agencies that have no record of expertise in the needed fields.

"This is a matter of serious concern to all librarians, archivists, historians and records managers," states Jim Schnur, a history instructor at Eckerd College and one of the opponents to the Bush plan. "This flawed proposal would not only damage library services to Floridians in the short term, it would also hinder scholarship and research in Florida history and culture in the long term" he said. To counter Bush's plans, a coalition comprised of the Florida Historical Society, Florida Archeological Council, Florida Anthropological Society, Florida Trust for Historic Preservation, and the Florida Association of Museums has been created.

At risk are the rich state library collections of 900,000 items dating back to 1845, including the 236,000 item Florida Collection (including printed materials, state government documents, maps and microfilm reels containing genealogical materials), 9,700 videos, 330,000 bound books of historical importance to writing about Florida and the nation. Also threatened are the contested election ballots from the 2000 presidential election; they face destruction through legislative inaction.

The Florida presidential ballots and other nationally significant 2000 election materials are under the supervision of the Florida Division of Library and Information Services, one of the agencies slotted to be abolished by the governor. Readers of this publication may recall that last year state archivist James Berberich extended the disposition deadline for the contested ballots to July 2003 in order to give the state legislature time to address the disposition issue (see "Florida Ballot Controversy -- The Future of Ballots Still in Limbo" NCC WASHINGTON UPDATE -- Vol. 8, #26; 27 June 2002). The next session of the legislature is scheduled to begin 4 March and will probably continue through 2 May. According to a state spokes-person, officials are working on a policy recommendation that will be advanced next month to the legislature for its consideration. Bottom line -- unless the state legislature acts by 1 July 2003, there is nothing to stop the destruction of the ballots -- probably among the most important election records in the history of the nation.

FLORIDA READERS -- ACTION ALERT! Please write or e-mail your local legislators and the governor TODAY to let them know that you consider the preservation of the state library and archives a priority. Also, urge them to take action to preserve the nationally significant Florida presidential election ballots in the state archives. You can find your local legislator online at: or You can e-mail Governor Bush at: or contact his office by phone at (850) 488-4441; for snail mail, write: Governor Jeb Bush, PL 05, The Capitol, 4005 S. Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399.

2. PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS E.O.13233 UPDATE It has been some number of months since we last reported on the judicial and legislative efforts to overturn President Bush's Executive Order 13233 (EO) that establishes policies and procedures governing the assertion of constitutionally-based privileges in the release of presidential records of prior administrations by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Since the EO's issuance in November 2001, a coalition of historian, archival, and media groups have challenged its legality in court and have been working with various members of Congress to enact legislation to nullify the order. Both of those efforts continue.

Shortly after the EO was issued, opponents filed suit in federal court seeking to overturn the order. Briefs were filed last year by both the opponents of the order and the government; the suit is still pending. Court insiders do not expect that the federal judge assigned the case will hear arguments until the other major issue before that judge --the legality of the federal campaign finance law -- has been addressed.

On the Congressional front, during the 107th Congress, Representative Steve Horn (R-CA) led a bi-partisan effort to oppose the EO by introducing the "Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2002" (H.R. 4187). Horn's legislation was designed address the more constitutionally questionable provisions in the Bush order. Late in the session, the bill was favorably reported out of the House Government Reform Committee, but because of other pressing business the measure was never considered by the full House. Congressman Horn has since retired and Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN), who chaired the House Government Reform Committee in the 107th Congress and also a solid supporter of the Horn measure, relinquished the chairmanship to Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) because of term limitations. Davis, however, has publicly announced his interest in the bill and Hill insiders report that another Congressman who was squarely behind the Horn measure -- Rep. Doug Ose (R-CA) -- may well become the new champion of the legislation in the House. In the Senate, at least three key senators have been approached and are considering introducing a Senate version.

In the meantime, on 30 January 2003, former President Bill Clinton announced his intention to waive nearly all his rights to withhold Presidential records reflecting "confidential advice" (the so-called P-5 exemption) thus clearing the way for an expedited review of his records. According to Clinton, "I believe that the more information we can make available to scholars, historians, and the general public, the better informed people will be about the formulation of public policy and the decision-making process at the White House."

In his announcement, Clinton stated that only those records where an attorney-client privilege exists (such as Whitewater and the Monica Lewinsky-Paula Jones investigations) will remain sealed.

Clinton would like all his presidential records to be accessible before his presidential library opens next year, but under provisions of the Bush EO, as the sitting President, George W. Bush has the right to review and, if deemed appropriate, block the release of his predecessor's P-5 records. According to Nancy Kegan Smith, director of the presidential materials staff for the National Archives and Records Administration, should Bush not object, it appears that former President Clinton's records reflecting the confidential advice given him will be open earlier than any other modern president. As this issue develops, we will keep readers posted.

3. LEGISLATION INTRODUCED: FOUR BILLS PROPOSED Several measures of potential interest to the historical and archival communities were introduced recently, including proposals for two new national heritage areas, a new national historical park, and a commission to consider the creation of a new education museum and archive:

"Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage Area" --On 29 January, Senators Jon Corzine (D-NJ) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced a measure (S. 230) designed to designate a new National Heritage Area in New Jersey centering around historic resources associated with the American Revolution. The bill authorizes financial and technical assistance to local communities, private organizations, and governmental entities. It was referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for action.

"Northern Neck National Heritage Area Study Act" -- On 5 February, Representative Jo Ann Davis (R-VA) introduced legislation (H.R. 567) that authorizes a study to assess the suitability and feasibility of establishing a new National Heritage Area in eastern coastal Virginia. The assemblage of natural historic and cultural resources that "represent distinctive aspects of American heritage worthy of recognition." The bill was referred to the House Committee on Resources for action.

"Steel Industry National Historic Site" -- On 4 February, Representative Michael F. Doyle (D-PA), along with 24 co-sponsors, introduced legislation (H.R. 521) designed to establish a new national park preserving resources associated with the former United States Steel Homestead Works in Pennsylvania. Similar legislation was introduced in the 107th Congress by Rep. Doyle and Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) but Congress failed to act on it prior to adjournment. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Resources for action.

"National Education Museum and Archive" -- On 5 February, Representative Major R. Owens (D-NY) introduced legislation (H.R. 598) designed to establish a commission to study the feasibility of creating a national education museum and archive. The bill recognizes that there is no central location, agency responsible for, or archival repository focusing on America's education history. Similar legislation was introduced in the 107th Congress but no action was taken by Congress. The bill was referred to the House Education and Workforce committee for consideration.

4. ABRAHAM LINCOLN BICENTENNIAL COMMISSION MEETS On 12 February 2009, the country will celebrate the anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's 200th birthday. This past week an advisory committee of about fifty individuals appointed by President Clinton and Congress back in 2000 met to begin planning the celebratory effort. During what was characterized by one advisory board member as a "yeasty" meeting, commissioners expressed a wide range of ideas of how best to commemorate Lincoln's legacy.

Some members suggested a float in the Rose Parade, others advocated for television specials, and still others suggested a newly-designed Lincoln penny or a commemorative stamp. Harold Holzer, a vice-president of New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art and co-chair of the commission, however, expressed his view saying that "what's missing is a basic appreciation of this legacy, of his work to preserve the Union, of his efforts to preserve the idea of majority rule and the Declaration of Independence."

Several commissioners envision a Lincoln renaissance as a result of the bicentennial and several new works by popular historians are expected. To that end, commission members Michael Beschloss and Doris Kearns Goodwin both announced they planned to publish Lincoln books before the bicentennial.

Though the brainstorming efforts are over, the public can still weigh in with ideas. Tap into the commission's webpage: <>;.

5. BITS AND BYTES Item #1 -- Gilder Lehrman History Scholars Program: The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History is inviting applications for a new summer program targeted to college sophomores and juniors interested in pursuing a major in American history. Scholars will receive a stipend of $3,000, room, board, and travel expenses for an eight-week program centered in New York, 22 June - 15 August 2003. Students will complete a research project, meet with eminent historians, and benefit from behind the scenes visits to leading archival repositories. The application deadline is 20 April. For more information, contact the Institute at (646) 366-9666 or tap into the website: <>;.

Item #2 -- National Endowment for the Arts Gets New Head: President Bush's nomination of poet Dana Gioia to head the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) was confirmed unanimously by the Senate on 30 January. Gioia made a visible mark in literary circles with his book, "Can Poetry Matter" and his most recent work, "Interrogations at Noon" won the 2002 American Book Award. Gioia is the second head of the agency appointed by Bush: Michael P. Hammond died a year ago after only seven days in office. Supporters of the arts report that organizations are relieved that the agency is getting a permanent leader.

6. ARTICLES OF INTEREST One item this week: In "Fix This Loophole" the editorial board of The Washington Post (10 February 2003) urges Congress to correct the over-broad exemption to the Freedom of Information Act that was hastily included in last year's Homeland Security Act. The Post expresses support for aa measure crafted by Senators Robert Bennett (R-UT), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and Carl Levin (D-MI) to correct the problem. Tap into: <>;.

*********************************************************** The National Coalition for History invites you to subscribe to this FREE weekly newsletter! You are also encouraged to redistribute the NCH Washington Updates to colleagues, friends, teachers, students and others who are interested in history and archives issues. A complete backfile of these reports is maintained by H-Net on the NCH's recently updated web page at <>;.

To subscribe to the "NCH Washington Update," send an e-mail message to according to the following model: SUBSCRIBE H-NCH firstname lastname, institution. To unsubscribe send an e-mail message to according to the following model: SIGNOFF H-NCH. You can accomplish the same tasks by tapping into the web interface at and at the "network" prompt, scroll down and select H-NCH; enter your name and affiliation and "submit".

Editor - 2/14/2003

The Guardian (London)

February 10, 2003

SECTION: Guardian Home Pages, Pg. 24

HEADLINE: Scots fight shy of party to mark crowning glory: Border town festival set to salute monarch who united the kingdom

BYLINE: Peter Hetherington Regional affairs editor

Borderline question . . . Berwick-upon-Tweed, where a celebration of James I's coronation 400 years ago is reviving old Scots-English rivalries Photograph: Murdo MacLeod

For the council running England's northerly outpost, it will be a six-month festival second to none, celebrating the birth of Britain and a long forgotten period in history.

Pageants, cavalcades and the re-enactment of frontier battles and sieges - even a grand feast of arms by swordsmen from around the country - will shortly mark the occasion when James VI of Scotland crossed the Tweed 400 years ago to assume the throne as the first Stuart king of England.

"You and I would not be carrying passports saying we were citizens of Great Britain and Northern Ireland if it wasn't for this great event in 1603," enthuses Lord Joicey, one of the organisers, whose lands in north Northumberland, once the border killing fields, run up to the frontier.

But the forthcoming Union of the Crowns 400 project in Berwick-upon-Tweed, which itself has changed hands 13 times between Scotland and England, is arousing old passions and rivalries. Some Scots claim the event marked the sell-out of a great nation and the beginning of English subjugation, making it unworthy of celebration - and an unwelcome intrusion into the second elections to the Edinburgh parliament on May 1.

Worse still, according to Christine Graham, a Scottish National Party MSP for the Borders, the project runs the risk of undermining the democratic process, while raking over a sordid period in history many Scots would prefer to forget, as it paved the way for the union of parliaments in 1707.

That event is regarded by nationalists as the ultimate capitulation.

"There is an argument that this is politically wrong and would interfere with the election campaign, constituting improper conduct by putting a unionist case," she fumed.

"Don't forget, this event marked the slippery slope from independence to dependence, but we are slowly working our way back."

Nonsense, countered the veteran Liberal Democrat MP for Berwick, Alan Beith, who proudly took his place among dignitaries from both sides of the border at the official launch of the project.

Far from underpinning English dominance of a smaller neighbour, he said the event not only ended centuries of bloodshed and conflict but also had great relevance today: offering hope to those parts of Europe, and the world, where countries are still arguing, and sometimes fighting, over disputed frontiers.

"It ushered in a long period of peace and stability after the terrible savagery of the past and that cannot be underestimated," he said.

Countering SNP arguments, he reminded nationalists that James I of England - VI of Scotland - was, in any case, the rightful heir to the newly created British throne as the nearest relative to Queen Elizabeth I, who was cousin to his mother. Before Elizabeth died on March 24, 1603, James had been waiting with "increasingly ill-disguised impatience" to inherit the crown, according to historians.

He soon left Holyrood Palace, in Edinburgh, hot foot for Berwick, where the mayor and burgesses welcomed him with "love, loyalty and hearty affection." Berwick soon became the "little door to the wide house of England".

Between 1604 and 1611 the Earl of Dunbar, the king's loyal local councillor, ran affairs from Berwick Castle and the town became the unofficial capital of Scotland. In memory of Dunbar, James even built a splendid stone bridge across the Tweed, still in use today, while the earl built a palace beside the castle. It proved short- lived. Around 1650 it was demolished so that the sandstone could be used to build the town's Holy Trinity church.

Evoking the constitutional significance of the 17th century today, new fact sheets produced by the Union of the Crowns project note that James I and VI "struggled long and hard to keep 'Great Britain', as he called it, at peace both at home and abroad."

But Derek Sharman, the project officer, acknowledged the sensitivities. "I am well aware political elements in Scotland are not very keen on the event being marked, but this is honestly not an attempt to flag up the union of the parliaments; the terrible English versus the nationalists," he said. "However, it put an end to centuries of fighting - this area could have easily have been the equivalent of Alsace-Lorraine, or Belgium - and big events in history can still have an impact today."

Editor - 2/14/2003

The Australian

February 10, 2003, Monday All-round Country Edition


HEADLINE: Casting light on a dark chapter


BYLINE: Don Greenlees

Indonesia's National Human Rights Commission is again trying to get details on the bloody suppression of the communists when Suharto came to power, writes Jakarta correspondent Don Greenlees

ABDUL Latief unsteadily enters the office of a Jakarta human rights group with a young man at his elbow. He struggles to mouth an intelligible greeting, the consequence of a stroke he suffered some years ago.

Latief, a retired colonel, is a member of a dwindling generation to have an intimate recollection of the rise of modern Indonesia. He was witness to, and a crucial participant in, the events that produced the regime of former president Suharto.

On September 30, 1965, Latief was among the leaders of an internal army putsch that resulted in the murders of six generals. The so-called September 30 Movement proved to be the catalyst for then-president Sukarno's downfall and the springboard for the presidential ambitions of the low-profile Major-General Suharto. What followed the failed September 30 coup ranks as one of the great horrors of the 20th century. The coup leaders were accused of plotting a grab for power with the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI).

In a bloody purge, hundreds of thousands of people, many with little involvement in active politics, let alone association with the PKI, were killed or jailed.

Some, like Latief, were to see out Suharto's New Order from behind bars. The scars of the coup and his incarceration mark his body: his left knee shattered by a bullet and his abdomen crisscrossed with the scars of a surgeon's knife.

For Latief, for others who directly suffered from the anti-PKI purge, and for Indonesians who lived through these times, the effects were more than just physical. The bloodbath that started Suharto's rise to power cast a shadow over the 32-year New Order.

The story of the regime's origins became its central myth. Suharto was portrayed as having saved the nation by stamping out a communist coup. The dead and the vanished and the imprisoned were erased from the history books.

These abuses set a pattern for how Indonesia would be ruled: critics were marginalised, jailed and assassinated. To insult the president, form an unauthorised political party, hold a public rally or publish an article critical of government policy was an invitation to prison.

Almost 40 years after the events that brought Suharto to the presidency, Indonesia's National Human Rights Commission is reopening the story. It has ordered a study into human rights abuses under the entire New Order, starting with the events of September 30, 1965.

The purpose will be to answer a question that might seem obvious, but that for Indonesian human rights activists is nonetheless important to have publicly acknowledged. Was Suharto himself directly responsible for a long history of crimes against humanity?

Latief, although unable to give oral testimony, expresses his satisfaction at the prospect of history being rectified. "It's very good," he mumbles.

The 15-member team set up by the Human Rights Commission has divided its work into four periods: 1965-75, 1975-85, 1985-95 and 1995 to Suharto's downfall in May 1998.

In the five years since Suharto fell, he has been investigated for corruption and had his case brought before an aborted trial. But this is the first time the former president is to be investigated for authorising human rights abuses.

"Our mandate is very limited. It is to prove there were gross human rights violations and to prove Suharto was directly responsible for that," says M.M.Billah, a University of Indonesia sociologist who heads the Human Rights Commission inquiry.

His task is to reach a determination within three months based mainly on analysing existing reports and other documentary evidence and some interviews with witnesses. Although the conclusion is predictable, the consequences of stating it are not.

If the team concludes Suharto is responsible for crimes against humanity, the Human Rights Commission will have to make the still politically sensitive decision of whether to move to a more formal legal inquiry, which would have the power to recommend prosecution. This might be largely symbolic, as the government would have to decide whether to convene a Human Rights Court.

President Megawati Sukarnoputri has shown little inclination to seek justice for abuses even in the recent past. Moreover, Suharto's lawyers successfully used the argument of ill health to prevent the 81-year-old from facing his corruption trial. But the symbolism matters. Generations of Indonesian high school students have learned an anodyne version of their own history. The deaths of as many as half a million of their countrymen in the 1965-66 purges have been smudged out.

Students know little of the abuses that occurred in the years afterwards. Says the National Human Rights Commission chairman Hakim Garuda Nusantara, an old campaigner for justice and greater rights: "If we want to prevent it happening again and if we want to build a good system, then we should know precisely what happened... and the mistakes of the system."

The study team headed by Billah has a wealth of material to work with. It will review the evidence of the 1965-66 massacres and the imprisonment without trial of about 10,000 people on Buru Island in the eastern archipelago; the killing of hundreds of suspected criminals and gang members on Suharto's orders during an upsurge of crime in the early 1980s; the massacres of Muslims in Jakarta and South Sumatra opposed to the state-imposed political ideology of Pancasila; and the military repressions in Aceh, East Timor and Papua.

The task will be to link evidence of human rights crimes back to Suharto.

Here, Suharto occasionally helped make the case himself. In his 1989 autobiography, the former president admitted a state role in the extrajudicial killing of criminals in the 1980s, known as the Petrus case, an Indonesian abbreviation for "mysterious shootings".

Suharto recounted: "There was no mystery to these events. The criminals had gone beyond a sense of humanity. They had not only violated the law but had gone past the limits of human reason. Of course we had to take drastic action and give these people treatment commensurate with their conduct. But how drastic? Well, we had to use force. But this did not mean that we just shoot them, 'bang, bang' and were finished with it. No! Those who resisted, yes, they were shot. There was no other choice because they resisted."

Many of the bodies were left where they had been shot in public places, in what Suharto termed as "shock therapy" to other would-be criminals.

According to the Human Rights Commission's Nusantara, the shock therapy also took its toll on the rest of Indonesian society.

He argues such abuses dulled the country to basic notions of right or wrong; abuse became part of the social fabric. It meant that with the fall of Suharto, the institutions that had been the instruments of such crimes continued as before. "I don't know that anything really changed," he says.

A new elections law about to be passed by parliament prevents anyone connected with the events surrounding the September 30 coup or the PKI from standing as a candidate, even those never convicted in a court. Former public servant Gustaf Dupe, who was jailed between 1968 and 1972 for complaining to local officials about the unfair distribution of food aid, says his fight now is for the rehabilitation of the rights of victims of that era.

To that end, he is pressing for the Government to create a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

For the past five years, Indonesia has periodically debated whether to form such a commission, along the lines of the body set up after the end of white minority rule in South Africa. With chances of achieving justice through the courts regarded as slim, the appeal of such a mechanism is that it at least allows for public acknowledgment of past wrongs.

The recent trials over human rights abuses committed in East Timor have confirmed a suspicion that the creation of a Human Rights Court and promises of justice are no more than a pretence to deflect international demands.

"The military openly state that they are committed to uphold legal supremacy but in many human rights cases that are brought to trial the outcome is disappointing," says Nusantara. "The suspects are either released, as you can see in the human rights trials over East Timor, or the sentence is light."

Most supporters of the National Human Rights Commission's latest attempt to shine a light into the dark recesses of Indonesia's past are realistic enough to have limited expectations of what can be achieved. But they won't resile from the effort.

Says Asvi Warman Adam, a historian assisting with the study of Suharto's rise: "The goal is to state that Suharto committed human rights violations so that it is recorded in the history of Indonesia. I think understanding our history is more important than whether he is tried in court or not."

Editor - 2/14/2003


February 09, 2003, Sunday


HEADLINE: Churchill, Hitler and me Andrew Roberts, the acclaimed historian, whose new BBC series will propel him into the ranks of popular presenters, is an unashamed master of self-promotion. But he still finds time for 'the woman of my dreams'


'Today has been pure pleasure!" says Andrew Roberts, contentedly, settling back on a sofa in the drawing-room of his Knightsbridge flat and preparing to give his first-ever interview.

Right behind the historian, journalist and broadcaster are row upon row of books, many of them 18th and 19th-century volumes. On the walls are portraits and mementoes of the great men about whom he has written: Napoleon, Wellington, Lord Salisbury and the like. There are signed photos of his modern idols, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. I can also see a large oil portrait of Roberts himself, looming over the desk at which he works.

He is a small, boyish figure, far younger in appearance and manner than his age, 40. His honey-coloured corduroy trousers are slightly too short, as if he is growing out of them and has yet to be bought a bigger pair. His blue jumper and pink shirt cover a plump little tummy. His face is unlined and rosy-cheeked, topped by a high forehead and swept-back blond hair. Quite soon, Roberts will pour us both a glass of champagne. But for now, he is looking back over the events of the previous night, when he gave a party to celebrate his 40th birthday last month and the publication of his latest book, Hitler and Churchill: Secrets of Leadership, a pithy and entertaining tie-in with a BBC2 series of the same name.

Roberts is about to join David Starkey, Simon Schama and Niall Ferguson on the list of television's top historians, a group now rivalling chefs and gardeners as the nation's favourite presenters. When I suggest that he could be history's answer to Jamie Oliver, he hoots with laughter before replying, "Wouldn't that be Niall Ferguson?"

Roberts regards Ferguson with affection, respect and a keen sense of competition. He is well aware that Ferguson is two years his junior. He knows his television ratings - 2.2 million viewers per episode of Empire - to the nearest decimal point. Now Roberts, too, has a chance to shine. So he had every reason to celebrate.

"It was a lovely party," he says, his accent exactly what you would expect of a prosperous, public-school educated high Tory. "I like giving parties, but I like having given parties even more. I love the next day, after the party, opening presents, getting calls. There's just a nice afterglow."

Roberts' publisher has supplied me with the party's guest-list. It contains one princess (Michael of Kent), a duchess, nine earls and countesses, four marquises and marchionesses, 43 lords and ladies, among them Baroness Thatcher, five Hons and seven MPs. There are also assorted Gettys, Agnellis, Rothschilds and Goldsmiths, as well as Imran and Jemima Khan.

This is, by any standards, an impressive turn-out. And it is typical of Roberts that he is both able to attract such a glittering array and so happy to proclaim just how glittering it was. He exudes a sense of gusto, of enterprise, of unabashed ambition, of joyous self-promotion (he had 70 commemorative birthday medals struck for his closest friends and family), which makes him almost as much of a Victorian character as any of the bearded figures gazing down from his drawing-room walls.

This applies to his personal life, as much as to his professional one. Roberts has always been very, very interested in women. He has even been described as "priapic" by gossip columnists. He married, had two children, Henry and Cassia (five and three) and is now divorced. The events surrounding his recent divorce are the only subject upon which he does not speak with disarming frankness. His present relationship with Leonie Frieda, a 46-year-old Swedish historian (who was formerly married to the pop producer Nigel Frieda, with whom she had two children), is quite another matter.

"I was a very active bachelor," says Roberts. "But now I am completely settled with the woman of my dreams. So I'm completely un-priapic now." He carries on, sounding less like an eminent historian than a gushing extract from Hello!: "Leonie is absolutely everything I've ever wanted in a woman. She's just finished a book on Catherine de Medici, which is out in the autumn. She's beautiful. She's the funniest woman I've ever met. I'm besotted. I'm hugging myself with glee."

Leonie, dressed in a policewoman's uniform, is the first picture one sees on walking into Roberts' flat (she was a model, rather than a copper, when the shot was taken). Holiday snaps of her, looking ravishingly Scandinavian, sit on a table next to photos of Roberts' children. She appears, too, in Roberts' personal website,, which is a fascinating window into its creator's soul, if only for the exuberance with which it trumpets its subject's achievement.

'If you're going to have a website, it's a vehicle for boasting," says Roberts, straightforwardly. "My girlfriend tells me the boasting is totally unnecessary now, and I simply don't need to do it any longer, because I have significant achievements.

"I've won the Woolfson Prize for History. I'm a Fellow of the Royal Society for Literature. So I don't need to boast . . . but gosh," Roberts sighs, despairingly, "it's so difficult not to do. I don't know why . . ."

A little while later, he returns to the subject. "You've got to be driven by something, to do all those hours of work. And for me it's showing off: 'Look at me!' "

So, just who is this self-confessed attention-seeker? Roberts was born in 1963, the eldest son of a prosperous Surrey businessman, who inherited the Job's Dairy milk business. This he sold to Unilever in 1987, at the very top of the market. But, to the continuing glee of those who wish to mock Roberts, the other source of the family's fortune was a number of franchises for Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurants.

He gets up from the sofa and leads me across the room to a coffee-table. There he points to a picture of his parents standing on either side of Colonel Sanders himself, complete with the white suit, white beard and twinkling eyes familiar from all those buckets of KFC battered bird.

"I'm very proud of every way my father has made his money, because he's a fantastic businessman," says Roberts, who is still close to his parents and siblings. "We're not quite the nouveaux riches that the gossip columnists like to say. I had a lovely, comfortable, happy, middle-class upbringing."

Roberts was sent to school at Cranleigh. "I was an absolutely beautiful child," he says without a trace of irony, and he clearly charmed his teachers. "My history teacher when I was nine was called Christopher Perry. He made me fall in love with the subject. It seemed to connect all the things I liked: story-telling, personality, battles, wars, assassinations and death. I was never much one for turnpikes and cloth-manufacturing and all that. No. There had to be smiting."

He still has a drawing, done by Mr Perry, called "The Andrew Roberts History Machine". It consists of a small boy surrounded by arrows to which are attached captions such as, "Mine of useless information", or "Knob for auto switch-off during science subjects".

At 13, Roberts went up to Cranleigh's senior school and was immediately cast as the title character in the school play, Charlie's Aunt. His performance was a sensation. "That was a massive experience for me," he says, wistfully. "The Surrey Advertiser's headline was 'New boy hit as maiden aunt'."

The new boy was not, however, a hit with his fellow pupils. "I was horrifically bullied," Roberts recalls. "Maybe because I was a hubristic little tosser," he adds, trying to make light of what must have been a painful period. "I was strapped into a laundry basket and pushed down the stairs. Then they locked me into a clothes cupboard and pretended the school was on fire. It was absolutely terrifying."

For succour he turned, in swift succession, to Trotskyism, Thatcherism (which he discovered in 1978, aged 15), and then alcohol. Although he eventully achieved three As in his A-levels, Roberts was thrown out of Cranleigh for repeatedly getting drunk and carrying out wild pranks, such as climbing up the school chapel. Off he went to a Cambridge crammer to prepare for his Oxbridge entrance exam.

Every morning, he would sign in at the crammer, then go straight off to The Eagle, a famous Cambridge pub. He would drink pints of beer solidly through till closing time at 3pm, spend the next couple of hours asleep on an empty shelf at the city library, then return for more drinking at 5.30.

Eventually, his mother intervened. She summoned Roberts home, took him on a guided tour of Surrey University, where he was appalled by the drab, modern mundanity of the campus, and gave him a simple choice. "She told me, 'Andrew. If you get a scholarship or an exhibition to Cambridge, I will give you pounds 5,000. Anything else, and you'll go to Surrey.' "

So Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, it was. There he spent three years studying history, chairing the Cambridge University Conservative Association and leading demonstrations against the miners' strike (heaving sighs of relief that there were so many police around to protect him from the beefy miners).

On graduating in 1985, Roberts went to work for the merchant bankers Robert Fleming. It was not a success. "I was just crap," he says, cheerily. "I was functionally innumerate. After two-and-three-quarter years there, I still couldn't read a balance sheet. All my investments were rubbish. The only time I ever made any money, it was by insider dealing."

He left and decided to become a spy. On the very day that he was accepted by MI6, he was offered an advance of pounds 3,000 by Weidenfeld & Nicolson to write a biography of that Tory arch-appeaser of the 1930s, Lord Halifax, a subject suggested by a friend of Roberts' who was also a literary agent. And so his dazzling career as an historian began.

Roberts spent the next three years on the book, interviewing more than 100 influential, elderly men and women who had known Halifax. He was in heaven. "I'm a complete gerontophile," he confesses. "I get on with people who are 20, 30, 50 years older, more than with my own generation. I feel a powerful sense of inferiority when I meet people who had anything to do with the War. I almost despise myself for missing it. The greatest cataclysm in world history, and I was born too late!"

He was still working on Halifax in 1990, when Mrs Thatcher resigned. When Roberts heard the news, he burst into tears, and dashed off to Downing Street to give the departing Prime Minister a consoling bunch of flowers. Since then, Baroness Thatcher has become one of the closest of his many old friends.

"As a person, she's very different from her public persona," he insists. "She listens when you talk to her and she has a great sense of humour. There's a modesty to her that people simply haven't given her credit for. They all think that she thinks she knows it all. She doesn't. And she'll very often say the absolute opposite of what you expect. At a dinner party the other day, for example, she was praising [the Liberal economist John Maynard] Keynes to the skies."

By the time The Holy Fox: A Life of Lord Halifax was published in 1991, Roberts was short of money. His family may be prosperous, but he has to pay his own way. Although he does not say so, the evidence of his recent change of address, from a house in Chelsea to a top-floor flat in Knightsbridge, suggests that he has no more profited from his divorce than any other former husband.

Now, however, he trembles on the brink of stardom. The more the British education system abandons the conventional teaching of history, the greater the public thirst for historical narrative becomes. "People have been short-changed at school," says Roberts. "History should have all the power of drama, with the added advantage of being true, and acted out by real people, flesh and blood."

The BBC, he is pleased to report, has not forced him to dumb down when discussing Hitler and Churchill. But it has asked him to lose a little weight and modernise his wardrobe. "On the show I wear a very natty Italian suit and a tie made by one of these . . . what are they called? You know, who's that famous, expensive Italian tie-maker?" Roberts ponders the mysteries of fashion for an instant, then his eyes light up: "Armani! Courtesy of this programme, I now have two Armani suits upstairs. They're feeding the moths right now!"

He will soon begin work on the official biography of Henry Kissinger, a project that will combine thumping financial remuneration with the equally gratifying task of meeting and interviewing virtually every important American over the age of 50. In the meantime, he prepares for such fame as a BBC2 series can provide.

"I was once on the actual Clapham omnibus," Roberts says, "and the man sitting next to me said, 'Were you on the TV last night?' I said, 'Yes,' beaming and thrilled to be recognised. The man tapped my knee and said, 'I thought you talked a load of crap.' "

As Andrew Roberts completes the anecdote, he bursts out laughing and pours us both another hearty slug of champagne.

Secrets of Leadership starts on BBC2 on February 28 at 9pm; Andrew Roberts' book Hitler and Churchill: Secrets of Leadership is published this week by Weidenfeld & Nicolson, and is available for pounds 16.99 plus pounds 1.99 p&p. To order please call Telegraph Books Direct on 0870 155 7222.

Rasa - 2/14/2003

Were there any other information about Roosevelt wanting the war to happen and caused the hundreds of deaths of innocent people?? Did he really use the attack of Pearl Harbor as an excuse to join the war?

Editor - 2/14/2003

The Observer

February 9, 2003

SECTION: Observer News Pages, Pg. 24

HEADLINE: Documentary forces Danes to confront past

BYLINE: Andrew Osborn

STIRRING tales of wartime resistance have been common currency in Denmark for 50 years, but an explosive new documentary has illuminated a darker side to the period and is outraging a generation.

Only a German does not pull any punches, claiming that the Danish authorities were responsible for the deaths of 7,000 German children under the age of five between 1945 and 1949 and describing how Danish doctors denied food and medical aid to a quarter of a million German refugees seeking sanctuary in Denmark.

Produced by the Danish Broadcasting Corporation, the programme has provoked a storm of controversy. The producer has been called a traitor and a propagandist, surviving members of the Danish resistance movement have called it a lie and an affront to the past, and many elderly people claim it tells a story best forgotten. After living under Nazi occupation from April 1940 until May 1945, Danes were anxious not to be labelled as collaborators when the smoke finally cleared. In fact they were so eager to show their anti-Nazi credentials, it is argued, that they treated Germans who sought refuge there from the advancing Soviets like animals.

Mostly women, children and the elderly, the refugees were put in internment camps, forbidden from fraternising with Danes and refused both medical care and sufficient food. As a result, some 13,500 refugees died in 1945 alone - 7,000 children.

Dr Kirsten Lylloff, an amateur historian who became curious about the number of graves of German babies and children near her home, says they all died of 'perfectly curable' diseases.

Soeren Lindbjerg, producer of the documentary, said the children were treated abominably. 'They died from malnutrition and ordinary diseases such as measles and scarlet fever,' he told The Observer . 'These were contagious diseases, but they were kept in overcrowded camps with scarce food and they died like flies. They were in Danish care behind barbed wire and totally dependent on Denmark. This part of our history has been whitewashed.'

Refugees from other countries were separated and provided with more food and basic medical care, adds Lindbjerg.

But not everyone agrees. Former resistance fighter Leif Larsen, founder of Denmark's Documentation Centre against Historical Falsification, claims the Germans had only themselves to blame. 'This thing that has been called a dark chapter in Danish history wasn't dark at all. The fact of the matter is that the Germans themselves rejected the help of Danish doctors.

'A lot of people have called me a traitor and said I am smearing our country's reputation and should not have told this story, but nobody has been able to reject my documents. There's a feeling that what the Germans did to us was far worse, so we shouldn't tell the story.'

Helge Kvam, of the Danish Red Cross, said his organisation couldn't help because of Danish hostility towards Germans. 'The atmosphere at the time was very anti-German. Girls who had slept with German soldiers had their heads shaven and were driven around and spat at. We would have been considered collaborators if we had helped.'

Lindbjerg said: 'The heroic efforts of Danish resistance fighters and the rescue of Jews are all we hear about, and they're true. At school this chapter of history is never talked about. But every country has to face its past.'

Editor - 2/14/2003

The Boston Globe

February 9, 2003, Sunday ,THIRD EDITION


HEADLINE: Mark Jurkowitz is the Globe's media critic.;


BYLINE: By Mark Jurkowitz

In late September, phone calls and e-mails began pouring in to the ever-vigilant Boston office of CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. The topic of conversation and concern was the news that National Public Radio was about to unveil an ambitious seven-part series called The Mideast: A Century of Conflict. And that was the cue for CAMERA's associate director, a former physics scholar named Alex Safian, to go to work.

Tipped by the details on a press release, Safian spent a weekend researching the roster of experts interviewed for the NPR project. And before the first syllable of the series hit the airwaves on Monday, September 30, he had launched a preemptive strike posted on the CAMERA Web site (

Methodically, Safian indicted several of the NPR specialists - from Oxford historian Avi Shlaim to Israeli author Tom Segev to Columbia University professor Edward Said - for words and deeds opposing Israel and its policies. Calling NPR "the taxpayer-funded radio network known for its flagrant pro-Palestinian bias," he wrote that its "panel of experts includes at least four quite extreme Israeli critics of Israel, at least four extreme Palestinian critics of Israel, one American critic of Israel, and three experts who could be characterized as supportive of Israel. . . . This exactly mirrors the bias found in NPR's Mideast coverage generally.

"The conclusion?" he said. "Listeners beware."

His warning might well be a motto for CAMERA, a self-styled media watchdog organization that has been sniffing, barking, and occasionally biting at big media for two decades. From The Boston Globe to The New York Times, from ABC to CNN, from the BBC to NPR, few players of any influence in Middle Eastern coverage have escaped its scrutiny, its letters, or its phone calls.

In a relentless Mideast conflict in which media images are a crucial battleground, CAMERA has become a major com bat ant. It has been a driving force behind an underwriter boycott of public radio, felt most acutely at the powerful Boston outlet WBUR-FM. It has generated countless corrections, numerous letters to editors, and an impressive number of op-ed columns. It lobbies reporters, editors, and network officials. It raises enough money to function as a de facto publishing house, regularly churning out glossy critiques of Middle East coverage. It serves as a research library, resource center, and philosophical soul mate to supporters of Israel looking to validate their concerns about bias in Middle East coverage. And, perhaps most important, it has battled its way into the psyche of the mainstream media, which may not appreciate or agree with CAMERA but which ignore it at their peril.

Little wonder that the Jewish newspaper the Forward recently named CAMERA's executive director, Andrea Levin, to its list of America's most influential Jewish citizens, sandwiching her between the New York Times's Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Thomas L. Friedman and newly elected Minnesota senator Norm Coleman.

"Media-monitoring was the great proxy war of the last year, and its general is Andrea Levin," the paper declared, calling her "the bane of newsrooms from Jerusalem to Atlanta."

CAMERA's modus operandi is to focus on its work with Columbo-esque doggedness, under the theory that the devil is in the details. "It's completely a question of factual reporting," says Safian.

To many in the media, however, CAMERA is no watchdog but an advocacy group trying to impose its pro-Israeli views on mainstream journalism. And in newsrooms and TV studios across the country, journalists of varying stripes can agree on one thing: When CAMERA comes calling, it's not good news.

CAMERA was born in the early 1980s as a Washington-area citizen volunteer group, largely to monitor coverage of Israel's invasion of Lebanon. That was the first Israeli war not considered strictly defensive, and it began to transform the country's image from sympathetic victim into more of a controversial aggressor. Media coverage grew more critical.

Criticism of the Globe's Mideast reporting of the first Palestinian uprising in the late 1980s became a catalyst for the creation of the Boston chapter, which eventually became the group's headquarters. (Today, there are no other formal chapters.) In 1988 and 1989, CAMERA took out a memorable series of ads in The Boston Phoenix with headlines that read: "Would a Great Newspaper Distort the News About Israel? The Boston Globe Does."

The Boston organization's coming-out party occurred in October 1989, when about 1,000 people, paying $25 a head, turned up at a CAMERA conference in the Park Plaza Hotel to listen to speakers decry unfair treatment of Israel in the media. The headliners included Harvard law professor and attorney Alan Dershowitz and a former US representative to the United Nations named Alan Keyes, who would later go on to fame as a talk-show host and fringe African-American Republican candidate for the presidency. Keyes wowed the Park Plaza crowd with his passionate defense of the Jewish state.

By the early '90s, CAMERA had launched a national membership drive and became what Levin calls "a much more serious professional operation." It currently has annual revenues of $1.8 million, amassed through dues and contributions, some of which stretch into five figures. The organization employs about 20 staffers, serves about 40,000 dues-paying members, and represents a constituency of supporters of Israel who are mad as hell at some - if not much - of the media.

Today, the CAMERA operation produces a signature publication, the glossy Media Report, and reaches about 400 institutions of higher learning with another magazine called CAMERA on Campus. It publishes a series of monographs analyzing coverage and disseminates a media directory with the names, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses of editors, producers, anchors, and columnists. It runs advertising campaigns in major media outlets and presents conferences in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. Recently, CAMERA hired a former editor of Washington Jewish Week to become its Washington director for "whatever congressional dimension there is to our work," says Levin.

But more than anything else, CAMERA is busy scrutinizing, analyzing, and often antagonizing media outlets. And it is not shy about going after some of the industry's biggest names; one media giant that has landed on CAMERA's radar screen with notable frequency is The New York Times, the parent company of The Boston Globe.

In CAMERA's 35-page summer 2002 Media Report, the cover story is headlined "Times Warp" and accuses the paper of skewing its coverage toward the Palestinians during a violent period of Israeli-Palestinian confrontation from late March to early April 2002. "The Times's distorted presentation of events is especially troubling given the paper's influence on its readership, policy makers, and other members of the media," CAMERA writes.

Another conspicuous target over the years has been ABC News anchor Peter Jennings. "We've long considered him anti-Israel," says Levin flatly.

Jennings came into CAMERA's cross hairs on October 2, 1995, when ABC's World News Tonight aired a story asserting that Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu had called Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin "a traitor because of his deals with Yasser Arafat." Three days later, Levin wrote to ABC News president Roone Arledge stating that Netanyahu had never used such language. On October 6, Jennings issued a correction of sorts but still asserted that "there are numerous references to [Netanyahu using such language] in press reports from the region."

One week later, Levin wrote to Arledge asking him to identify those reports. On October 31, ABC News senior vice president Richard Wald wrote to Levin citing The Des Moines Register and the Edmonton Journal as the sources of those reports. CAMERA tracked back to those two publications - and further, to the sources they had used - and found that there were actually no original press reports stating that Netanyahu had made the traitor charge.

The network never amended its October 6 correction. But CAMERA never let up, dashing off correspondence on the subject for at least six months. Vindication came when the Columbia Journalism Review, in its March/April 1996 issue, criticized ABC for erroneously reporting the traitor story.

In its pursuit of the matter, "CAMERA would not rest," the journal noted. Adds Safian: "The moral of the story is you keep on them for a year and maybe something good happens."

C AMERA's no-quarter approach is exemplified by its battle with NPR. "We consider NPR to be the most seriously biased mainstream media outlet," Levin says, reciting a mantra that has clearly gotten under her target's skin.

The friction between them goes back at least a decade; NPR and WBUR executives have met with CAMERA representatives on numerous occasions over the years. (Posted on the CAMERA Web site are more than 50 critical analyses of public radio's Mideast coverage, stretching back to 1992. A particularly tense period in the relationship was ushered in with the September 2000 outbreak of the second Palestinian intifadah. CAMERA fired a major volley with a lengthy report titled "A Record of Bias," analyzing NPR's coverage of the first two months of the intifadah. The analysis concluded that there was "a disproportionate reliance on Arab/Palestinian and pro-Arab speakers compared to Israeli and pro-Israeli speakers." (The study found that 56 percent of the guests represented the Arab side and that they were "afforded" 77 percent more words than the Israeli perspective. CAMERA concluded that there was "chronic amplifying of Palestinian grievances and perspective" and "de-emphasizing or omitting of Israeli concerns." (One example: "Palestinians or other Arabs were described by NPR reporters or guest speakers as 'frustrated' 16 times, while Israelis were only said to have such feelings four times.") At the same time, the report cited "the unabashed partisanship of NPR reporters."

That kind of relentless critique has resonated with a number of Israeli sympathizers and American Jews who are deeply concerned about the deteriorating situation in the Mideast and acutely sensitive to Israel's portrayal in the media. "They are operating in an atmosphere of a lot of anger and frustration in the Jewish community," says Abe Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. "The atmos phere is ripe for CAMERA's message, and, therefore, they're effective."

Perhaps the most potent measure of that effectiveness is the underwriter boycott of WBUR that began in 2001 when two prominent businessmen - WordsWorth Books president and CAMERA board member Hillel Stavis and Cognex CEO and CAMERA member Robert Shillman - became so convinced of that bias that they withdrew their financial support for the station. (Stavis said he had donated "tens of thousands" to WBUR over the years; Shillman said his company had doled out more than $120,000 in the previous five years.) WBUR says it has lost a total of seven key underwriters, including Brandeis University, and between $1 million and $2 million in funding.

At NPR's Washington headquarters, the heat over the broadcaster's Mideast coverage has been a factor in its moves to post online transcripts, initiate a series of "internal assessments" of its reporting, and expand its outreach to the Jewish community. NPR's decision to fly a public relations staffer to Boston to monitor a WBUR protest last August - when marchers outside the station carried signs that read "NPR: National Palestinian Radio" - suggests just how seriously it is treating the furor that CAMERA helped ignite. On January 13, NPR president Kevin Klose and WBUR general manager Jane Christo addressed a mostly pro-Israeli crowd of about 900 in a debate over NPR bias at Boston's Temple Israel.

"Economic blackmail" is the term Klose uses to describe CAMERA's tactics. " CAMERA is essentially an advocacy group that calls itself an umpire but only calls foul balls," he adds.

For years, the relationship between CAMERA and Christo was quite cordial. But she now says the group's message boils down to this: "Report our point of view, or we're going to shut you down."

In September, a crucial effort to stanch the bleeding took place inside WBUR's Commonwealth Avenue offices. Christo and Klose sat down with a small group of WBUR funders, including some who had withdrawn their support. Klose says the meeting was "very satisfactory" and "made clear the complicated reality of doing what we do." But other reports say it was tense and adversarial and didn't exactly end with a meeting of the minds.

Shortly thereafter, the antagonism worsened. Levin sent a letter to Christo complaining that an "outrageous" September 19 broadcast of The Connection, the call-in talk program, "had stacked the deck against mainstream Israeli views and in favor of Palestinian or pro-Palestinian opinion. We regret to say that the problems we see continuously on NPR are not confined to the network but occur all too often on The Connection as well."

Christo's response omitted any diplomatic niceties. "You say you stand for 'accuracy,' but your monographs are polemics," she wrote to Levin. "To imply as you do that WBUR and NPR somehow line up with the forces in the world that want to see the destruction of Israel - or the persecution of Jews - is unconscionable."

That generated another letter from Levin, contending that the program cut off the "sole speaker" who could have responded to "serious charges and insults against Israel." Christo shot back, saying, "We reject the notion that CAMERA can speak for the Israeli government, mainstream Israelis, US 'policy makers,' or others." Levin then asserted that while the Connection guests all endorsed international intervention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a recent poll indicated that just 17 percent of Israelis supported such an approach. "We oppose the abuse of power apparent when media outlets promote their own political perspectives," she added.

At its core, the dispute between public radio and CAMERA has each side accusing the other of that most serious of journalistic sins: censorship.

"I think Americans make the best decisions when they're well informed about the issues," says Klose. "I think [the CAMERA campaign] is aimed at boycotting the marketplace of ideas. I think it's a divisive tactic."

Safian responds by charging that the NPR lineup in the history series is "terribly skewed to one side." He adds, "Who is closing down the marketplace of ideas? They're the ones who have a monopoly on the microphone."

On the surface, Levin and Safian make a rather odd team. She is tall, lanky, and blond. He is short, compact, and dark. But they share an unflagging dedication to their work and routinely put in 12-hour days, often staying at the office until 10 p.m. (For security reasons, they prefer to keep their workplace location a secret. Manhattan-born Levin, 57, grew up as an Army brat, once taught English in the Philadelphia public schools, and later worked at the Kennedy School of Government as an associate editor of the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. "I was really interested in international affairs," she says. "All my life, I was a total news junkie."

Levin's involvement in CAMERA began in 1988 when she wrote an article for the Boston-area weekly The Tab, criticizing the Globe's coverage of the first Palestinian intifadah, which had begun a year earlier. Suddenly, she found herself tapping into a reservoir of widespread sentiment. "I was not very acquainted with the established Jewish community," she recalls. But after that piece, "the phone started ringing."

Safian, 44, a Columbia University graduate, came to the area to go to Harvard graduate school and started as a CAMERA volunteer in the early 1990s after he got involved researching an anti-Israeli op-ed piece in a community newspaper. Like Levin, he calls himself "a news junkie" and says the trauma of following the news from Israel as a schoolboy during the 1967 war - when that nation's fate hung in the balance - was a "formative experience."

Given the drive and commitment it takes to devote a career to monitoring and confronting the news media - a task not for the faint of heart - Safian and Levin don't come off as the firebrands you might expect. They are not the type to launch into sweeping soliloquies about the importance of their work or even about their feelings toward Israel. Perhaps wary of being characterized as ideologues, they often sound more like lab researchers.

"It motivates me when I see people misrepresenting things," says Safian simply.

Levin and Safian operate out of CAMERA headquarters in a Boston neighborhood, overseeing a warren of busy offices brimming with tapes, transcripts, and clippings and adorned with maps, posters, and such books as Arafat: In the Eyes of the Beholder and The Media's War Against Israel. Its corps of researchers scrutinizes every paragraph and camera angle of Mideast reportage, counting sources, checking facts, and monitoring tone.

Organization is key. It takes Levin all of about 10 seconds to locate a copy of an October 6, 1993, New York Times story claiming that Israel had arrested men in the Gaza Strip for carrying sliced watermelons, which feature the green, red, and black Palestinian colors. (The December 3, 1993, Times correction is appended to it.) Piled in a corner are about 100 boxes filled with files and tapes from CNN, the BBC, and NPR. With roughly 50 videos per box, you do the math. And CAMERA's newly revamped Web site is a model of crisp efficiency, cross-referencing subjects by the journalist's name, his or her media outlet, and the nature of the issue. (Once you locate the journalist, you're a mere mouse click away from seeing the corrections he or she generated. In one room, research analyst Chana Shavelson is writing a letter to the editor of - of all places - the Marie Claire fashion and beauty magazine, citing problems with a November 2002 article that dealt with the impact of war on women and children. In another, staffer Ricki Hollander is carefully listening to tapes, comparing the tenor of that day's BBC report about suffering Palestinian children in the West Bank town of Jenin with the previous day's coverage of a bus bombing that killed Israeli children.

"We were struck by the fact that on a day that Israel is burying children who were blown up on buses, the BBC chose to air this report," she says.

Meanwhile, researcher Deborah Passner is celebrating the recent publication of a column she wrote in Florida's St. Petersburg Times. In it, she rebutted a Times columnist who had written about a UN report critical of Israel's treatment of Palestinian children. "What is disingenuous about the report, but typical of the whitewashing of Arab misconduct, is that it ignores the unconscionable child abuse perpetrated by the Palestinian Authority," Passner wrote.

Nancy Levy, a communications graduate, works in CAMERA's constantly humming letter-writing department, sending out e-mail alerts to a team of several thousand volunteers. The idea is to highlight problems with media coverage that will inspire letters to the editors and calls for corrections. (The group frowns on form letters or copycat e-mails, favoring a strategy of peppering news outlets with individual sentiments. "On a good week, we might have 500 to 600 letters," Levy says. "You'd actually be surprised how many people get published."

CAMERA's publications are proudly filled with pages of corrections induced by its calls or letters. Last summer's Media Report, for example, lists 34 such transgressions, ranging from the Los Angeles Times misreporting the age of a Jewish teenager shot dead in the West Bank to a Reuters story that erroneously characterized the northern Israeli town of Kiryat Shmoma as a settlement.

Levin offers staffers some pragmatic advice about the persistence required to get the attention of decision makers at media outlets. "You have to be polite, but you have to be quite on them, sometimes," she says. "Expect to fax things about three times."

To its supporters, CAMERA is figuratively - and perhaps literally - doing God's work, battling insidious anti-Israeli bias in the media. But its detractors see CAMERA as a myopic and vindictive special interest group trying to muscle its views into media coverage.

No one is more explicit in that belief than the public radio officials who have borne the brunt of CAMERA's ire and focus. Whereas CAMERA assails NPR's Mideast history series as flagrantly skewed against Israel, Kevin Klose attacks CAMERA for its desire to demonize the proj ect simply because it doesn't agree with some of the speakers.

Unlike NPR, most media outlets tend to be reluctant, if not unwilling, to respond publicly to CAMERA's allegations. Requests for comment for this article from CNN, another occasional CAMERA target, went unanswered. ABC's answer to the group's concerns about the network, and about Jennings in particular, was a statement saying, "We always welcome feedback from our viewers."

Asked about CAMERA's criticism of its coverage, a New York Times spokeswoman says the paper tries to cover "all sides . . . with scrupulous impartiality. .. . If occasionally the facts of a particular news situation seem likely to provide more satisfaction to one side than to others, our policy is to restore the balance promptly in our overall coverage."

The nature of these responses speaks volumes about much of the news media's relationship with CAMERA. For starters, there is little appetite on the part of news outlets to engage in the kind of point-counterpoint debate that is CAMERA's home field. Many also view CAMERA's lobbying as an emotion-driven response to coverage of a bloody Mideast conflict that stokes the passions of viewers, listeners, and readers in a way that very few stories do. And news organizations seem loath to give too much public credibility to an organization they consider an advocacy group, not an independent media monitor.

"It's important to make a distinction between advocacy groups that pose as watchdogs and watchdog groups doing independent and open-minded critiques of media performance," says Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, a nonpartisan Washington think tank.

As if to illustrate the philosophical chasm between themselves and their critics, CAMERA officials have little regard for broad arguments that they are themselves biased or for arguments that defend the media's performance on First Amendment grounds. To them, it's all about examining the words and pictures. "Our problem with that line of accusation is that it does not address specifics," says Andrea Levin of her critics. "We're looking at the actual breakdown of the coverage."

Even among pro-Israeli groups, CAMERA's tactics and values are not universally shared. Somewhat diplomatically, the Anti-Defamation League's Abe Foxman points out how his organization diverges with CAMERA. "Where we part company is certainly on boycotts," he says. While "there are problems in the media, [CAMERA has] a very broad brush. . . . They are a one-issue organization, which makes it easier for them to focus with intensity on their issues, and they don't have to balance other issues, other concerns, other sensibilities."

That intensity, that single-issue focus, may be a source of unending tension between CAMERA and the journalists it targets. But friend and foe alike understand that it is also the key to the organization's undeniable impact, its ability to distinguish itself in a universe of ad hoc, self-appointed media critics.

Ahmed Bouzid, executive director of the pro-Palestinian Palestine Media Watch, criticizes CAMERA for wanting news outlets to adopt "value judgments on the conflict." But he acknowledges that "they are well financed. They are well established. Pro-Palestinian groups have not understood how important the PR game is in the United States."

With a hint of weariness, Christo acknowledges that the CAMERA forces are "in a league by themselves. There has never been anything this organized."

And CAMERA supporter and erstwhile WBUR underwriter Robert Shillman observes that "if you're on the pointy end of the stick, they don't seem so nice." He adds: "Number one is perseverance. These people . . . don't let go."

Editor - 2/14/2003

The Boston Globe

February 9, 2003, Sunday ,THIRD EDITION


HEADLINE: Jeet Heer and Steve Penfold are historians living in Toronto.;


BYLINE: BY Jeet Heer and Steve Penfold

NOT TOO LONG AGO, McDonald's seemed invincible. Not only did the fast-food giant serve burgers by the billions, its social influence appeared unstoppable. "The Golden Arches are now more widely recognized than the Christian cross," maintained Eric Schlosser in his best-selling 2001 expos "Fast Food Nation." "The basic thinking behind fast food has become the operation system of today's retail economy, wiping out small businesses, obliterating regional differences, and spreading identical stores throughout the country like a self-replicating code."

Schlosser was popularizing an argument made by University of Maryland sociologist George Ritzer, author of the influential book "The McDonaldization of Society" (1993). McDonaldization, according to Ritzer, is "the process by which the principles of the fast-food restaurant are coming to dominate more and more sectors of American society as well as the rest of the world." Not that everyone saw the spread of McDonald's as a bad thing. In a much-discussed 1996 article on what he termed "The Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention," New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman noted that "no two countries that both have a McDonald's have fought a war since they each got a McDonald's." (The NATO bombing of Serbia soon proved him wrong. As it turns out, the ubiquitous purveyor of the Big Mac is weaker than either its friends or foes suspected. Last month, the empire that Ray Kroc built announced the first quarterly loss since the chain went public in 1965. And while a federal judge in New York recently dismissed a liability case against McDonald's brought by two obese teenagers, he also laid out a road map for potential future legislation against the additive-happy company.

Meanwhile, the McDonaldization thesis is coming under intellectual fire. In the itself burgeoning field of food studies, scholars are increasingly skeptical of Ritzer's claim that fast-food standardization is "an inexorable process, sweeping through seemingly impervious institutions and regions of the world."

Students of the globalized Golden Arches (about 43 percent of McDonald's nearly 30,000 franchises lie outside the United States) frequently stress that the chain is in fact remarkably flexible in responding to local conditions. Like the most successful missionaries of old, McDonald's has achieved international reach by adapting itself to the idioms and mores of different climes. You can eat McFelafels in Egypt, an egg-topped McHuevos burger in Uruguay, and a McLuks salmon burger in Finland.

More fundamentally, scholars increasingly dispute the idea that mass production threatens the existence of particular cultural identities, either abroad or at home. After all, regional cuisines are displaying an unexpected vitality in this age of chain restaurants and global brand-names. Why? Many people, it seems, are content to preserve their local cultures through food that is as processed and mass-produced as a Happy Meal.

Harvard anthropologist James L. Watson has spent more than a decade studying the McDonald's restaurants of East Asia. He emphasizes the ways that different cultures find diverse uses for the same product. In China, where teenagers suffer a dearth of social spaces, McDonald's is an appealing place for high school students to spend hours goofing off. Even Ronald McDonald cuts a different profile in family-conscious China, where he is known as Uncle McDonald and has a spouse, Aunt McDonald. As in many developing countries, the novelty and relatively high prices of McDonald's make it a symbol of chicness and new wealth.

The startling mutability of McDonald's is part of a larger story. "Ordinary people link their regional identities to commercial food products," notes Donna Gabaccia, a professor of American history at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte. "Most fast food restaurant chains start in a specific location and when they spread, they take their regional identity with them-even KFC, which did originate in Kentucky."

Many restaurant chains, Gabaccia points out, are still regional. The highways of the South, for example, are dotted with signs for Bojangles', known for its Cajun chicken and country ham, and Shoney's, where the menu includes Original Country Fried Steak and Grilled Liver 'n' Onions. Mass-produced foods can create a surge of pride even in the supermarket aisles. "There are lots of brands that have iconic significance for Southerners-the kind of things that those living outside the South bring back with them when they go home," observes John Shelton Reed, an emeritus professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. "Rebel Yell bourbon used to be that way. Duke's mayonnaise. The Moon Pie. Lots of local soft drinks-Cheerwine in North Carolina, Ale-8-One from Kentucky, Blenheim Ginger Ale from South Carolina."

Reed's was initially inspired by the Southern Agrarians, a group of early 20th-century writers and intellectuals who bemoaned the spread of a soulless, industrialized Yankee culture. But Reed departed from his mentors' pessimism. He argues that the South remains culturally distinct in part because it gives its own regional flavor to mass-produced products. In "1001 Things Everyone Should Know About the South," Reed and his wife Dale Volberg Reed define "down-home" Southern cooking as cuisine using products historically produced by southern farms-chicken, okra, bacon grease, and the like-whether it's served at home or fried up at "plate-lunch restaurants, shopping-mall cafeterias, or interstate highway chains like Cracker Barrel."

Some strange things can happen when mass-produced food products travel. Although the doughnut is often seen as an American icon, Canadians have adopted it as their own unofficial national snack: Bostonians may be mad for Dunkin' Donuts, but Canadians eat more doughnuts per capita than any other nation. When Krispy Kreme (a North Carolina-based chain that itself arouses southern pride) arrived in Canada in December 2001, it was national news-with reporters wondering if this wasn't the end of Canada's claim to doughnut sovereignty. But Canada's own doughnut shops had themselves migrated north from the United States in the early 1960. The biggest chain, Tim Hortons (named for a famous Canadian hockey player of the 1960s and '70s), has been owned by Wendy's since 1995.

As Gabaccia notes, there is a constant interplay between regional cuisines and a wider mass market. Consider, for example, the bagel. Originally a staple in the diet of immigrant Jews in New York during the late 19th century, the bagel underwent a transformation in 1984, when Kraft bought the New Haven-based Lender's and pushed the bagel onto the national stage. Softer and sweeter than the traditional bagel, the Kraft product proved very popular. But it also created a new counter-market, as delis in the Northeast began advertising that they offered a good old-fashioned bagel, hand-rolled and boiled, rather than the "white-bread" imposter. Chains like Bruegger's and Einstein Bros. began spreading the culinary image of Jewish genius (along with heresies like the blueberry bagel) across the nation and the world.

For Ritzer and other critics of "McDonaldization," there's cold comfort in knowing that regional identities-your own as well as exotic imports-can still be found in the food court. But for Gabaccia, the fear of a fast-food planet just isn't borne out by the facts. "People in New York and Los Angeles still eat very differently," she notes. "I personally believe that regionalism is a more persistent element of American eating than distinctive ethnic cuisines. It has already survived 100 years of commercialization."

Regional cuisines survive partially for simple environmental and geographical reasons. No matter how good transportation systems get, it will always be easier to eat fresh seafood in Boston than in Nebraska. But even more importantly, the human need for both novelty and tradition ensures that the world will never settle for a lowest-common-denominator diet-even in the shadow of the Golden Arches.

"Production standardizes but consumption diversifies," says Gabaccia-even in the shadow of the Golden Arches.

kamikaze - 2/14/2003

need more suicide bombers

Daniel Drooz - 2/14/2003

As historians HNN should try to be accurate in its headlines.
The USS Liberty was not sunk in 1967.

It was operating in international waters--but in an area where a "Warning to Mariners" had been posted. Not many merchant ships are going to enter a war zone because the chances of becoming a major player in a tragedy are so great.

Tina - 2/14/2003

Does it occur to Ms. Conway that "for the whole of human history" it has been the wealthy who have relegated childcare to "professionals" (wet nurses, slaves, nannies, poorly paid daycare workers)? Most of them did so because they didn't want to listen to children's noise or change messy diapers.

Prior to industrialization, poor women usually took their children to work with them (and put older children to work, also) or carried on productive labor at home.

Most women, like a great many men, have jobs that aren't especially interesting, fun, highly paid, or powerful. That considered, a lot of us would prefer to care for our own children, during the brief period when they are small, if we could only afford to do so.

Women who have children have them by choice. We don't consider efforts on behalf of our children demeaning, nor is our interest in our children a delusion, created by some male conspiracy.

As for the "child study movement," that was chiefly the product of female leadership, in the Progressive era. Many of those women were childless, but they were deeply interested in the welfare of children. Research on children today is typically concerned with the commercial exploitation of children and their parents, and the suppression of normal child behavior.

Most people are capable of understanding things they have not experienced. But Ms. Conway's hypotheses on the subject of motherhood do not reflect this generality.

Big 10 Graduate student - 2/13/2003

I'm sure the US Air Force can remedy this damn dam in a few weeks!

Benjamin Sanders - 2/13/2003

The Catholic church never expelled Hitler or other nazi's from the faith. Why not? Perhaps this can be culled from the soon
released vatican archives? I doubt very much that a full and
unsanitized release of such church records will ever be made by
the church.

Jeffrey R. Woolf - 2/13/2003

I concur with Don McArthur's insight. This petition bears all the markings of contemporary western 'cognitive egotism' or 'cognitive narcissism.' In other words, and I am surprised that colleagues who do not read Arabic or know the field, can be so disrespectful of the integrity of certain aspects of Muslim culture (and I stress 'certain') that they basically say 'The Iraqis/Saudi Wahabees/Sheikhs of Al Azhar really only hate American imperialism. This is both short-sighted and disrespectful. Thirteen hundred years of Islamic tradition contradict such evaluations of the present situation in the Near and Far East. Since when do American Historians (most of them Christians and Jews) have the right to tell others what thet 'really mean.'

Becky - 2/13/2003

Where can I buy the book "The Wealth of Michelangelo" by Hatfield? Thanks.

Editor - 2/12/2003

The Guardian (London)

February 8, 2003

SECTION: Guardian Leader Pages, Pg. 22

HEADLINE: Opinion & Letters: False and dangerous: Revisionist TV history of Britain's empire is an attempt to justify the new imperial order

BYLINE: Jon E Wilson

Niall Ferguson is the Leni Riefenstahl of George Bush's new imperial order. Just as Riefenstahl's photography glorified the violence of fascism and sold it to the middle classes, Ferguson's Channel 4 series and book on the British empire presents the acceptable face of imperial brutality.

From hawks within the Bush administration to their cheerleaders on the Mail and Telegraph, the invasion of Iraq is justified in the name of a new benevolent colonialism. Just as the world is preparing for a fresh western war of conquest, Ferguson arrives to convince us that imperialism can be a Good Thing. With its swashbuckling heroes and glamorous locations, his series Empire lends fake historical legitimacy to this new imperial enterprise. But by using Britain's imperial past to justify America's imperial future, Ferguson's arguments are misleading and dangerous. Worst of all, they encourage policy based on a version of the history of empire that is simply wrong. Apologists for the new imperialism argue that Pax Britannica ushered in an unprecedented period of worldwide peace and prosperity. If the US took its global responsibilities seriously, they claim, Pax Americana could now do the same again.

This new imperialism tries to justify itself with a story about Britain's introduction of free trade, the rule of law, democracy and western civilisation across the globe. "No organisation", Ferguson says, "has done more to impose western norms of law, order and governance around the world." That story is a fable dreamt up by 19th-century propagandists to sell the benefits of empire to an uncertain public back home.

Instead of enriching the world, the British empire impoverished it. The empire was run on the cheap. Instead of investing in the development of the countries they ruled, the British survived by doing deals with indigenous elites to sustain their rule at knock-down prices.

Whether in 18th-century India, 19th-century Egypt or 20th-century Iraq, the story is the same. As long as taxes were paid, the British cared little about how they were collected. Far from imposing "the rule of law", they turned a blind eye to Indian landlords who extracted rent by coercion or white planters who evicted their African neighbours by force. Despotic repression was fostered where it protected British interests. Many of those petty despotisms are still with us today. The feudal lords now massacring villagers in the Indian state of Bihar were created by British land policy. The northern Nigerian emirs who sentenced Amina Lawal to death for adultery last year owe their existence to the dubious practices of British imperial rule.

Ferguson's defence of the new imperialism is based on a view that the west is always best. Those who insist that the US should take on a yet more assertive global role don't believe that Asians, Africans or Arabs can create prosperity and order on their own behalf. Without western imperial order, so this argument goes, the world would be a nasty, brutish place. Muslim countries are singled out as being particularly incapable of looking after their own affairs.

Such views are based on a woefully inaccurate version of the history of the non-European world. Take India, for example. Ruled by Muslims before the British, India was a prosperous, rapidly commercialising society. The Jagat Seths, India's biggest banking network, rivalled the Bank of England in size. Ferguson argues that the British built useful things - opulent viceregal palaces and machine guns, perhaps. In contrast, Indians wasted money on conspicuous consumption. Does he mean the Taj Mahal?

Far from being backward and uncivilised, Mughal India exported high quality manufactured goods to Britain's fashionable society. Aristocrats had Indian chintz on their walls and Indian cloth on their tables. British manufacturers often labelled poorer quality British imitations as "Indian" to dupe customers into buying their own shoddy goods. After all, why were the British interested in trading with Asia at all? It was to make money out of a wealthy society - not to invest and civilise.

British rule pauperised India. The British restricted Indian weavers' ability to trade freely and the result was a drastic drop in living standards. Dhaka, now the capital of impoverished Bangladesh, was once a state-of-the-art industrial city. Its population fell by half during the first century of British rule. In 1750, Indians had a similar standard of living to people in Britain. Now, average Indian incomes are barely a tenth of the British level in terms of real purchasing power. It is no coincidence that 200 years of British rule occurred in the intervening time.

When not subject to western intervention, the non-European world is of course more than capable of looking after its own affairs. The argument that Africans, Arabs and Asians need to be "civilised" by force has repeatedly ended up being used to justify oppressive regimes. The British extinction of the aboriginal population of Tasmania or the barbaric penal colony on the Andaman Islands (the early 20th century's Guantanamo Bay) were justified in the belief that the "natives" couldn't expect any better.

Empire is always counter-productive. Imperialism creates weak rulers who demand further cycles of imperial violence to stay in power. British colonial power could only be sustained by the large-scale use of brutal force across four continents. In the dying days of imperial rule, the British maintained their rule by acts of terror like the Amritsar massacre and the frenzy of colonial violence that followed the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya. In neither case does one find much sign of the "rule of law".

The story that Ferguson tells is typical of the arguments liberal imperial propagandists made during the 19th century. After all, even John Stuart Mill (an employee of the East India Company) regarded imperialism as benign. But based on a version of British history last taught well over half a century ago, these kinds of arguments are not taken seriously by historians today. Until recently, it seemed that 19th-century liberal orthodoxies about "progress", "order" and the benefits of British colonial rule had become the marginal province of the fogeyish fringe of the Tory right.

But now Ferguson's retro chic defence of the new imperialism has alarmingly seeped out of the confines of its conservative redoubt into the mainstream. Jack Straw should be lauded for having had the courage to suggest that political instability in the Middle East, Asia and Africa has something to do with the legacy of British rule in places like Zimbabwe, Palestine, Iraq and India. But his belief that the wrongs of imperial violence in the past can be righted by a further wave of imperial violence now is based on the same arrogant mistake.

The new liberal imperialists believe the west has the power to remould the rest of the world in its own image. It doesn't. Instead, imperialism creates a cycle of violence and poverty that advances the short-term interests of a few by impoverishing us all in the long term. If policy-makers are going to take history seriously, they should base it on something more sophisticated than Niall Ferguson's glossy glorification of imperial violence.

Jon E Wilson is a lecturer in history at King's College London. He is writing a book on British rule in Bengal

Editor - 2/12/2003

The Guardian (London)

February 8, 2003

SECTION: Guardian Weekend Pages, Pg. 46

HEADLINE: Weekend: THE BUFFALO ROAM AGAIN: Buried deep within America's empty heartland lies North Dakota: remote, inhospitable, a state in crisis. But as its human inhabitants give up on the plains and move out, the original settlers are on their way back. Matthew Engel reports

BYLINE: Matthew Engel

Outside the town of Rugby, North Dakota, just south of the Canadian border, is the geographical centre of the North American continent: the very middle of middle America. This is not a region that easily lends itself to extremes or superlatives. But North Dakota does boast the World's Tallest Structure, the KVLY-TV tower near Blanchard, which is more than a third of a mile high. And on a hillside at New Salem, it has the World's Largest Holstein Cow - a statue, you understand. ("Enjoy the view from New Salem Sue.") And on a bluff by Interstate-94 at Jamestown is a similar statue: the World's Largest Buffalo, 26 feet high, weighing 60 tonnes, and positioned in a way that suggests it is about to dump the World's Largest Buffalo Dropping in the direction of passing humanity. This might be appropriate because

something remarkable is going on in North Dakota, perhaps the least-known but most troubled state in the union. A century and a quarter after the white man colonised the place and drove the native Americans and the buffalo to the edge of oblivion, the roles are being reversed. The Europeans are facing extinction, and the ancient inhabitants may reclaim the land. The great cinematographic story of the American west has reached its end and is being rewound. From here, the inexorable spread of white people across this land now looks less like Manifest Destiny than a failed experiment, a brief historical aberration, what the geographer Frank Popper calls "the largest, longest-running agricultural and environmental miscalculation in American history".

These are the Great Plains, the empty spaces east of the Rockies that constitute one-sixth of the American landscape (excluding Alaska). Popper and his wife Deborah have devised a plan that would transform and potentially revitalise the plains by effectively erasing what the white man has done here. It is not exactly top of the agenda in Washington right now. But in North Dakota it is at the heart of an increasingly anguished debate about the state's future.

The dream is that enough of the west could be returned to open range to create what the Poppers call a "buffalo commons" and the rancher/writer Dan O'Brien describes as "an American Serengeti": a haven for nature, a magnet for tourism, a beacon for sustainable rural progress. In a sense, it is still fantasy, but the crisis on the plains is so acute that other options are falling away. No need to ask what would happen to all the people - in North Dakota, they are already on their way out.

Since 1930 the population of the US has tripled. Uniquely, North Dakota's population has fallen: little more than 600,000, roughly equivalent to the population of Manchester and Salford, cover an area the size of England. In the 1990s alone, the US as a whole grew by 13%. North Dakota went up by 0.5%, but even that figure is an illusion. The largest city, Fargo, snuggling up to the Minnesota border, is gaining, and there is growth on the native American reservations. Just about everywhere else, humanity is in retreat.

In small and evocative towns and communities all over the state, where their great-grandfathers arrived by train and covered wagon, they are giving up and getting out: in Abercrombie, Amidon and Anamoose, Wishek, Wyndmere and Zap. Many of these towns have lost 10% of their population each decade since 1930, but in the 1990s that often accelerated to 20%. Above all, the young people are going, with regret or relief, because they have no alternative.

North Dakota is not the only state with a rural crisis. The troubles affect the whole Great Plains region - South Dakota, Montana, Nebraska. Analysts expect the plains to replace the south as the nation's poorest region very soon. Nowhere else has it as bad as North Dakota, though, to which the phrase "ground zero" was applied long before it was expropriated for use elsewhere. But perhaps the original ground zero was also here, more than a hundred years ago.

No one knows how many buffalo there were in the US before the Europeans arrived, though 60 million has been mentioned. We do know the figure for 1890, after just a few short years of crazed slaughter: about 1,000. The native Americans had always hunted the buffalo ("bison", to be zoologically accurate, "tatanka" to use the native Lakota language), but the odd arrow had no impact on their numbers.

The carnage began after the civil war when the railroads began to push west. At first, the meat was needed to feed the crews building the tracks; that was why William F Cody ("Buffalo Bill") killed 4,280 animals in 18 months in the late 1860s. There were other by-products: buffalo tongues became a popular delicacy and the hides, complete with hair, were fashionable as blankets for the carriage trade.

Still, the buffalo's numbers were hardly dented. But the industrial nations needed leather - for boots, but also to drive machinery - and so the real frenzy began. Thousands of ex-soldiers poured into the plains, shot an average of 15 buffalo a day and were paid Dollars 3 a hide. Then they collected the bones to be ground into fertiliser. And since one bone was much the same as any other, the occasional native American bone found its way into the piles, too.

At first, most of the animals in Dakota were secure, because this was native American country, protected by treaty. But then rumours started that there was gold in the Black Hills, and in 1876 one George A Custer led his men into the area. There were setbacks - rather a large one as far as Custer was concerned - but the end was nigh for both native Americans and buffalo. The treaties were forgotten.

In 1883, Dakota territory passed a law protecting the bison - but by then there were hardly any left.

The defeat of the native Americans took a little longer. Before they finally succumbed, they had their own frenzy, inspired by a medicine man called Wovoka, who persuaded them that if they performed a ritual called the Ghost Dance, the old days would be restored. The dance ended with the chant, "The buffalo are coming! The buffalo are coming!"

Actually, the horse soldiers were coming. The native Americans believed their special ghost-shirts would protect them from the guns of the Seventh Cavalry. At the battle of Wounded Knee in December 1890, their world disintegrated -apparently for ever.

With the buffalo gone and the native Americans herded on to reservations, they were replaced by migrants from Europe, who were transported by rail and given the land to plant crops, raise cattle and make a future for their families, far from the wars and tyranny and poverty of home. This was "the Great Dakota Boom". It is arguable that "the Great Dakota Bust" has been going on, with only brief interruptions, ever since.

To get a sense of modern North Dakota, you have to imagine the English countryside as it might be with hardly any incomers or tourist trade. The first ingredient is there: a failing agrarian economy. And sometimes it is possible to imagine oneself in a stretched version of England: a giant Cambridgeshire east of the Missouri, an endless Ilkley Moor to the west. But here there are no commuters ramping up house prices, no farmhouse B&Bs, no tea shoppes. A few hunters come to shoot duck and pheasant in season. But it is a six-hour drive from most of the state to Minneapolis, the nearest big city.

North Dakota is beautiful. But the beauty is of the savage and unforgiving kind that comes with a savage and unforgiving climate. Last September, the temperature was still in the 90s. By late October, icicles were hanging off the eaves. Somewhere in between, there were a couple of days that could be described as equable. Alaska aside, this is the coldest state in the union: temperatures of -30 are not uncommon, -45 not unknown. It is also the windiest, and has the most extreme variations. A Dakota winter, wrote O'Brien, is something you can look forward to only "if, as with childbirth, remodelling a house or writing a novel, you forget how bad it was the last time". "Say what you like about our climate," added another local writer, Kathleen Norris, "in Dakota we say it keeps the riffraff out."

It certainly does. To most Americans, such a place is absurdly remote: "the American outback", its "empty quarter", "the great desolation". You can fly to Europe four times from a major city for the price of a flight to Fargo (changing several times). These days, the state is probably best known for the other Fargo, the Coen brothers' film, which captures the flat bleakness of the local landscape and character, and also shows a body being fed into a garden shredder. Most unfair. In a state with a history of progressive government (capital punishment was abolished in 1915), the crime rate is extremely low - it was recently declared the US's safest state for the sixth year in a row.

That makes sense, according to Miami Herald columnist Dave Barry. "You're not going to have a lot of crime in an area with essentially the same population density as Jupiter. Even if you try to commit a robbery in North Dakota, the victim will be so happy to have human companionship that he or she will invite you home for traditional North Dakota cuisine (Pork'n'Marshmallow Jell-O Casserole Surprise)." The thesis does not entirely do justice to the full repulsiveness of most of the local food.

The people are also highly educated, which is one reason they have to get out. Jessica Thomasson, who works in the Fargo planning department, is from Park River (pop: 1,535). "All my family are there. My husband's from there. I'm a planner and he's a computer programmer. We really considered how we could get back there to live but there's nothing we can do in Park River. Of the people I was at school with, only five stayed: one's a nurse, two work for farmers and a couple work in the auto parts store."

As you travel west, farther from the pull of even a modestly sized city like Fargo, the land gets more rugged and arid, the crisis more acute. I met Duane Schatz in Elgin (pop: 1,200 when he arrived in 1965; now 679), where he publishes the Grant County News. "We have an average of three deaths a month in the paper," he says. "There are no young people. There are elderly people, and they're passing away." The evidence is on his front page, where Schatz reports the local high school American football scores. The schools have had to merge to the point where some kids travel 60 miles to get there: so Towner-Granville-Upham-Willow City play Adams-Edmore-Edinburg.

The Grant County News itself incorporates the Elgin Times, Leith Index, New Leipzig Sentinel, Raleigh Herald and Shields Enterprise. If Schatz gets his wish, finds a buyer and retires, it will probably also merge with its sister paper, the Carson Press. All these towns, placed about 10 miles apart for the convenience of the farmers and the railroads, leapt into existence in the optimism of the pioneer days, and spent the 20th century quietly dying.

Outside Schatz's cosy newsroom (perhaps the only one in the US with both a broadband internet connection and a buffalo head on the wall) are the scenes of small-town decay: the Chevy dealer next door has gone out of business; the five grocery stores are down to one. Beyond, amid the immensity of the prairie, are the grimmer indications of a ravaged countryside: abandoned farms, tumbledown barns and rusting grain elevators. And the prairie sounds are there, too: the wind in the cottonwood trees, the honking of Canada geese flying south and the haunting sound of the American railroad, the hoo-woo! clank-clank-clank! of an endless freight train.

The railroads! Even now, North Dakota has a phenomenal number of lines and trains passing through (though only one slow daily passenger train). The Northern Pacific, which follows Interstate-94 past the buffalo statue, arrived in the early 1870s, after the company was allotted great quantities of land to parcel out to would-be migrants. The state capital, Bismarck, was named by rail baron Jay Cooke as a ploy to attract German migrants. He also called the land "the Fertile Belt" and the "Garden of Eden".

All this was based on the Homestead Act, passed under Lincoln's presidency in 1862, offering free 160-acre parcels to anyone who agreed to farm the land for five years. To the poverty-stricken peasants of Germany and Norway, it must indeed have sounded like Eden. "I don't know of any other time in history when a benevolent government caused more suffering than with the Homestead Act," says Hiram Drache, one of the state's leading historians.

They arrived in their thousands in the 1880s, but it was never possible to make a living farming 160 acres in the Dakotas. The growing season is short; the rainfall is low and untrustworthy - and when it comes, it tends to arrive in ferocious hailstorms that destroy whole fields, or in torrential showers that scorch the crops instead of quenching their thirst. If farmers do get through to harvest time, the distance to market alone can wreck their profit margin.

A Sioux who watched a migrant turn the first sod to plough his land remarked simply, "Wrong side up", making it clear that this land was better grazed than sown. The remark passed into folklore and helped convince farmers in the west of the state to concentrate on cattle, a decision that arguably has turned out just as disastrously. There have been fat years, when the weather and the world economy cooperated to let farmers make money: two world wars, for instance, and the 1970s, when the Soviet Union needed to import huge quantities of grain. But the fat years have been the exception, and have become ever rarer. "Sometimes survival is the only blessing the terrifying angel of the Plains bestows," Norris wrote.

In the early days, before anyone discovered all this, the pioneers had to cope with the day-to-day privations of North Dakota life. In the Fargo public library, the titles of the settlers' memoirs tell their own story: Against The Wind, The Cruel Cold Land, Summer's Past, Winter's Coming. The railroad publicity material did not mention the temperatures of 45 below, the isolation, the hardships. But once the migrants were here, they could not afford to go back. Instead, they became enlisted in the Garden of Eden conspiracy and wrote jolly letters to relatives to persuade them to come out and provide them with cheap labour.

Many went bust; some must have gone mad. Later waves of migrants were given four times as much land, and even then it was hard to make a living. The weak gave up, and the strong bought them out. With mechanisation, farmers no longer needed European dupes to do the work and a couple could look after thousands of acres with maybe an extra pair of hands at harvest time. It was a form of natural selection, of the sort that once made the buffalo supreme.

And it has taken all this time for the white man even to begin to understand what the native Americans knew instinctively, that there is a natural rhythm to life on the plains and the buffalo is beautifully adapted to it. O'Brien was one of the first, in the 1990s, to grasp that it made more sense to have bison on his land than cows. "Cattle may be fine for fertile farms that have been tamed for centuries, but on the Great Plains they always seem slightly lost, and clumsy, like someone picking their way through a pasture wearing stiletto heels," he wrote in his lovely book, Buffalo For The Broken Heart. "They have always been a sort of ungulate tourist, and in ranching them I felt like a tour guide who spends his life translating menus and pointing out the rest rooms."

O'Brien put this in scientific terms, too: cattle cower from the weather, whereas buffalo relish it; buffalo eat prairie weeds, cattle nibble the best grasses; cattle trample the ground under trees and near ponds, buffalo have a knack of seeking out the tiniest drops of water from the earth. O'Brien said his land and wildlife regenerated within a year of his switching.

And, as the old railroad crews discovered, buffalo also produce tasty meat with little fat, and without the growth hormone jabs that are the norm in American cattle-breeding. So dozens of farmers in the Dakotas strengthened their fences and changed to farming buffalo in the late 1990s. The price of breeding bulls rocketed to Dollars 3,000. And everyone - farmers, consumers, buffalo, grasses, wild flowers - was bound to live happily ever after. Weren't they?

Well, not exactly. On the Missouri Bluffs outside the little town of Washburn are Tom and Coleen Schulz, nice people (that's the norm in North Dakota) who converted their ranch to accommodate 200 buffalo and, like O'Brien, soon realised buffalo were made for the place. "You don't have to worry about them in this climate," Tom says. "If the wind's coming from the north-west, they go on a big hill and look straight into it. They just brace themselves and lay down in the same direction, never in the sheltered area. In the fall they put on their winter hair. It's so thick, you can't get your finger through it."

And the Schulzes found the animals were not without poetry, either. "One night we went out to find them," Coleen says. "There was a full moon and their backs just shone. They just stood there and looked at us, and they had this calming effect. That's when you think it's all worth it."

Unfortunately, the light of day has tended to be harsher. Prices have plummeted and times are tough. Buffalo meat has found a niche market (with good reason, it's delicious), but it needs careful cooking or it dries out. Buffalo burgers have not caught on, because you could not trust a teenager on a fast-food restaurant pittance to get them right. Would the Schulzes make the same decision again? "Hmm," says Coleen. "At my age," says Tom, who's 61, "no."

They still relish buffalo farming. The calves are just gorgeous, like little orange lambs: they only weigh 50lbs when they're born, though they grow to 2,000. They are formidable in a stampede, of course, but so are cattle. And in repose, the adult buffalo have this soulful look: a phlegmatic, philosophical stare, as though musing on their strange history. Their beards make them seem like mutant professors. The Schulzes introduced me - from a respectful distance -to Ferdinand, their prize bull, who sires about 14 progeny a year, which is above the norm for even the most ardent professor.

Despite the economics, the signs are that Ferdinand may be winning. The 1,000 buffalo of 1890 have multiplied to 350,000 today - the billionaire Ted Turner owns about a tenth of them. And the idea of handing Ferdinand back his birthright refuses to go away. When the Poppers emerged from Rutgers University 15 years ago, they were excoriated - one local journalist, Lauren Donovan, suggested they go back to "toxic" New Jersey and stop interfering with North Dakota - and received the odd death threat.

"They're East Coast people, they're geographers, they were looking at graphs," says O'Brien. "When they came out here with their more abrupt social ways, backs went up. We're funny people out here: very conservative, very repressed. But we've also sent very radical politicians to Washington. We need time. We don't just wear our hearts on our sleeves."

Now even the state's lieutenant governor, Jack Dalrymple, a Republican and large-scale farmer whose great-grandfather planted the first crops in the Casselton area in 1875, admits: "I've never seen anything that gets people talking and thinking about things so much." The Poppers, having learned their lessons in the early days, are extremely non-prescriptive. They insist the final plan could involve lots of different solutions: some commercial buffalo ranches, some conventional farms, some hi-tech industries. "It's not just buffalo that are needed," Frank says. "This is about developing land use that is somewhere between conventional agriculture and wilderness, trying to find an economic basis for the region based on restoration rather than extraction."

They do not suggest forcibly evicting anyone from their land: that was the 19th-century method. But there is already a vast acreage of public grassland from farms that failed in the 1930s. There are plenty of farmers with adjoining land who would be happy to sell if the government offered to buy them out. Thus the basis is there for a new open range, so the buffalo can roam free all over again.

The political will is not there yet, however. "The concept does not hold out," says Dalrymple the politician. "We have a lot of beef cattle in North Dakota, always have had, probably always will have. The value of buffalo has gone way down and those that have them are in trouble. This is the harsh reality of the food business. You can have all the ideas you want, but somebody has to buy it." Newspaperman Schatz, another old-school North Dakotan, is terser: "The idea's a load of baloney," he says.

Dalrymple's "always" is actually a blink of the eye in historical terms. Conventional agriculture has no serious future here, and this is a state with so few tourists that there is not even a proper guidebook. North Dakota is so desperate, it has seriously discussed removing the "North" from its name so it sounds less cold. The concept of an American Serengeti is not merely the most attractive option to revive this region, it is just about the only one.

Lauren Donovan is among those who have swapped sides. "I had this epiphany moment," she says. "It was just after my mom died and I was in this little, little town with five streets and a lot of empty buildings. I realised I was looking at something that was dying and it wasn't pretty, it wasn't quaint. It was death, and I'll never forget how sad I felt.

"When the Poppers first came here, we felt we were being attacked. But after all the anger at them, once you realise they are just the doctors delivering the bad news, all you have left is grief. I feel proud to be here and trying to carry on. But there's a lot of sadness."

There is another group of people who don't get heard very often, who are also enthusiasts for the buffalo commons. Native Americans make up about one-twentieth of North Dakota's population. Like the buffalo, their numbers are growing again from a small base, and their young people - unlike the whites - are staying: they have fewer options. But their conditions have improved a little, partly because casinos are now permitted on reservations. Thus the old starvation-poverty has diminished, to be replaced by the new American poverty, in which people get obese by gorging on huge portions of cheap, bad food. Many see the Poppers' plans as offering a new horizon.

"The buffalo commons theory fits very well with the original lifestyle and economy that was out here a century and a half ago," says David Gipp, a Hunkpapa descended from Sitting Bull's band, who is president of the United Tribes Technical College in Bismarck. "The bison was considered a sacred animal. It was part of our life and it influenced our spirituality. We have tribes who are trying to restore the buffalo herds for cultural and spiritual as well as economic reasons. This idea would mean a large part of this country would become accessible and usable to us again. Our great philosophers, such as Black Elk and Sitting Bull, talked about there being a restoration. There is a chance for a great renaissance."

Frank Popper also believes he is harking back to the most tearful passage of native American history. "The Ghost Dance craze was the dream of a defeated people that one day the buffalo would come back and their conquerors would disappear. You might say the buffalo commons is a white academic version of the Ghost Dance."

The buffalo are coming! The buffalo are coming!

Editor - 2/12/2003

The Daily Telegraph(Sydney)

February 8, 2003, Saturday


HEADLINE: Spiffing chaps who spied for the Soviets



Britain's great spy hunt caught the most implausible villains, as FRANK CROOK reports

In the gentleman's club atmosphere of the British Foreign Office in the early years following World War II, weekends were considered sacred. Nothing short of declaration of war was allowed to interfere with that precious break at the end of a week of shuffling documents and keeping tabs on the opposition when the Cold War was at its height.

And in the northern spring of 1951, the small matter of the

interrogation of a suspected Soviet agent in their midst was not a matter of such urgency that it couldn't wait until Monday. This was particularly the case if the suspect was a topdrawer chap, who went to the right school and was the son of a member of parliament. The topdrawer chap in this instance was Donald Maclean, tall, urbane and Cambridgeeducated. He was a man who had served his king and country in a variety of posts, most notably as chief of the American desk at the Foreign Office and on the staff of the British Embassy in Washington.

But when Monday morning came around and his accusers were ready to confront Maclean with evidence from the CIA and FBI that was to expose him as a Russian spy, he was nowhere to be found. Maclean had been tipped off three days earlier and had fled to Southampton, where he took a ship to France en route to Moscow.

Travelling with him was a bizarre character called Guy Francis de Moncy Burgess, an old Etonian also connected with the Foreign Office, who had recently been sent home from a posting in Washington because of drunkenness and promiscuous homosexual behaviour.

When the news broke in Whitehall, there were shock waves of seismic dimensions.

"It's beyond belief," said one Foreign Office official. "These men -- they're our sort of people."

The defection of Burgess and Maclean was perhaps the most dramatic spy case in history. It was a tangled tapestry of friendship, betrayal, rivalry and mistrust during the years of World War II and the tension of the Cold War that followed.

It led, after the damage had been done, to the unmasking of the group known as the Cambridge Four. The Four: Burgess, Maclean, Harold Adrian Russell "Kim" Philby and Anthony Blunt, were all longserving Soviet agents who had risen to positions of trust within British intelligence circles.

It is widely believed today that if Burgess had not accompanied Maclean in his flight to Moscow, Philby would have become head of MI6, the British Secret Intelligence Service. It would have been quite an achievement for a man who was a colonel in the KGB while serving as one of Britain's top intelligence agents.

Anthony Blunt, recruited as a Soviet agent in 1933 became a pillar of the Establishment, an MI5 agent in World War II, an art historian and art adviser to the Queen, until Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher revealed his treachery in 1979.

And scattered through this tale of cloakanddagger deceit were examples of incompetence and complacency by the British Government and the men charged with protecting the nation's security. The saga of the Cambridge Four was not played out in Britain's finest hours.

Spying has often been described as the world's secondoldest profession. Julius Caesar used spies and so did William the Conqueror. Soviet infiltration among bright young universitytrained men began in Britain in the late 1920s.

The recruitment teams were on the lookout for those who were destined for Foreign Office or intelligence careers. They were not interested in bearded, duffelcoated radicals or socialist true believers from the working class.

The former were too obvious while the latter had little chance of joining the Establishment. Cambridge University was fertile ground, however, for the recruitment of upperclass young men with social consciences.

Blunt, the main talentspotter, was a member with Burgess of the Cambridge Apostles, a secret and exclusive society that in the 1930s was a hotbed of Marxism. Maclean was drawn into the net, while Philby had already pledged his loyalty to Moscow as early as 1934.

Each rose through the ranks, although Burgess, with his alcoholfuelled behaviour and general

unreliability, was tolerated by his superiors purely because of his Establishment background.

Together, he and Maclean supplied the Soviets with nuclear information and secrets relating to the formation of NATO and the Marshall Plan. Philby, who had risen in MI6 to head of counterespionage operations, was responsible for betraying Allied agents in the Balkans, many of whom he sent to their deaths.

Then in 1949, the FBI discovered that between 1944 and 1946 a member of the British Embassy in Washington had been sending messages to the KGB.

Maclean, who had served at the embassy during that period, was on a short list of three suspects. The investigations dragged on for nearly two more years.

Philby, then based in Washington and privy to the decoding of Russian material, was aware that Maclean was about to be exposed and arranged for Burgess to be recalled to London in time to warn his colleague.

Yuri Modin, Maclean's KGB controller, made the escape arrangements but at the last moment KGB Central demanded that Burgess accompany Maclean.

It was likely that the KGB had decided Burgess was no longer of any use to it but was too valuable to allow falling into the hands of MI5.

It was several weeks before an embarrassed British Government admitted that Burgess and Maclean were in Moscow. It was another five years before they broke their silence after being tracked down in February, 1956, by Australian journalist Richard Hughes, of the London Sunday Times.

Philby, whose friendship with Burgess was well known, was badly compromised and immediately fell under suspicion as the Third Man who tipped off the spies.

He survived a lengthy interrogation and was later exonerated by then Foreign Secretary Harold Macmillan when he was accused from the floor of Parliament of being a Soviet agent.

His cover was broken in 1963 after the Petrov Affair in Australia, when Russian defector Vladimir Petrov identified him as a Soviet agent. Philby, based in Beirut at the time, was preparing to return to London to answer the charges, when he suddenly disappeared, emerging in Moscow some weeks later.

Guy Burgess lived in Moscow for 12 years, in a modest apartment with a stateapproved male lover.

He never bothered to learn the language and clung doggedly to his British roots.

Maclean integrated into the Soviet system and served as a specialist on Western economic policy. When they died -- 20 years apart -- they were cremated and their ashes returned to England.

Philby spent the rest of his life in Russia as a KGB adviser, lecturer and trainer of spies. He was buried in 1988 with honours in Moscow and his likeness later appeared on a Russian postage stamp.

Anthony Blunt ended his life in disgrace. He was stripped of his knighthood and forced to resign his Cambridge University fellowship and his fellowship in the British Academy.

There is no evidence that any of the Cambridge Four was ever paid by the Russians.

Editor - 2/12/2003

Newsday (New York, NY)

February 4, 2003 Tuesday ALL EDITIONS


HEADLINE: DATABASE: Up-to-the-Minute News and Information


Iraqi Dam Threatens Priceless Ruins

An Iraqi dam under construction on the Tigris River threatens to submerge the remains of the spiritual capital of the ancient Assyrian empire in an act archaeologists liken to flooding the Vatican.

Much of the city of Ashur, which thrived for more than 1,000 years until the Babylonians razed it in 614 BC, could vanish under a lake to be created by the Makhoul dam, U.S. and European archaeologists report. More than 60 outlying historical sites also are threatened. Ashur, or Assur, was of such importance that it lent its name to the Assyrian civilization itself.

"Losing it would be like, I guess you could say, losing the Vatican," said Mark Altaweel, a Baghdad-born doctoral student at the University of Chicago who is using satellite data to study the ruins-rich Ashur region.

Ashur sits on a bluff about 130 feet above the Tigris between Mosul and Baghdad. Most of the city, including the lower portions most vulnerable to flooding, have never been explored in the century since the first archaeological teams visited the site.

The city was the spiritual center and trading hub of one of the world's first great empires, which at its peak stretched from Egypt to Iran and northward into Turkey. Estimates of how much of the city would be submerged vary from half to the entire site.

The dam, slated for completion by 2007, is the result of economic sanctions imposed on Iraq after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait, said John Malcolm Russell of the Massachusetts College of Art in Boston.

Iraq has been pushing toward greater self-sufficiency in food production, which has led to the development of massive irrigation projects of which the dam is part, said Russell, an art historian and expert in ancient Assyria.

The UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization is now helping Iraq assess the dam's impact on Ashur and what, if any, measures can be taken to prevent its destruction, said Giovanni Boccardi, chief of the organization's Arab states unit.

DWI in the Name of Science

Iowa drivers will soon do something that would ordinarily be ill-advised and illegal: Get behind the wheel after guzzling vodka-laced fruit juice.

Researchers will test volunteers' performance and reaction times in the world's most sophisticated driving simulator. The final touches are being put on software and instrumentation at the National Advanced Driving Simulator in preparation for a three-year, $5.1- million study.

The three-ton, $81 million simulator re-creates every traffic scenario computer programmers can design, from driving wintry highways at night to surviving urban intersections terrorized by red light-running SUVs.

"Believe it or not, there is still a lot we don't know about drunk driving," said Barbara Harsha, executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association. "When we get the studies and information we need, we'll have a better feel for whether [the simulator] has been worth it or not," she said.

The simulator is owned by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and run by the University of Iowa in Iowa City. The payoff for researchers - and taxpayers who covered most of the cost - is the promise of reducing crashes and deaths.

The trials begin this spring with about 300 participants driving at varying levels of impairment.

Editor - 2/12/2003


February 04, 2003, Tuesday


HEADLINE: 'It's like being naked in the street' Niall Ferguson is the latest historian to strike it rich on television. So why, asks Cassandra Jardine, is he so afraid of poverty?


On the night that the first of his programmes on Empire was broadcast, Niall Ferguson was in a terrible state. "Presenting your own television series is like walking up and down the high street stark naked," he says, bushy eyebrows beetling as he recalls the agony. "I haven't felt so sick and nervous for a long time."

Unable to think of any other way to pass the time, and eager to see whether his arguments outshone his wardrobe, he watched it with his wife, Susan Douglas, a former Sunday Express editor. Big mistake. "Susan is an extremely harsh critic," he says, rolling his "r"s expressively. So, while he was worrying about whether anyone was watching - or liking - his account of the years when the map turned red, she was telling him which bits were too long or boring. "I do advise future virgin presenters to watch their programmes unaccompanied," he says.

Despite his wife's cavils and his own pessimism - which he ascribes to a Scottish Calvinist upbringing - Empire has had a rather better reception than the British Empire itself has had of late. After decades of cringing embarrassment, it is refreshing to be reminded that Britain gave the world a language, a financial system, relative peace, free trade and democracy, as well as the Black Hole of Calcutta and murderous missionaries. A few critics have found Ferguson's approach as rose-tinted as the world political map in 1918, but most have relished his financially literate, morally subtle analyses of everything from slavery to the bond market. Viewing figures have equalled those for Simon Schama's History of Britain and, most pleasing of all for the presenter, his deliberately unremarkable clothes - pale trousers, bright shirts - have received almost no coverage. "Now I can revert to being a boring Oxford don," he says.

"Boring" seems excessively humble for someone of his talent, youth and energy. At his age - 38 - most dons are still polishing their PhD thesis for publication, while Niall (pronounced in the Scottish manner, "kneel") is both a Professor of Political and Financial History and the author of six big books - of which The Pity of War, a controversial study of the First World War, is a bestseller. No stranger to six-figure publishing advances, he is now a television star, too: the thinking woman's stovie, perhaps, since his boyish looks invite comparisons to Hugh Grant and Tom Cruise.

Also, at the risk of sounding as hyper-critical as his wife, the description "Oxford don" is misleading. He remains a senior fellow of Jesus College, but the morning after we meet, he is off to America to start lecturing at New York University's Stern business school. The job comes with a salary several times the British rate for the job, plus a Greenwich Village apartment - and he only has to be there for one term a year.

"As a New Yorker said to me, 'You seem to be very interested in money and power. Why don't you come where the money and the power are?' If I were a single man, I'd go to the States full time [Harvard is courting him, too], but..."

The "but" is his family. His wife has "a great job in London" - where she is President, New Business, for the Conde Nast magazine company. At work, Douglas has a reputation for being a tough operator: she recently won the contract for the Tate Gallery magazine after a rival company had held its victory party. Domestically, she seems equally capable of defending her interests against those of a husband eight years her junior.

"Perhaps," Ferguson says, "some people are still in the situation where, if a man decides to take a job somewhere else, the spouse will follow, but that's not the kind of marriage we have. Ours is very much an equal partnership. I can't just say, 'We're off to New York - pack.'

"She is extremely happy living in Oxfordshire, she likes riding horses -and periodically chasing foxes - she doesn't have an obvious incentive to go either to New York or to Harvard, and the children are happy at their schools. I'm very sympathetic to her priorities." He describes their union as "a business merger as much as a marriage".

On getting married, he not only changed his surname to Douglas Ferguson to match his wife's married name, he also bought a 50 per cent stake in her Oxfordshire farmhouse from her previous boyfriend and accepted that her wish to live in "a nice place" overrides his fear that it is "madness" to sink all their money into property.

Although, for the moment, Niall and Susan Inc will not be making a takeover bid for the title of Top British Media Couple in New York (currently held by Harry Evans and Tina Brown), there are further reasons, apart from money, why he is keen to have a break from Britain: "the fundamental crisis facing British universities," as he puts it. Dons are not just underpaid, they are also overworked. After 15 years of one-to-one undergraduate tutorials, he has had enough of de Tocqueville and the Corn Laws and is fed up with not having enough time left to research. "I'm stale," he explains. "There's a rigid course structure here, whereas in American universities I can say, 'I want to do a financial history of the Western world'."

Given the chance, he knows exactly how he would keep Oxford and Cambridge in the top rank. He would free them from state dependence, let them raise their own funds, charge their own fees, set their own exams and pay competitive rates. "A Harvard education is not worth five times an Oxford education," he points out. He would also scale back the undergraduate tutorials and create more postgraduate programmes: "That's where the real dynamism of a modern university comes from; that's where research and teaching more naturally coincide."

So could he sort Oxford out if he were made Vice-Chancellor? "Yes, but I would be prevented by vested interests. The vice-chancellor doesn't have the power."

Power fascinates him. Since he has views on everything from monetary union (no good without fiscal union) to foreign policy (credible threats avert wars), maybe he should go into politics? He shakes his head. He doesn't want a party label - Liberal Fundamentalist is the one he gives himself - and he doesn't think the work would suit him. "I failed miserably as a student politician. I am probably too aggressive and too ill-disciplined. To be a successful politician, it is not enough to be coherent and persuasive; you must also be prepared to defend the indefensible. I really am not interested in power for myself, but I am interested in understanding it. Tolstoy's big question - 'What is power?' - remains unanswered."

His attempts to answer that question involve looking beneath the historical surface of personalities and ideas. It wasn't adventurers, he points out in Empire, who created overseas expansion, it was a system of borrowing; it wasn't nationalism that caused the break-up of Empire, but the impoverishment wrought by two world wars.

His interest in money is intriguing, since he had the kind of secure middle-class upbringing that usually leaves its beneficiaries relatively indifferent to the stuff. His father was a doctor, his mother a teacher, and they sent him to Glasgow College, a private school, from where he won a scholarship to Oxford.

There, he experimented with alternatives to academe - acting, double-bass playing, politics and journalism, with which he has supplemented his income ever since. "I wasn't good enough at any of them. I would never have made it to editor like my wife. I'm too monomaniacal, I am only interested in what interests me. As an academic I can say what I like without courting unemployment."

And, of course, he has found a way to make history pay. But why this focus on money? "I'm not at all a materialistic person," he explains. "I'm a very insecure person. I have deep anxieties about impending disaster, nameless disaster; a sense that things may be going well, but that's just to set you up for the big disaster."

Even as a child, those anxieties oppressed him and his first published piece was a letter to the Glasgow Herald asking why, when children's feet were growing bigger, sooner, the price of shoes was unresponsive. "Why was I worrying about that when I was 10 or 11?" he says. "And why did I choose to study German hyperinflation in the Twenties?"

Subconsciously, he suspects, he was aware of the economic disaster that afflicted his family during the Thirties - when his grandfather's savings were "obliterated" - and again in the Seventies, when his parents struggled to pay his school fees in a pay freeze. "For some reason, I was acutely sensitive to economic pressure."

He says his nightmare is the "bourgeois dread" that, one day, all his savings will be wiped out and he might have to sell the house. That must make for tension with a wife whose horses "eat" money?

"I can't bear to think about them. It makes me nauseous to spend money, except on books and education. One of the keys to my marriage is that my wife and I are complementary figures. I am the pessimistic saver; Susan is the optimistic spender." At his present rate of earnings, their Oxfordshire home looks secure. But, of course, he might sell up and move to America... "No, I'm far too indebted to Oxford and Britain to leave for good," he says. "But I may spend most of the next decade there."

To cope with that, he has taught his children - Felix, Freya and Lachlan - to send e-mails, so that he can avoid too many telephone calls. "I must have a diagnosable condition," he says. "However well a conversation starts, it always ends up getting more and more grumpy." Next, he might focus his impressive energy on curing himself of that condition.

Editor - 2/12/2003

Untitled Document

Chicago Sun-Times

February 4, 2003 Tuesday


HEADLINE: 'Museum of Terror' worth saving

BYLINE: John O'Sullivan


Andrassy Street is a stylish boulevard, comparable to Chicago's Michigan Avenue, in this fashionable capital city at the heart of what Donald Rumsfeld calls "the new Europe"--the former communist satellites now enjoying their 14th year of freedom.

Freedom's economic benefits are glitteringly obvious on Andrassy Street in the form of designer shops, smart restaurants and the impressive public buildings being washed free of the gray communist grime that until recently besmirched them. One building emits a distinct and sinister chill: No. 60 Andrassy Street was, in World War II, the headquarters and torture chamber of the fascist Arrow Cross Party that in 1944 was given power by the Nazis and during its brief rule helped Adolf Eichmann to murder hundreds of thousands of Jews.

Nor did No. 60 Andrassy change its character with the end of the war. When the Hungarian Communist Party seized power in 1947, it became the headquarters and torture chamber of the notorious AVO secret police--and the symbol of a remarkable (but not unprecedented) fascist-communist collaboration. For Hungary's communists, having obtained the membership lists of the Arrow Cross Party presented defeated fascists with a unique Communist Party application form: It invited the applicant to confess the "mistake" of his Arrow Cross past as a preliminary to becoming a good communist. By all accounts the former fascists made excellent communists. They were loyal (they had to be, given their previous "mistake") and brutal (they had a natural talent in that regard). And for 40 years this hybrid totalitarian party governed a civilized nation against its will.

Today, No. 60 Andrassy is a "Museum of Terror" recording the crimes and brutalities of both totalitarian regimes. It is hard, indeed impossible, to convey the intellectual and emotional effect of the museum. It re-creates the past with newsreels, documentary, books, posters, music, sound effects, the objects of ordinary life, and photographs of victims and "victimizers" so the visitor finds himself briefly inside the past rather than peering at it from afar.

One enters the museum through a doorway embroidered with the similar insignia of both totalitarianisms, walks past a Russian tank (symbol of Hungary's long occupation) and ascends in an elevator with a view of the dank gray courtyard where dissidents were dragged in for interrogation. Then, to the sound of solemn music interrupted occasionally by the clang of a prison door or the ranting of some demagogue, one walks from the top of the building, through the last 60 years of Hungarian history, each floor illustrating some aspect of oppression--the fascist murder of Jews, the communist show trial of Cardinal Joseph Mindszenty, the starvation of the peasantry, the sudden liberating eruption of the 1956 Hungarian revolution, its suppression, and the long banality of "goulash communism" under Janos Kadar's cynical dictatorship--until one reaches the lowest level of all. This is the cellar torture chambers, narrow cells with bare boards for beds, where the regime's victims were beaten, scalded, electrocuted, suffocated, drowned and shot.

Yet the museum, however improbably, is very popular. It has been visited by more than 200,000 people in the year since its opening. And that is the problem.

For today, communists are as active under democracy as fascists were under communism. Of course, they have changed their coats. The former Communist Party is now the Hungarian Socialist Party and the dominant partner in the coalition government. But memory of the past--and thus the museum--is a rebuke and an obstacle to them.

Government MPs--including a son of someone listed on the "Wall of Victimizers"--have tried to cut the museum's funding; the Hungarian Socialist Party chairman proposed to remodel the museum as a "House of Reconciliation" (one wonders how reconciliation with the Arrow Cross would be expressed); and the government is trying to install its nominees on the governing board.

These moves should be resisted--and not just by Hungarians. Western ambassadors might demonstrate their concern by making a high-profile visit to the museum; historians, too, should add their voices.

We all have an interest in preserving these memories--the United States in particular. For what distinguishes the Old Europe from the New is memory. Central and Eastern Europe remember that America helped save them from oppression--and that while America is in Europe, no European need fear another. And that memory is worth preserving.

J. Merrett - 2/12/2003

Of course they are surrounded by incompetence in their daily lives. We all are. It is part of the Masonic/Illuminati/ Bilderberger/Trilateralist conspiracy to enslave us by conditioning us to substandard living conditions. Haven't you noticed that a preponderance of the vehicles seen cruising at or below the speed limit in interstate passing lanes have Masonic bumper stickers? Why do you think that is?

Editor - 2/12/2003

Americanism: An Historical Conference

March 27 and 28, 2003

Copley Formal Lounge - Georgetown University - Washington, D.C.
All events free and open to the public

Keynote Address, 6 p.m. March 27
"Anti-Americanism as a Form of Americanism"
Louis Menand (City University of New York) March 27, 6 p.m.

Panels on March 28, beginning at 9:30 a.m.

Origins of Americanism:

"Antebellum Black Responses to Thomas Jefferson," Mia Bay (Rutgers)
"The Changing Meaning of the Armed Citizen in American Culture,"
Saul Cornell (Ohio State)
"Republicanism in Early America," Robert Shalhope (Oklahoma)

Commentator: Adam Rothman (Georgetown)

Mature Americanism:

"Aliens, Alien Citizens, and the Problem of Loyalty," Mae Ngai (U. of Chicago)
"Cosmopolitan Patriotism," Jonathan Hansen (Boston U.)
"Law and Messianic Counterwar from FDR to George W. Bush,"
Anders Stephanson (Columbia)

Commentator: Lucy Maddox (Georgetown), editor, American Quarterly

Americanism Contested:

"Religious Diversity: The American Experiment That Works,"
Alan Wolfe (Boston College)
"The Congressional Black Caucus and the National Interest,"
Ronald Walters (Maryland)
"Sisterhood Unveiled: American Feminists and the Muslim Woman," Melani McAlister (George Washington)

Commentator: Yossi Shain (Georgetown)

For more information, contact Michael Kazin,,
or Katherine Buc Gallagher,

Editor - 2/12/2003


World Premiere Monday

No Surrender: German and Japanese Kamikazes

Monday , February 17 9:00 PM-11:00 PM

This 2-hour special recounts the desperate measures taken by Axis forces to stave off defeat in WWII and the mythical origins of the Japanese kamikaze and their Nazi counterparts. Many in leadership were opposed to suicide tactics--the driving forces were often young junior officers who had grown up in a culture of militarism and extreme nationalism. As well as assessing the contribution of myth and propaganda, we reveal the more human stories behind those caught up in the kamikaze phenomenon. TV PG



Kamikaze attacks by Japanese pilots are familiar to almost anyone with even a passing knowledge of World War II. But few realize that Japan was not the only nation to use these desperate tactics.

KAMIKAZES probes the darkest corners of the Third Reich to tell the story of the Nazi suicide soldiers. Military insiders reveal how the program was devised by the highest-ranking female officer in the SS, and how they were the subject of an intense power struggle among the German high command.

Though her vision was never completely realized, German soldiers did fly suicide missions, as TIME MACHINETM definitively documents. The program even details how myths and legends from German history were used to inspire the soldiers for their fatal task, along with exploring the vast differences between the German and Japanese KAMIKAZE programs.

Dan Hannah - 2/12/2003

Interesting articles, and wonderful staw men. While I do not have any information regarding historical presentation of the Vietnam War on campuses today, I have no more information about that after reading the articles than before. A lot of unsupported assertions are made that only weaken the authors' cases.

Phrases such as "boycott" and "the bigots who run academia and the media" dispel any potential sympathy for an otherwise poorly conceived and written piece of rhetoric. Funny how when people labeled as "liberal" or "leftist" talk about "new research," the response from the groups pushing these videos' interpretations of events is: "that's revisionist." Also funny how equally compelling historical treatments from other authors are treated exactly the same way. Could a rational explanation be that the U. S. media prefers items with less controversy (and thus larger potential audiences)?

From the actual descriptions, these programs seem to be fairly well done, but hardly ground breaking for anyone even peripherally acquainted with the time in question, either from personal experience or by reason of historical interest.

The articles perpetuate at least as many myths as they purport to dispel. Just because one knows the "facts" does not mean one will agree with the conclusions...

howard n meyer - 2/12/2003

It is a matter for concern and deep regret that the historians who drafted their statement (the substance of which is incontestable) omitted any reference to international law as defined in the United Nations Charter (our participation in drafting which historians should know) and its provisions that
reassert the outlawry of war and reserve to the Security Council the prerogative of taking or sanctioning the use of force.
The history of the International Court of Justice ("World Court") should be better known. The only book on the subject is
"The World Court in Action" Rowman & Littlefield 2002.
I would like to hear from the drafters of the "Historian's Petition."

Gus Moner - 2/12/2003

It is not that copy editors are expensive in the UK. It’s worse.
Both the UK and the USA are gasping at straws to get their war message down people’s throats and are going the distance to try to accomplish their war aims.

Take the most recent example, bin Laden’s message. Now, a member of the Bush administration has offered us the most recent Orwellian comments to emanate from their propaganda machine.

Firstly, Mr Powell said that bin Laden’s statement on 11th February 2003, siding with the Iraqis who are facing US invasion, just “proves the ‘nexus’ between al Qaeda and states with weapons of mass destruction” (presumably Iraq) he had all along claimed.

However, Mr Powell and the entire US media apparatus have failed to inform the US public properly; that in the message he appeals to the Iraqi people, not their government and calling the Iraqi government ‘infidel’, (the same term used for the USA). Bin Laden also called for the overthrow of the Iraqi laic regime, the same policy as the USA has!

So, we have come full circle and have lined up with Ossama on Iraqi policy. Both the US and Ossama are shoulder to shoulder in their desire to overthrow Saddam! These elements went unmentioned or got brief mention and were buried amidst a barrage of terror threats and affirmations of authenticity on US television.

It fails to impress. The US has achieved the heretofore impossible; that Ossama and Saddam’s interest converge on the banks of the Tigris. A real foreign policy coup if ever there was one.

Secondly, we have another Orwellian comment. We read that Mr Powell and the US President have just ‘accused’ the Iraqis of moving military equipment to cities, to, in their view, use people as human shields. This is an old propaganda line, but it too begs a question. If the US were facing military attack in its land, would its citizens expect their army to protect their cities or would they prefer it be posted to the middle of the Mohave Desert?

It seems ludicrous, does it not, to be threatened with attack and not move military assets to defend your cities? When others do it, it is using people as human shields. When the USA place anti-aircraft missiles around Washington DC and NYC or British troops move into Heathrow Airport, it is defending their nation. Hypocrisy?

Editor - 2/11/2003

HNN received this press release from CBS:

February 10, 2003





SALEM WITCH TRIALS, a new four-hour mini-series starring Kirstie Alley, Alan Bates, Henry Czerny, Rebecca De Mornay, Shirley MacLaine, Gloria Reuben and Peter Ustinov, will be broadcast Sunday, March 2 and Tuesday, March 4 (9:00-11:00 PM, ET/PT; each night) on the CBS Television Network. The drama explores how in 1692 the small Puritan community of Salem, Mass. succumbs to mass hysteria – enabling a small influential force to haphazardly accuse, jail, convict and even kill members of their own churchgoing community whom they suddenly deem to be witches.

This drama is set within a backdrop of a strict religious community struggling to survive the rugged conditions in their New World colony. While contending with various health, safety, comfort and financial hardships, they are suddenly faced with a group of adolescent village girls who seem to be experiencing violent demonic-induced fits. The frightened community is all too quick to believe the girls' explanation – that they have become "afflicted" by witches who are living within their own Puritan community. The Reverend Samuel Parris (Czerny), William Stoughton (Ustinov), the Deputy Governor of Massachusetts, and several other male leaders begin a ruthless witch hunt to purge their town and region. Soon no one is beyond suspicion – though it is the town's women who are most readily accused.

Alley stars as Ann Putnam, the wife of the influential Thomas Putnam, who, in the footsteps of her daughter, Annie, seemingly becomes "afflicted" with strange visions and fits that she publicly blames on the alleged witchcraft of some of her neighbors. Rebecca Nurse (MacLaine), a devoutly religious and kind community elder, is one of the women to fall prey to Ann’s accusations; Nurse's formerly sterling reputation causes a few to, at least, question the validity of such charges of witchcraft. Reuben portrays Tituba Indian, the Parris family's slave servant, who is among the first to be accused. The shocked and terrified Tituba ends up feigning guilt in a desperate attempt to avoid being hanged. De Mornay portrays Elizabeth Parris, Samuel's strong-willed though sickly wife, who, against his wishes, leaves town with their seemingly afflicted daughter, Betty, in an effort to protect the child from being put on display by her witch-obsessed father. Bates plays Sir William Phips, the no-nonsense new Governor of Massachusetts, who appears to be the townspeople's only hope for bringing an end to the disturbing and deadly trials.

During the yearlong real-life witch trials, 156 innocent people were accused, 30 convicted and 20 killed. This mini-series is the first project to make use of most recent research on this topic.

Kirstie Alley is perhaps best known for her Emmy Award-winning role as Rebecca Howe on the television series, "Cheers." Her additional television credits include a starring role in the series "Veronica’s Closet," an Emmy Award-winning role in the CBS film "David’s Mother" and lead roles in the mini-series "Blonde," the movies "Profoundly Normal," (to be broadcast Feb. 9 on CBS), "The Last Don" and "The Last Don II," all on the Network. Alley made her feature film debut in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan." Her subsequent movie credits include "Look Who’s Talking," "Look Who’s Talking Too" and "Look Who’s Talking Now," "Sibling Rivalry," "Masquerade," "Deconstructing Harry" and "Drop Dead Gorgeous."

Sir Alan Bates has won Tony Awards for his roles in "Fortune’s Fool" and "Butley." His additional theater credits include Broadway productions of "Poor Richard," "The Unexpected Man" and numerous productions in London such as "The Caretaker," "Look Back in Anger" and Life Class." Among his extensive feature film credits are "Gosford Park," "The Sum of All Fears," "The Entertainer," "The Fixer" and "An Unmarried Woman." Bates’ television credits include the CBS movie, "Nicholas’ Gift."

Henry Czerny’s film credits include "Mission Impossible," "The Ice Storm," "Clear and Present Danger," "The Interview," "After Alice" and "Cement." On television, he has starred in the movies "My Father’s Shadow: The Sam Sheppard Story," "Ultimate Betrayal" and the mini-series "Haven," all on CBS, "Shattered Vows" and "A Town Torn Apart," the cable mini-series "P.T. Barnum," and cable movies "The Boys of Saint Vincent," and "Further Tales of the City." Among his theater credits are an Off Broadway production of "Arms and the Man" and numerous Canadian regional productions.

Rebecca De Mornay made her feature film debut in "Risky Business." Her additional film credits include "The Hand that Rocks the Cradle," "Testament," "And God Created Woman," "The Slugger’s Wife," "Dealers," "Feds," "The Three Musketeers," "Beauty and the Beast" and "Never Talk to Strangers." Among her television credits are the "Hallmark Hall of Fame" presentation "Night Ride Home," on the Network, the mini-series "An Inconvenient Woman" and "The Shining," the movie "Getting Out," the cable movies "Blindside," "By Dawn’s Early Light" and "The Con," and a recurring role on the series "ER."

Shirley MacLaine has starred in almost 50 feature films, countless television movies and specials and numerous Broadway plays, and has written several best-selling books. She made her feature film debut in Alfred Hitchcock’s "The Trouble with Harry" and won an Academy Award for her role in "Terms of Endearment. Her additional film credits include "Ocean’s Eleven," "Steel Magnolias," "Postcards from the Edge, "Guarding Tess," "Some Came Running," "The Apartment," "Irma La Deuce," "The Turning Point" and "Sweet Charity." Among MacLaine’s television movie credits are "West Side Waltz," "Joan of Arc" and "Hell on Heels: The Battle of Mary Kay," each on the Network.

Gloria Reuben’s television credits include starring roles in the series "ER," the CBS series "The Agency," the "Hallmark Hall of Fame" presentation "Little John," and the movie "Deep in My Heart," both on the Network. Her additional television film credits include "Johnny’s Girl," "Confessions: Two Faces of Evil," "Percy and Thunder," "Soul Survivor" and "Feast of All Saints." Reuben has guest-starred on series such as "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit," "Homicide: Life on the Street" and "China Beach." Her feature film credits include "Nick of Time," "Timecop," "Happy Here and Now," "Pilgrim" and "Macbeth in Manhattan." Her theater credits include an Off-Broadway production of "The Vagina Monologues."

Sir Peter Ustinov has worked extensively in film, television and theater. He has won Academy Awards for his roles in the films "Spartacus" and "Topkapi" and Emmy Awards for the television movies "Barefoot in Athens," "A Storm in Summer" and "Omnibus." His additional film credits include "Lorenzo’s Oil," "Logan’s Run," "Billy Budd," "Death on the Nile," "Evil Under the Sun" and "Appointment with Death." Among his additional television credits are the "Hallmark Hall of Fame" presentation "Gideon" and the CBS movie "13 at Dinner." In addition to numerous London productions, Ustinov’s theater credits include Broadway productions of "Romanoff and Juliet," which he also authored, "Beethoven’s Tenth," "Photo Finish" and "The Love of Four Colonels."

SALEM WITCH TRIALS is a production of Alliance Atlantis, in association with Spring Creek Productions. Ed Gernon ("Life With Judy Garland: Me and My Shadows"), Peter Sussman ("Life With Judy Garland: Me and My Shadows") and Paula Weinstein ("The Perfect Storm") are executive producers. Joe Sargent ("A Lesson Before Dying") directed from a script by Maria Nation ("A Season for Miracles").

RATING: To Be Announced

* * *

Press Contacts: Barbara Abseck 212/975-4637

Karin Failla 323/575-4269

Clyde Howard - 2/11/2003

OK Mr. Williams - you obviously come to the table with an agenda. Hatred of the policy makers and economically well-off in the United States. At least that shimes forth from your commentrary.

So - first, I'm a Vietnam vet myself. I graduated from Texas A&M in Janaury 1966 and was commsssioned into the Ordnance Corps. Followng Ordanace Officer Basic at Aberdeen, I went to Germany and then the Vietnam. I got in country in August, 1968 and was there until the following August. It was my opinion, somewhat vague when I arrived, but hard and fixed by the time I left, that the war was not winable at a cost we were willing to pay; that our tactics and strategy were fundamentally flawed; that William Westmoreland was a major reason for those flaws; and that the Vietnamese peopel were essentially sick of the government in the South and just wanted the war over - even at the cost of being dominated by the North.

Were all of these circumstances ineveitable? I think not. Should we have been involved in Vietnam - well, depends. My own view is that, in 1945, we should have discouraged the French from their attempt to recover their overseas possessions in southeast Asia. Had we done that, it is my opinion that Vietnam would ahve fallen into a semi-independent sort of Communism, of the sort Tito created in Yugoslavia. This would not have been good, but it would have been better than the 30 years of war taht in fact occurred.

Do I think we had evil designs on the Vietnamese or any of the other motives you attribute to the policy makers? No, I don't. I think we sort of fell into the situation by agreeing to support our "Ally" (France), and then when things went really badly, we found ourselves in a situation where an unacceptable form of Communism, allied to real enemies of the United States appeared to be in prospect unless we became involved. Sadly, our attmepts to foster honest and free governemnt in the south failed.

Am I sorry i accpeted my commission and complied with my orders for assigment to Vietnam? No. Resoundingly NO. With Stephen Decatur, I say "My country. In her interocurse with foreign powers may she always be right, but my country, right or wrong" - That's fairly close to his toast, and I think close enough for my purposes.

Was the war winnable? I think the thesis that it was is not correct (not, at least, by the 1970s, even had we held to our obligations, which we should have). I'm not sure it was ever winnable at a price the US was willing to pay (or perhaps exact - our national will was never engaged and i'm not sure it could or world have ever been, unlike the situation in Europe and the Apcif 1941-45).

Do I think that the position taken in the piece is deserving of distribution and discussion? You bet. And do I think that the media (and probably most academic historians) are hostile to any claim that we were justified in involvement or that we could have won? Yep, I do so believe. Do I think they show less honesty than is desireable in the way they handle the issues? Yep, afraid so.

Do I resent the way the Vietnam veteran has been pictured (and especially the way the fakers have acted)? Sure I do. How could anyone who did his tour and came home NOT be resentful of some of the material presented, or of people who have made all veterancs of the conflict into pictures of suspicion? Oh well. Those who were there understand. Those who weren't don't - and of them, many wouldn't care to.

Don Williams - 2/11/2003

The explanation was that US financiers making huge investments in Japan in the 1950s-1960s wanted to insure that Japan remained subject to the US --and the way to ensure that was to control their food supply. If Vietnam had remained free in the 1950s, it's food exports to Japan would have allowed the Japanese to become more assertive and independent early on as it rebuilt --to have used alliances with China and Russia to offset US influence. If that had happened, huge US investments would have been at risk.

It's interesting that the fortunes of Japan soared after the end of the Vietnam war --until the US gained indirect control over Japanese oil imports as a result of Desert Storm in the early 1990s.

Don Williams - 2/11/2003

1) Why were we in Vietnam? What was the justification?
2) If the South Vietnamese government had the support of the people, why did that government lose the war, given the enormous aid provided by the US government?
3) What right did we have to kill --or to contribute to the killing --of so many Vietnamese? What did we accomplish other than dead and ruin --which continues today as young Lao children continue to step on cluster bombs we dropped during the war?

The same hateful predators in the US ruling class that inflict so much misery abroad harm many average Americans here at home.
I was too young to protest for or against the war --but an older friend of mine was drafted and came back in a casket. Another youth that I knew came back alive, but in a deep depression and blew his brains out six months after his return. I would really like for apologists for Vietnam to explain the reason for that.

Please don't give me that shit about "fighting communists there so we don't have to fight them here". Only a moron would have chosen to fight in the jungles of Vietnam. And I never saw any Vietnamese junks hovering off the eastern seaboard of the US.

My understanding is that Ho Chi Minh worked with US forces during World War II to fight Japanese occupation and that Truman then turned around and betrayed Vietnam because he wanted French support for NATO --and the French demanded the return of their colony. The only plausible explanation I ever saw for Vietnam was that we gradually became involved during the Truman/Eisenhower administrations and gradually escalated the war because a succession of Presidents feared the political embarrassment of "losing Vietnam". I suppose that was sufficient justification for the loss of over 50,000 men and for wasting money that could have lifted Americans out of deep poverty.

Michael T. Richter - 2/11/2003

I'm simply amazed at the people who cannot accept "raw incompetence" as the reason behind anything tragic and instead focus on ultra-competent conspiracies. Are these people not surrounded by incompetence in their daily lives?

Martin E. Caulfield - 2/11/2003


Michael T. Richter - 2/11/2003

It looks like the report is back up. ( The intro now cites "a number of sources, including intelligence material" instead of claiming intelligence materials alone.

As far as I can tell it is the original report unaltered but for the "a number of sources" line. It still cites no sources, even though the plagiarism has been made public.

Oh, and apparently the "Iraqi regime is constructed[sic] to have, and to keep, WMD". That's pretty impressive: building a government specifically to have and keep weapons of mass destruction.

Are copy editors really that expensive in Britain such that not even the government can afford to hire them?

Editor of HNN - 2/10/2003

Editor's Note: This is an article distributed by UPI. It was sent to HNN by the subject of the article, Leonard Magruder, professor of psychology, Suffolk College, N.Y. Appearing below the article is a commentary by Mr. Magruder.

By Lou Marano
From the Life & Mind Desk
Published 2/5/2003 8:39 PM
View printer-friendly version

WASHINGTON, Feb. 5 (UPI) -- The final battle of the Vietnam War will not be for the hearts and minds of Indochinese villagers, but rather for the hearts and minds of future generations of American children.

As part of that continuing struggle, a husband and wife filmmaking team has made a documentary about the war that disputes the conventional wisdom on whether it was winnable, the men who fought it, and the Vietnamese allies America betrayed.

"We didn't know where the research would lead us," said Calvin Crane, director of the four-hour series. "But the working hypothesis was that the history of the Vietnam era was different from what has been presented."

"We just let the story tell itself," said Christel Crane, producer of "The Long Way Home Project." She said the series raises questions that historians should pursue. "This is just the beginning. I think other films should be done."

Part One, "Men vs. Myth," supports the fact that, overall, the Vietnam military was the best-educated force American has ever sent into combat. "One-third of those who died in Vietnam came from the top 10 percent income bracket," Christel Crane said in a Washington interview.

It's true that a large proportion of upper-middle class males, especially in the northeastern states, ducked Vietnam. But the United States had a huge population, even then. Hundreds of thousands of men from comfortable backgrounds were willing to serve.

Part Two, "How We Won the War," relies on the research of historians Lewis Sorley and Mark Moyar to show that by the summer of 1970 the Communist forces in South Vietnam were decimated and most of the countryside was in friendly hands. I left Vietnam in January of 1969 but was unaware of this success until decades later.

Part Three, "How We Lost the War," shows how we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and betrayed an ally.

Part Four, "The New Diaspora," tells the story of the preternaturally resilient Vietnamese refugees from communism, their suffering and successes.

Is the documentary "balanced"? Not if balance means interviews with North Vietnamese Communist leaders or antiwar activists. But as Christel Crane points out, an endless series of films has taken that approach. Balance is contextual. Still, I think "The Long Way Home Project" would have been stronger if counterarguments had been addressed.

Calvin Crane was an Army photographer in Vietnam. When Christel Crane was born, her father was a sergeant in the First Marine Air Wing near Danang. Both chaffed at the continuing misconceptions about Vietnam veterans. In 1999 they decided it was time to do something about it and began research for "Men vs. Myth."

"We rented a motor home, got all our equipment together, and drove out across America," Calvin said. The family (three kids and a dog) started out from Jacksonville, Fla., on a nine-week, 13,000-mile journey in search of the real Vietnam veteran. "We did not know where we were going to go or who we were going to find," Calvin said.

At media events, one can observe camera crews ignoring Vietnam veterans in suits only to flock to ponytailed slobs in new jungle fatigues and red berets. As B.G. Burkett showed in his 1998 book "Stolen Valor," many of these guys are not Vietnam vets, or have misrepresented their service, or were not in the military at all.

Christel insisted that veterans produce their DD-214 -- the document issued at separation from active duty that lists unit assignments, training and awards -- and she authenticated them with Freedom of Information checks. "That cut out a fair number of interviews," Calvin said, and the interviews of two men whose records did not check out were eliminated.

"Men vs. Myth" portrays Vietnam veterans as solid citizens who by any standard compare favorably with their non-veteran peers.

More controversial is part two, "How We Won the War." A big chunk of the U.S. elite is personally invested in having the war remembered as both unnecessary and unwinnable. As Lewis Sorley says, no amount of evidence will alter their thinking. Sorley, a career Army officer, spent a combat tour in Vietnam and seven years with the CIA after retirement.

Sorley is author of "A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedies of America's Last Years in Vietnam" (1999) and biographies of Gens. Creighton Abrams and Harold K. Johnson. In 1968 Abrams succeeded Gen. William C. Westmoreland as commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam. Johnson, Army chief of staff from 1964 to 1968, was haunted until his death in 1983 by his decision not to resign in protest of the mismanagement of the war.

As Sorley puts it, Johnson fundamentally disagreed with the three men who set policy: President Lyndon Baines Johnson, Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, and Westmoreland. Gen. Johnson was sharply critical of LBJ's policy of gradual escalation and failure to mobilize the national will or call up the reserves. He disapproved of Westmoreland's large-unit, search-and-destroy tactics and reliance on body counts to measure success in Vietnam. Rather, he advocated greater emphasis on cutting the North Vietnam's supply lines, helping the South Vietnamese provide for their own internal defense, and sustaining a legitimate government in South Vietnam.

The series, following Sorley, is hard on Westmoreland, who is not above criticism but perhaps should have been allowed to present his point of view.

Whether Vietnam was a conventional war with jungles or a guerrilla war is a false dichotomy. Of course, it was both. Westmoreland was right that North Vietnamese divisions could not be allowed to camp with impunity in the highlands, leaving them free to attack South Vietnam's populous coastal plain at will. They had to be smashed up and kept on the run. And, to minimize civilian casualties, Westmoreland wanted to keep the heaviest fighting away from the most densely inhabited regions.

But it's also true that Westmoreland's strategy of attrition was flawed. Among other defects, it did not provide security for people living in the hamlets and villages of South Vietnam, and it did not deprive the Viet Cong of such vital resources as rice and fish.

In the documentary, historian Mark Moyar -- author of the 1997 book "Phoenix and the Birds of Prey" -- said the CIA's much-maligned Phoenix Program did not result in the indiscriminate killing of Vietnamese civilians, but rather targeted the Viet Cong political cadre.

The series benefits greatly from interviews with Merle Pribbenow, who served for five years as Vietnamese language translator in the U.S. Embassy in Saigon. Pribbenow continues to translate books and documents coming out of Hanoi, gaining critical insights uncontaminated by American factionalism.

The documentary demonstrates that the 1968 Tet Offensive was a military disaster for the Communists. It describes the local Viet Cong commander's incredulity when ordered to make a suicidal attack on Saigon. Yet one of his suicide squads briefly penetrated the U.S. Embassy compound, unnerving the media and strengthening the antiwar movement in the United States.

"The Long Way Home Project" is fair to the underrated South Vietnamese Army, ARVN, which fought harder and suffered greater casualties than it is given credit for.

Sorley notes that no U.S. administration ever tried to sell the war to American people, who nevertheless supported it for longer than could have been expected under such poor leadership.

He said that by a certain period, the object had been achieved of a free and independent South Vietnam capable of maintaining itself so long as the United States kept its obligations -- a crucial variable.

But the Paris Peace Accords of January 1973 left the North Vietnamese Army controlling large parts of South Vietnam. Sorley said the United States defaulted on all three promises made to our ally:

(1) If North Vietnam attacked, we would give air and naval support, as we did during the 1972 Easter Offensive;

(2) We would replace South Vietnam's armor and artillery 1-for-1, as allowed by the Paris accords;

(3) We would provide indefinite economic assistance.

In April 1975, two years after the last American combat formations left Vietnam, 18 North Vietnamese divisions finally crushed South Vietnam -- in conventional warfare.

Not surprisingly, the Cranes are encountering resistance from the media establishment. Even though the series won the highest award for television documentary at the 2002 Houston International Film Festival, it has not yet been aired. Broadcasters grow nervous when the Cranes use such words as "fact based" or "new research."

"We knew it was not going to be a quick turnaround," said Christel Crane. The couple financed the project with their own money -- the 401(K), the house -- "we literally cashed out of everything that we have."

Calvin Crane said a cadre people in broadcast television either have a vested interest in presenting a certain story about Vietnam, or the younger people perceive that their superiors have that bias.

He said high schools in 14 states are using the series in history or social science classes. Teachers receive the series, an educator guide, and a CD with relevant documents in American history at no charge.

The "Long Way Home Project" is effectively introduced by retired Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf. It sells for $69 on tape and $79 on compact disc. The series is a must for any open-minded person with an interest in America's longest and least-understood war.

Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International

The student auxiliary at the University of Kansas

Leonard Magruder - Founder/President
Former professor of psychology - Suffolk College, N.Y.


Last month Vietnam Veterans for Academic Reform sent out
the following press release.


A Vietnam vet student auxiliary group at K.U. is giving away 80 copies of
its own new documentary on Vietnam to protest History Channel's boycott of
another film on Vietnam, "The Long Way Home," introduced by H. Norman
Schwarzkopf and winner of the Houston International Film Festival, and to
promote two other new films on the war.

The three new films clearly repudiate the thirty year old campus version
of the war. The film being given away, "How the Campus Lied About Vietnam",
is in response to requests from universities, (including the Univ. of
Colorado, Duke Univ, American Univ, Univ. of S.C., Rutgers Univ.) , veteran
organizations, (including the Special Forces Association, 1st Marine Division
Association, DAV, and the American Legion) and numerous university R.O.T.C.
units and high schools. A number of these groups have said they will show the
film campus -wide and on television.

Said Mr. Magruder, "We are delighted with this response to our offer. The
bigots who run academia and the media (see "Bias" - Goldberg) are finally
going to be publicly and effectively challenged on their interpretation of
the Vietnam War. The university media, of course, will not mention this
effort, but with enterprising teachers and students all over the country
showing these films the prevailing lies about Vietnam on campus,
institutionalized to protect those who would not serve, are going to exposed
and discredited. And it is imperative that they be discredited as they are
being recycled on campus to attack the nation's war on terrorism and this
could lead to another polarization and then defeat as happened in the case
of Vietnam."

This is the second time Mr. Magruder has launched a campaign against media
bigotry on the subject of Vietnam. In the 1986 he spent $8,000 in a
successful national campaign to get PBS to show "Television's Vietnam," by
paying to show the film himself on various TV stations across the country.
This, along with a letter of appeal to all PBS station managers precipitated
a massive defection from the boycott. Narrated by Charlton Heston, the film
showed how the national media distorted the truth about the Tet Offensive.
Wrote General William Westmoreland to Magruder, "I congratulate you on your
success in the showing of "Television's Vietnam" on PBS stations around the
country." (letter, Sept. 13, 1986). Said Mr. Magruder, "We won that campaign
and we're going to win this one. It is high time for every American who knows
the truth about Vietnam to speak out in disgust at the outrageous lies being
perpetuated by academics and in high schools about Vietnam. The views of the
anti-war movement were debunked by historians years ago. Bringing this out at
this time of a new war is extremely important as large segments of
intellectual centers such as Harvard and Berkeley are recycling the same
lies and again trying to excuse the enemy, in this case Iraq and the
terrorists, just as they did the Viet Cong in the 60's."

The motive behind the production of films such as these is seen in this
note to Mr. Magruder from Annette Hall, producer with her husband Don of
"Silent Victory". "Like you, we felt it was worth the high personal cost to
creat a documentary that tells the truth about the Vietnam War since so many
deliberate lies and distortions have been forced fed to impressionable young
people by the left-wing intellectual fanatics in academia and the media...the
truth will prevail , hopefully in time to prevent the leftist intellectuals
from succeeding in their quest to destroy this country."

Said Mr. Magruder, "This is not farfetched. The parallel between the
betrayal of South Vietnam by the campus in the 60's and what is being said by
many on campus about the war on terrorism today, is obvious to many, and
viewed as extremely dangerous to this nation."

The prediction by the anti-war movement that the war in Vietnam would fail
because it was "immoral" is a primary, although false, justification for
their feelings of moral superiority. At the core of this self-satisfaction is
a hidden but enormous tissue of lies that academics bought from the enemy and
sold to so many students that it obscured the fact of victory and turned it
into defeat.

As the Chief of Military History, U.S. Government wrote in his Final
Report, "If there is to be an inquiry related to the Vietnam War, it should
be into the reasons why enemy propaganda was so widespread in this country,
and why the enemy was able to condition the public to such an extent that the
best educated segments of our population have given credence to the most
incredible allegations."

These new films expose that hidden tissue of lies . Added to them must be
all the new history books, including confessions from the enemy, that are
breaking ground in a totally new, much more accurate, interpretation of the
war. It is imperative that American students, in fact the whole country,
become aware, based on films and books such as these of how mistaken the
academics were who helped engineer the campus war protests. This could prove
a fatal blow to the largely leftist ideological agenda that is tyrannizing
American higher education and threatening to lead to a new and fatal
polarization over the war on terrorism."

kiera malick - 2/10/2003

this thing really sucks cant you jus tell me stuff like this?
birthplace:bla bla
stuff like that! i dont need to know about his WHOLE freakin life! gosh

Editor - 2/10/2003


A new Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeks the disclosure of the missing documentary pieces of the puzzle surrounding the attack on the American intelligence vessel U.S.S. Liberty by Israeli forces during the Six Day War on June 8, 1967, in which 34 U.S. sailors were killed.

"There was no apparent provocation" for the attack, according to the National Security Agency (NSA), "and the reason for the attack has never been fully resolved, although Israel described it as an identification error and sent restitution for the damage and loss of life."

The predominant view is that the Israeli strike on the Liberty was in fact a case of mistaken identity and operational error, rather than a knowing and willful attack on the United States.

But Liberty survivors such as Capt. James Ennes have argued that the attack, which took place on a clear day against a nearly unarmed ship over a period of several hours, must have been deliberate. Yet a credible motive for such a deliberate assault has been lacking.

Author James Bamford, in his best-selling book "Body of Secrets," proposed that Israel attempted to destroy the Liberty in order to cover up an alleged massacre of Egyptian prisoners of war that was supposedly taking place nearby. But this presumes incongruously that Israel would commit a massacre against its (American) ally in order to conceal another massacre against its (Egyptian) enemy. No historian of the war accepts such an analysis.

However, Bamford also brought to public attention the fact that there was a previously undisclosed NSA recording of the attack, acquired by an EC-121M electronic surveillance aircraft flying overhead, and that this recording remained classified.

Now a FOIA lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District of Florida to try to compel the NSA to declassify and release the recording, along with related materials concerning the Liberty.

The suit has been brought by A. Jay Cristol, author of "The Liberty Incident: The 1967 Israeli Attack on the U.S. Navy Spy Ship" (Brassey's, 2002), which appears to be the most comprehensive and thoroughly documented independent study of the Liberty case. The author, who is himself a former naval aviator and federal judge, concluded, in a nutshell, that the attack on the Liberty was a horrific accident.

In his FOIA lawsuit, Cristol observes that he has already had access to the substance of the recorded intercepts, which he obtained from the Israeli Air Force, and that he has published annotated translations of them in his book. Therefore, since they are already in the public domain, he argues, the NSA has no grounds to maintain their classification.

The text of Cristol's FOIA complaint, filed 21 January 2003, is available here:

Information about his book, as well as related documentary resources, may be found here:

Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to
with "subscribe" in the body of the message.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email message to

OR email your request to

Secrecy News is archived at:

Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
voice: (202) 454-4691

Richard Dyke - 2/10/2003

I am amused at Mr. Moner. He writes that "the use of a person's religion to characterise a period, movement or socio-political issue is generally reckless and in the end, not relevant," and then proceeds to blame the Christians for the holocaust.

What should be pointed out is that there were Jews on both sides of the Stalinist and revolutionary purges, just as there were Christians. Entire groups seldom share exclusive blame for anything, since unanimity is almost impossible in any period.

What also bothers me is that Mr. Moner wonders how the holocaust could have happened. Human nature, of course. I personally shuddered when the Yugoslavian civil war broke out in the 1990s. I KNEW there were going to be horrible atrocities, and there were, not on the level of the holocaust, perhaps, but large and horrific and smaller only because the war was confined geographically. I think the "tag-a-long" theory is better to explain what happened in the 1940s than religion. Many people seem to think that as long as somebody else is "getting it," there is less attention in turning the tables specifically on them, so they go along, no matter how terrible it all becomes. The one thing people do well is justify themselves, no matter how awful the things are that they have done.

One final note. It is hard to generalize, and as historians, we still have the tendency to do so in order to speak broadly about movements and events. This is why there are so many theories out there as to relative blame for the Stalinist and revolutionary purges, and other historical happenings.

Arnold Beichman - 2/10/2003

Professor Burleigh's admirable article and his reference to the rarely mentioned Sovirt horrors should be expanded and explained. Anne Applebaum's book "Gulag" makes the point that the entire Bolshevik genocidal era and its multi-million victims
has disappeared from the Russian consciousness. Mao Zedong's Cultural REvolution is ignored. Hollywood has ignored the fall of Communism but not the Holocaust. So with
American TV Why?

Bob Labozetta - 2/9/2003

As an Advanced Placement United States History teacher on the secondary level, I constantly "warn" my students to consider Harry S. Truman as one of this nation's greatest presidents. If not for his considerable accomplishments, then for his pluck, sincerity, and honesty should he be remembered so. Besides Jimmy Carter, Harry Truman was the last honest president.

Madeline Kleinpaste - 2/9/2003

I was woundering if you could some how get me connected with any of these people below:
Paul Hansen, Gerd Fleischer, Agnes Moller Jensen.
I am doing a History Day Project on Lebensborn, and would like to talk to one of the victims if in any way possible. I would greatly appreciate it if you could send me some information back as soon as possible!
Thank You

Edwin Moise - 2/8/2003

I do not doubt that the new Cromwell movie is historically inaccurate, but I doubt that it can be more inaccurate than this article.

Cromwell was not "one of the founding fathers of parliamentary democracy". The government that he established, and which he headed until his death, was neither parliamentary nor a democracy; it was a military dictatorship.

Cromwell was not born into "a noble family". Indeed (though this is far from my specialty) I do not believe he came even from the upper ranks of the gentry.

Kristy Elfe Dickerson - 2/8/2003

I think you constantly cover interesting stories, a new book on Jack Kennedy will be coming out again. We'll have to wait and see. As always your penpal. CNN like all the news agencies covers very interesting stories. I am a news junky and will continue to be. It is better to have laughed and let go than to
pursue something that would detroy people's lives. The truth will always stay with me and I am not saying anything else. You will hear from me again and I pray for Powell, Bush, Rumsfeld,
Condi Rice and the executive branch, Congress, and the judical branch. I have made mistakes and I can continue to forgive 70x7.
I love the Pope, God save the Queen, and may we find peace. But if we do not let us move to do what Winston Churchill did in WWII
and do our duty for God and country. There be no genocide because we did not act. That we waited too long and the bomb is created by terrorists. I stand quietly and have no connection
to anything that would go against my president. I think he is
like Moses with Powell and Tommy Franks as his Joshua and Caleb.
There may be a promised land again. We can only pray and if we disagree, we respect everyone's right to a differnt opinion. I am pruod to be an American. The French and Germans have a great pride in their country and Germany like Japan are great forces in democracy. Kristy Elfe Dickerson

Editor - 2/7/2003

from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2003, Issue No. 11
February 7, 2003


The report on Iraqi efforts to deceive UN weapons inspectors that was published recently by the UK Office of the Prime Minister was "completely unsourced and undocumented," Secrecy News noticed yesterday.

But in fact, it was worse than that. Entire sections of the report were plagiarized -- lifted without attribution from other published sources, including even punctuation errors made by the original, unacknowledged authors.

"The British government's latest report on Iraq's non-compliance with weapons inspections, which claims to draw on 'intelligence material', has been revealed as a wholesale plagiarism of three old and publicly-available articles, one of them by a graduate student in California," according to an assessment by Cambridge analyst Glen Rangwala that circulated yesterday. See:

"The dossier may not amount to much but this is a considerable embarrassment for a government trying still to make a case for war," Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell told the BBC. See:

Speaking at the UN on Wednesday, Secretary of State Powell praised the UK document as "a fine paper... which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities".

By this morning, the link to the document on the Downing Street website had disappeared, observed Stephen Fidler of the Financial Times.

Editor - 2/6/2003

NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE (Vol. 9, #6; 6 February 2003) by Bruce Craig <> National Coalition for History (NCH) *****************

1. Details -- The Bush Budget for FY 2004 2. Robert Remini Named "Heros of History" Lecturer 3. A-76 "Outsourcing" Continues -- Voices of Protest Grow 4. Legislation Introduced: Museum and Library Services Act of 2003; Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area Act; Galisteo Basin Archeological Sites Protection Act; Fort Bayard National Historical Landmark Act 5. Bits and Bytes: Library of Congress Launches Ad Campaign; Smithsonian Naming Decision and New Donor Guidelines 6. Articles of Interest: "I.N.S. Shredder Ended Work Backlog, U.S. Says" (New York Times); "U.S. Government Secrecy and the Current Crackdown on Leaks" (Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press)

1. DETAILS -- THE BUSH BUDGET FOR FY 2004 On 3 February 2003 President Bush delivered to Congress a $2.2 trillion federal budget for 2004. It includes both a record deficit of $307 billion and record funding levels for several history-related programs -- $100 million for the Department of Education's (DOE) "Teaching of Traditional American History" initiative, and a $25 million increase for the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) to fund the "We the People" initiative. The President's proposal also allocates $289 million for the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), with a disappointing level of just $5 million allocated for the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC).

Both the $100 million for the DOE history initiative and the $25 million increase for the NEH are in sharp contrast to the funding levels for most other domestic agencies. The President's budget squeezes such programs in favor of funding for homeland defense, the military, and a handful of showcase priorities, which thankfully includes history. Many agencies find their budgets frozen at the same levels that were recommended in the President's budget last year. Noticeably absent from the hand the President dealt Congress is one spending wildcard -- funding for a possible invasion of Iraq.

One Hill insider states, "after Congress gets done with the budget, domestic agency heads will probably be happy with level-funding for their agencies." In reality though, "level-funding" translates into a cut as it never accounts for inflation and mandatory personnel related costs. Even agencies with a 2-3% increase (such as Health and Human Services) will, in reality, barely break even. Here are some agency and program highlights:

The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) budget sees the largest increase (22%) in recent years. Funding is pegged at $152 million, which includes level-funding for the NEH core programs ($127 million) and a massive influx of new funds -- $25 million -- for the "We the People" initiative. Many Hill insiders, including John Hammer of the National Humanities Alliance (an NEH advocacy group), believe the initiative that was created last year to promote a broad understanding of the ideas and events that have shaped our nation, will "capture the imagination" and the support of members of Congress. To spearhead implementation of the initiative, a "We the People" office will be established to coordinate diverse funding opportunities that would cut across virtually every program activity area within the NEH.

Under the president's proposal, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), which saw fairly significant increases last fiscal year, will receive funding of $117 million, just 2 percent over levels for FY 2002. The total includes a $17 million earmark for the "Challenge America" program that aims to deliver arts to communities through cooperative programs with governmental and private entities.

In an unexpected development, the Bush administration is proposing to double last year's (FY 2003) budget request of $50 million to $100 million for the DOE "Teaching of Traditional American History" initiative. $100 million is the budget figure that the initiative's champion, Senator Robert C Byrd (D-WV), has advocated for and secured over the last three years. The program "recognizes the need to create and to expand efforts to raise the level of student knowledge in this core academic area in order to prepare future generations of students to become responsible citizens who vote and fully participate in our democratic institutions. It makes competitive grants to school districts to promote the teaching of "traditional" American history at the elementary and secondary school levels. The increase would in all likelihood double the number of available grants.

The National Archives is pegged at $304.563 million with new obligations set at $298 million -- a 13 percent increase over what the administration proposed last year. The budget includes a $12.991 million increase in NARA's base operating expenses to cover various fixed administrative related costs. The proposal includes $24.258 million for the electronic records initiative of which $22 million is for a contract to design the Electronic Archives (ERA) system. The ERA seeks to preserve virtually any kind of electronic record free from dependence on any specific hardware or software. There also is $620,000 for the National Archives Records Management initiatives to develop online records management training and certification for private sector contractors who offer technical assistance in records management. There is also $5.344 million for a new 110,000 cubic feet facility in suburban Atlanta, the Southeast Regional Archives facility. Obligations by program activity include: $215 for Records Services; $12 million for Archives Related Services; $38 million for Electronic Records Archives; $21 million for the Archives II facility; and $3 million for various reimbursable programs.

One disappointing figure is the $5 million recommendation for the NHPRC --the same funding level proposed by the Bush administration in FY 2003. While the Commission's final appropriation for FY 2003 has not yet been decided, sources inside the NHPRC report that the congressionally-approved funding level for FY 2002 of $6.436 million (or thereabouts) is expected in FY 2003. NHPRC supporters will have their work cut out for them in the fiscal 2004 budget. In the past, NHPRC supporters have never been too concerned about the President's proposed budget for the NHPRC which has never approached the authorized level of $10 million. NHPRC supporters have relied on members of Congress friendly to the program to raise the numbers. That may not happen this year. With a new cast of characters on appropriating committees and with Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) no longer on the Commission, the program is in need of new champions.

For the National Park Service, the President's budget recommends a funding level of $2.4 billion -- an increase of only $8.3 million above the FY 2003 proposal. One park advocacy group -- National Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA) -- surmised, "The Administration is walking away from its commitment to the public and to our parks."

Nevertheless, the budget does include full funding -- $900.7 million -- for the Land and Water Conservation Fund ($187.2 million for federal land acquisition; $160 million for state grants; $553.5 million for innovative conservation programs). It continues the President's commitment to eliminate the maintenance and construction backlog though, according to NPCA, "the level "falls short of the backlog pledge" as promised in the President's 2000 campaign speeches. There also is a small increase of $47 million (3%) for park operations, $477 million for construction, and $305,000 for the Urban Parks program. For history-related programs there once again is $30 million for the "Save America's Treasures" program and $67 million for the Historic Preservation Fund.

For the Institute of Museum and Library Services -- $242 million (a $32 million increase) is allotted for both libraries and museums. The total includes a request of $207.6 million for assistance to libraries (this figure includes a $15 million increase for the Library State Grants program, a $10 million increase for the 21st Century Librarian initiative) and $34 million (a $5 million or 17% increase) for museums.

For the Smithsonian Institution, a total request of $567 million of which $478 million is in discretionary spending. This is a $38 million (7%) increase over FY 2003. Virtually all of the increase is for mandatory personnel and operating cost increases. There is $48 million for the renovation of the Patent Office Building that houses the American Art Museum and the National Portrait Gallery and $13.7 million for the National Museum of the American Indian, which is scheduled to open its doors in the fall of 2004. Some $7.8 million is pledged for the first phase of the National Air and Space Museum's new building at Dulles International Airport in Virginia, which is scheduled to open in December 2003.

Other budget lines of interest to the historical and archival community include: the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars -- $8.604 million; the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation -- $5 million; and the Department of State Fulbright program -- $345 million (a 10% decrease from 2002 but still a $100 million increase over the President's 2003 request).

Hill insiders believe that with both the House and the Senate under the control of the Republicans the pressure will be on the GOP leadership to stay within the White House's budget numbers. Hill insiders predict the budget probably will not divide Republicans in the House. The real squabbling is expected to be in the Senate, where the Republicans have a paper-thin majority and liberal Democrats and moderate Republicans share misgivings about the budget -- especially when they discover that some of their top priorities are underfunded or not funded at all. Nevertheless, some Hill insiders predict that because of his control over Congress, Bush's plan stands a fair to good chance of surviving relatively intact.

2. ROBERT REMINI NAMED "HEROES OF HISTORY" LECTURER On 3 February 2003, the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) announced that on 18 February, historian Robert V. Remini will deliver the first annual "Heroes of History Lecture" in a White House ceremony. Remini will share the spotlight with six high school juniors who will be awarded medals and cash prizes for their essays on "The Idea of America."

A new annual NEH event, the Heroes of History lecture is part of the NEH "We the People" initiative which is designed to strengthen the teaching, study and understanding of American history and civics. The lecture, which carries with it a $10,000 honorarium, seeks to provide an opportunity for the public to learn about the lives and deeds of our nation's heroes. Remini, a prize-winning biographer of Andrew Jackson, will speak on "Ordinary Heroes: Founders of Our Republic."

Remini, is professor emeritus of history and the humanities at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He has been teaching history for more than 50 years and writing books about American history for nearly as long. In addition to his prize-winning three-volume biography of Jackson, he is the author of biographies of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, as well as a dozen other books on Jacksonian America. He was educated at Fordham University (B.S., 1943) and Columbia University (M.A., 1947, Ph.D., 1951). He is currently at work on a narrative history of the U.S. House of Representatives.

3. A-76 "OUTSOURCING" CONTINUES -- VOICES OF PROTEST GROW Last week, in this publication ("NPS and Interior Agency Professionals Subjected to A-76 Outsourcing Assessments" in NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE, Vol. 9, #4, 30 January 2003), we reported on the federal government's current effort to outsource "professional positions" (specifically archeologists) in the National Park Service. We are now beginning to hear reports of various history positions (federal job series 170) in agencies such as the Department of the Army are also being scrutinized under the A-76 outsourcing effort. Ultimately some 850,000 government jobs will be subjected to competition.

Echoing protests by federal employee unions, on 5 February 2003, in a letter to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) and thirty-four other Senate Democrats expressed their concerns over the administration's outsourcing effort. The bureau, however, continues to defend the effort as a way to increase government efficiency through competition.

The NCH needs to hear from you on this issue! We are aware of the archeologist positions that have been targeted at the National Park Service, but what other "professional" positions are readers aware of that are being subjected to the A-76 effort? We are particularly interested in hearing from federal historians and archivists. As always, all such reports will be held in strictest confidence unless otherwise directed. Please e-mail your reports to: <>.

NCH ACTION ITEM: Since thirty-five senators are now on record opposing the latest outsourcing effort, this is an opportune time for individuals and organizations wishing to express their views on this matter to contact members of Congress. Communicate with them not by letter but via e-mail or fax (for a listing of members of Congress office addresses via zip code, tap into: and <>;.

4. LEGISLATION INTRODUCED Museum and Library Services Act of 2003 -- On 29 January Senators Jack Reed (D-RI) and Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) introduced the "Museum and Library Services Act of 2003" (S. 238) in the Senate. The bill would reauthorize museum and library programs (Library Services and Technology Act) and the Institute of Museum and Library Services. The measure is similar to the House version of the Museum and Library Services Act of 2003 (H.R. 13) that currently has about 30 co-sponsors.

Recently, Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) has also introduced three bills: 1)"Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area Act" (S. 211) -- to make grants and provide technical assistance to local governments in an area that "encompasses a mosaic of cultures and history including eight pueblos and the descendants of Spanish ancestors who settled there; 2) "Galisteo Basin Archeological Sites Protection Act" (S.210) -- to preserve 4,591 acres of land in New Mexico that contain Native American and Spanish colonial era archeological sites; 3) "Fort Bayard National Historical Landmark Act" (S. 214) -- to designate this Army military post in southwest New Mexico associated with the settlement of New Mexico as a National Historic Landmark and to authorize assistance and cooperative agreements to preserve the area.

On 29 January 2003 Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) introduced the "Coltsville Study Act of 2003" (S. 233) a measure that seeks to assess the Hartford home of the Colt Manufacturing Company as a unit of the National Park System. The legislation passed the Senate during the 107th Congress.

All of the above measures were referred to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The later three bills (S. 210, S. 214, and S. 233) were all approved en bloc by a voice vote before the Senate Energy Committee during a business meeting held 5 February. They will be scheduled for full Senate consideration in the near future.

5. BITS AND BYTES Item #1 -- Library of Congress (LC) Launches Ad Campaign: The LC and the Ad Council have launched a new public service advertisement (PSA) campaign to encourage historical literacy. "It's Fun to Know History," is a series of PSAs designed to deliver television and radio messages to encourage adults to learn more about American history by visiting the Library of Congress' Web site, The messages seek to engage viewers and listeners by highlighting instances in which people incorporate historical facts into what the LC characterizes as "comical situations." Each PSA informs viewers and listeners about curious and fascinating facts about America's past that are featured at and conclude with the tagline, "It's fun to know history." The television and radio PSAs are being distributed later this month to more than 12,000 media outlets nationwide and are expected to fill advertising time that is donated by the media.

Item #2 -- Smithsonian Naming Decision and New Donor Guidelines: On 30 January 2003 the Smithsonian Institution (SI) informed Congress that it will not reverse its decision to rename the Imax movie theater at the National Air and Space Museum that honors a corporate donor. Last year, to recognize Lockheed Martin Corporation for its $10 million gift, SI officials removed the name of aviation pioneer and former Smithsonian chief Samuel P. Langley from the theater and renamed it to recognize the corporate donor. Critics viewed the naming as one more step in the commercialization of the Smithsonian.

The letter from Wesley Williams, chair of the Regents executive committee, to House Appropriations Chair C.W. Young (R-FL) also spells out new guidelines for donations to the institution. The Regents will now review all corporate sponsorships with a value of $1 million or more. The Secretary, however, is granted authority to "sign off" on all major gifts over $5 million that include naming or renaming physical facilities, existing programs, endowed positions, and fellowships. The guidelines have yet to be posted on the web.

6. ARTICLES OF INTEREST Two items this week: As an indication of what to look forward to from low-level contract employees at federal facilities, read about a couple of individuals who illegally shredded some 90,000 documents on order of their supervisors; tap into John M. Broder's New York Times 1/31/2003 article "I.N.S. Shredder Ended Work Backlog, U.S Says" at: <>;.

Second, a report by Los Angeles Times bureau chief, Jack Nelson, "U.S. Government Secrecy and the Current Crackdown on Leaks" published by The Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy. The article documents recent efforts to stop government leaks. Tap into: <>;.

*********************************************************** The National Coalition for History invites you to subscribe to this FREE weekly newsletter! You are also encouraged to redistribute the NCH Washington Updates to colleagues, friends, teachers, students and others who are interested in history and archives issues. A complete backfile of these reports is maintained by H-Net on the NCH's web page (currently under revision) at <>;.

To subscribe to the "NCH Washington Update," send an e-mail message to according to the following model: SUBSCRIBE H-NCH firstname lastname, institution. To unsubscribe send an e-mail message to according to the following model: SIGNOFF H-NCH. You can accomplish the same tasks by tapping into the web interface at and at the "network" prompt, scroll down and select H-NCH; enter your name and affiliation and "submit". **************************************************************

Editor - 2/6/2003

Iraq: The ghost of Lebanon past
By Jim Lobe
Asia Times
January 16, 2003

WASHINGTON - "What I saw from my perch in the Pentagon," wrote Colin Powell, a major general in 1982, in his memoirs about Washington's brief but disastrous sojourn in Lebanon 20 years ago, "was America sticking its hand into a thousand-year-old hornet's nest."

That memory undoubtedly fuels Powell's determination to fight off hardliners in the administration of President George W Bush who are equally determined to attack and occupy Iraq, even without United Nations or allied support, if necessary.

As pointed out recently by military analyst William Arkin in the Los Angeles Times, what happened in Lebanon 20 years ago may tell us a lot about the hopes, fears and delusions of US policymakers about what could happen in Iraq. Indeed, many of the people who applauded Israel's invasion of Lebanon in June 1982 and deplored the Reagan administration's decision to withdraw US peacekeepers after a series of deadly terrorist attacks are now arguing for an invasion of Iraq, and for many of the same reasons.

As today with Baghdad, they argued then that the road to peace in the Middle East ran through Beirut, and that, working together, Israeli and US military power could permanently alter the political balance of power in the entire Middle East in favor of the West.

The story is straightforward. Seizing on the attempted assassination of its ambassador to London by anti-PLO Abu Nidal gunmen, Israel's Likud government launched an invasion of Lebanon aimed at destroying the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) presence there once and for all.

Prominent US neo-conservatives hailed the invasion, noting in language that is strikingly similar to that used today about Iraq that the end of the PLO and the installation of a pro-Western government in Beirut would transform the Middle East by dealing a fatal blow to Arab "rejectionists" such as Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

"'Liberation' is a word that has been much abused in recent years," wrote William Safire, a New York Times columnist and today a leading hawk on Iraq. "But liberation, not invasion, is what is taking place in Lebanon today."

Initially, Safire's observation appeared correct. Greeted with flowers and celebration by the largely Shi'ite Muslim population of southern Lebanon, Israeli forces under defense minister (now prime minister) Ariel Sharon, routed PLO and Syrian resistance and swept north in a matter of days to the outskirts of West Beirut. They laid siege to the city until US Marines and other NATO forces evacuated Arafat and thousands of Palestinian guerrillas to Tunis and other destinations scattered around the Arab world.

The Reagan administration, already committed to a "strategic alliance" with Israel, winked at the invasion. It believed that the PLO's removal from Lebanon and the establishment of a stable, pro-US government opened up great possibilities, including the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, the signing of a peace treaty between Israel and Lebanon, and a final Arab-Israeli peace accord based on the acceptance by non-PLO Palestinians of autonomy "in association with Jordan" in exchange for a permanent freeze on Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.

But none of that was to be. US, British, French and Italian troops returned to Beirut almost immediately after the massacre of hundreds of unarmed Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila refugee camps by Israeli-backed Christian militia in mid-September 1982 to keep the peace and help the new president, Amin Gemayel, consolidate and expand the central government's authority.

The latter mission provoked hostility and, eventually, violence by religious, political and ethnic factions opposed to the Maronite-dominated government, proving the wisdom of Lebanese historian Kamal Salih's injunction that "great powers should not get involved in the politics of small tribes".

Anti-government militias began shooting at the Marines, provoking shelling by US battleships off-shore, which in turn only intensified the determination of the opposition to evict the Americans. In April 1983, Hizbollah suicide bombers blew up the US embassy in Beirut. Six months later, 241 Marines died in the truck bombing of the airport barracks. Nonetheless, pro-Likud neo-conservatives called on the Reagan administration to hold on, mocking the growing warnings in Congress that Lebanon was turning into a Vietnam.

"There will be no decade-long war of attrition in a tropical jungle against a unified enemy with a long history of successful anti-colonial struggle," argued the Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer, today a leading Iraq hawk. "In Lebanon everything is different: the terrain, the players, the tactics, the goals and the intentions of American leaders."

But three months later, the last Marines boarded amphibious craft to sail for home, even as the fleet was still pounding enemy targets in the hills. Left behind were a Lebanese army crippled by factional loyalties and desertions, a moribund peace treaty between Lebanon and Israel, and rising resistance against Israeli troops in southern Lebanon by the same Shi'ite population that had greeted them with such enthusiasm less than two years before.

The political post-mortems were predictable. The hawks claimed that there had been a "failure of will" on the part of Congress and the administration, as in Vietnam. The administration was bitterly divided, with the Pentagon complaining about deploying the military in poorly defined, open-ended political missions and the State Department siding with the hawks in a curious reversal of the present debate over Iraq.

President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, wrote that the entire enterprise was misconceived in that the administration, with very little appreciation for local realities, had permitted itself to become "a proxy of Israeli foreign policy" in Lebanon and a patsy for Likud's aim of diverting international attention to Lebanon and away from Israeli's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

"The more militant [Likud] leaders bent on incorporating the West Bank into Israel certainly welcome developments that have the effect of making the United States a direct military antagonist of the Arabs," Brzezinski complained in the Times in an argument that he has made more recently with regard to invading Iraq.

Of course, today's hawks reject any notion the challenges faced by the United States in a US-occupied Iraq are anything like those of Lebanon 20 years ago. The size and mandate of the mission in Iraq will be nothing like Lebanon, and, of course, the Soviet Union is not around to act as a possible constraint on US freedom of action.

Washington will no longer rely on giant artillery shells to quell resistance either, but will have "smart bombs", helicopter gunships and special forces, not to mention much more aggressive rules of engagement.

And, as the hawks never tire of repeating, US forces are likely to be welcomed with flowers and celebrations by ethnic, political and religious minorities that have suffered enormously under Saddam Hussein - just like the Israelis were received by the Shi'ites in southern Lebanon 21 years ago.

Editor - 2/6/2003

U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup
Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds
By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post
December 30, 2002

High on the Bush administration's list of justifications for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists. What U.S. officials rarely acknowledge is that these offenses date back to a period when Hussein was seen in Washington as a valued ally.

Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions.

The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Throughout the 1980s, Hussein's Iraq was the sworn enemy of Iran, then still in the throes of an Islamic revolution. U.S. officials saw Baghdad as a bulwark against militant Shiite extremism and the fall of pro-American states such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and even Jordan -- a Middle East version of the "domino theory" in Southeast Asia. That was enough to turn Hussein into a strategic partner and for U.S. diplomats in Baghdad to routinely refer to Iraqi forces as "the good guys," in contrast to the Iranians, who were depicted as "the bad guys."

A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

Opinions differ among Middle East experts and former government officials about the pre-Iraqi tilt, and whether Washington could have done more to stop the flow to Baghdad of technology for building weapons of mass destruction.

"It was a horrible mistake then, but we have got it right now," says Kenneth M. Pollack, a former CIA military analyst and author of "The Threatening Storm," which makes the case for war with Iraq. "My fellow [CIA] analysts and I were warning at the time that Hussein was a very nasty character. We were constantly fighting the State Department."

"Fundamentally, the policy was justified," argues David Newton, a former U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, who runs an anti-Hussein radio station in Prague. "We were concerned that Iraq should not lose the war with Iran, because that would have threatened Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Our long-term hope was that Hussein's government would become less repressive and more responsible."

What makes present-day Hussein different from the Hussein of the 1980s, say Middle East experts, is the mellowing of the Iranian revolution and the August 1990 invasion of Kuwait that transformed the Iraqi dictator, almost overnight, from awkward ally into mortal enemy. In addition, the United States itself has changed. As a result of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, U.S. policymakers take a much more alarmist view of the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

U.S. Shifts in Iran-Iraq War

When the Iran-Iraq war began in September 1980, with an Iraqi attack across the Shatt al Arab waterway that leads to the Persian Gulf, the United States was a bystander. The United States did not have diplomatic relations with either Baghdad or Tehran. U.S. officials had almost as little sympathy for Hussein's dictatorial brand of Arab nationalism as for the Islamic fundamentalism espoused by Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. As long as the two countries fought their way to a stalemate, nobody in Washington was disposed to intervene.

By the summer of 1982, however, the strategic picture had changed dramatically. After its initial gains, Iraq was on the defensive, and Iranian troops had advanced to within a few miles of Basra, Iraq's second largest city. U.S. intelligence information suggested the Iranians might achieve a breakthrough on the Basra front, destabilizing Kuwait, the Gulf states, and even Saudi Arabia, thereby threatening U.S. oil supplies.
"You have to understand the geostrategic context, which was very different from where we are now," said Howard Teicher, a former National Security Council official, who worked on Iraqi policy during the Reagan administration. "Realpolitik dictated that we act to prevent the situation from getting worse."

To prevent an Iraqi collapse, the Reagan administration supplied battlefield intelligence on Iranian troop buildups to the Iraqis, sometimes through third parties such as Saudi Arabia. The U.S. tilt toward Iraq was enshrined in National Security Decision Directive 114 of Nov. 26, 1983, one of the few important Reagan era foreign policy decisions that still remains classified. According to former U.S. officials, the directive stated that the United States would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran.

The presidential directive was issued amid a flurry of reports that Iraqi forces were using chemical weapons in their attempts to hold back the Iranians. In principle, Washington was strongly opposed to chemical warfare, a practice outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Protocol. In practice, U.S. condemnation of Iraqi use of chemical weapons ranked relatively low on the scale of administration priorities, particularly compared with the all-important goal of preventing an Iranian victory.

Thus, on Nov. 1, 1983, a senior State Department official, Jonathan T. Howe, told Secretary of State George P. Shultz that intelligence reports showed that Iraqi troops were resorting to "almost daily use of CW" against the Iranians. But the Reagan administration had already committed itself to a large-scale diplomatic and political overture to Baghdad, culminating in several visits by the president's recently appointed special envoy to the Middle East, Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Secret talking points prepared for the first Rumsfeld visit to Baghdad enshrined some of the language from NSDD 114, including the statement that the United States would regard "any major reversal of Iraq's fortunes as a strategic defeat for the West." When Rumsfeld finally met with Hussein on Dec. 20, he told the Iraqi leader that Washington was ready for a resumption of full diplomatic relations, according to a State Department report of the conversation. Iraqi leaders later described themselves as "extremely pleased" with the Rumsfeld visit, which had "elevated U.S.-Iraqi relations to a new level."

In a September interview with CNN, Rumsfeld said he "cautioned" Hussein about the use of chemical weapons, a claim at odds with declassified State Department notes of his 90-minute meeting with the Iraqi leader. A Pentagon spokesman, Brian Whitman, now says that Rumsfeld raised the issue not with Hussein, but with Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz. The State Department notes show that he mentioned it largely in passing as one of several matters that "inhibited" U.S. efforts to assist Iraq.

Rumsfeld has also said he had "nothing to do" with helping Iraq in its war against Iran. Although former U.S. officials agree that Rumsfeld was not one of the architects of the Reagan administration's tilt toward Iraq --he was a private citizen when he was appointed Middle East envoy -- the documents show that his visits to Baghdad led to closer U.S.-Iraqi cooperation on a wide variety of fronts. Washington was willing to resume diplomatic relations immediately, but Hussein insisted on delaying such a step until the following year.

As part of its opening to Baghdad, the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the State Department terrorism list in February 1982, despite heated objections from Congress. Without such a move, Teicher says, it would have been "impossible to take even the modest steps we were contemplating" to channel assistance to Baghdad. Iraq -- along with Syria, Libya and South Yemen -- was one of four original countries on the list, which was first drawn up in 1979.

Some former U.S. officials say that removing Iraq from the terrorism list provided an incentive to Hussein to expel the Palestinian guerrilla leader Abu Nidal from Baghdad in 1983. On the other hand, Iraq continued to play host to alleged terrorists throughout the '80s. The most notable was Abu Abbas, leader of the Palestine Liberation Front, who found refuge in Baghdad after being expelled from Tunis for masterminding the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro, which resulted in the killing of an elderly American tourist.

Iraq Lobbies for Arms

While Rumsfeld was talking to Hussein and Aziz in Baghdad, Iraqi diplomats and weapons merchants were fanning out across Western capitals for a diplomatic charm offensive-cum-arms buying spree. In Washington, the key figure was the Iraqi chargé d'affaires, Nizar Hamdoon, a fluent English speaker who impressed Reagan administration officials as one of the most skillful lobbyists in town.

"He arrived with a blue shirt and a white tie, straight out of the mafia," recalled Geoffrey Kemp, a Middle East specialist in the Reagan White House. "Within six months, he was hosting suave dinner parties at his residence, which he parlayed into a formidable lobbying effort. He was particularly effective with the American Jewish community."

One of Hamdoon's favorite props, says Kemp, was a green Islamic scarf allegedly found on the body of an Iranian soldier. The scarf was decorated with a map of the Middle East showing a series of arrows pointing toward Jerusalem. Hamdoon used to "parade the scarf" to conferences and congressional hearings as proof that an Iranian victory over Iraq would result in "Israel becoming a victim along with the Arabs."

According to a sworn court affidavit prepared by Teicher in 1995, the United States "actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required." Teicher said in the affidavit that former CIA director William Casey used a Chilean company, Cardoen, to supply Iraq with cluster bombs that could be used to disrupt the Iranian human wave attacks. Teicher refuses to discuss the affidavit.

At the same time the Reagan administration was facilitating the supply of weapons and military components to Baghdad, it was attempting to cut off supplies to Iran under "Operation Staunch." Those efforts were largely successful, despite the glaring anomaly of the 1986 Iran-contra scandal when the White House publicly admitted trading arms for hostages, in violation of the policy that the United States was trying to impose on the rest of the world.

Although U.S. arms manufacturers were not as deeply involved as German or British companies in selling weaponry to Iraq, the Reagan administration effectively turned a blind eye to the export of "dual use" items such as chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have military and civilian applications. According to several former officials, the State and Commerce departments promoted trade in such items as a way to boost U.S. exports and acquire political leverage over Hussein.

When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes.

A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.

The fact that Iraq was using chemical weapons was hardly a secret. In February 1984, an Iraqi military spokesman effectively acknowledged their use by issuing a chilling warning to Iran. "The invaders should know that for every harmful insect, there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it . . . and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide."

Chemicals Kill Kurds

In late 1987, the Iraqi air force began using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq that had formed a loose alliance with Iran, according to State Department reports. The attacks, which were part of a "scorched earth" strategy to eliminate rebel-controlled villages, provoked outrage on Capitol Hill and renewed demands for sanctions against Iraq. The State Department and White House were also outraged -- but not to the point of doing anything that might seriously damage relations with Baghdad.

"The U.S.-Iraqi relationship is . . . important to our long-term political and economic objectives," Assistant Secretary of State Richard W. Murphy wrote in a September 1988 memorandum that addressed the chemical weapons question. "We believe that economic sanctions will be useless or counterproductive to influence the Iraqis."
Bush administration spokesmen have cited Hussein's use of chemical weapons "against his own people" -- and particularly the March 1988 attack on the Kurdish village of Halabjah -- to bolster their argument that his regime presents a "grave and gathering danger" to the United States.

The Iraqis continued to use chemical weapons against the Iranians until the end of the Iran-Iraq war. A U.S. air force intelligence officer, Rick Francona, reported finding widespread use of Iraqi nerve gas when he toured the Al Faw peninsula in southern Iraq in the summer of 1988, after its recapture by the Iraqi army. The battlefield was littered with atropine injectors used by panicky Iranian troops as an antidote against Iraqi nerve gas attacks.

Far from declining, the supply of U.S. military intelligence to Iraq actually expanded in 1988, according to a 1999 book by Francona, "Ally to Adversary: an Eyewitness Account of Iraq's Fall from Grace." Informed sources said much of the battlefield intelligence was channeled to the Iraqis by the CIA office in Baghdad.

Although U.S. export controls to Iraq were tightened up in the late 1980s, there were still many loopholes. In December 1988, Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq, despite U.S. government concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents. An Export-Import Bank official reported in a memorandum that he could find "no reason" to stop the sale, despite evidence that the pesticides were "highly toxic" to humans and would cause death "from asphyxiation."

The U.S. policy of cultivating Hussein as a moderate and reasonable Arab leader continued right up until he invaded Kuwait in August 1990, documents show. When the then-U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, met with Hussein on July 25, 1990, a week before the Iraqi attack on Kuwait, she assured him that Bush "wanted better and deeper relations," according to an Iraqi transcript of the conversation. "President Bush is an intelligent man," the ambassador told Hussein, referring to the father of the current president. "He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq."

"Everybody was wrong in their assessment of Saddam," said Joe Wilson, Glaspie's former deputy at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, and the last U.S. official to meet with Hussein. "Everybody in the Arab world told us that the best way to deal with Saddam was to develop a set of economic and commercial relationships that would have the effect of moderating his behavior. History will demonstrate that this was a miscalculation."

© 2002 The Washington Post Company

Robert Entenmann - 2/6/2003

The HNN headline - Koizumi's Visit to Tojo Grave Annoys Asia - is inaccurate. The Yasukuni Shrine is a Shinto shrine honoring Japan's war dead - including Tojo Hideki and others executed as a result of the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. But Tojo isn't buried there. Koizumi's visit is certainly objectionably, but he didn't actually visit Tojo's grave.

Paul Michelson - 2/6/2003

The House of Terror museum in Hungary is not quite unique. In Romania, the privately funded Fundatia Academia Civica of Bucuresti has since 1993 been developing a "Memorial for the Victims of Communism and the Resistence" in the former Communist prison at Sighet. The foundation has been holding annual conferences at Sighet dealing sequentially with Communism, particulary in Romania, from 1944 (covered by the first symposium in 1994) through 1989 (the tenth symposium in 2002), conducting a summer school for high school students, publishing ten volumes of symposium proceedings along with two other series of volumes, and opening an impressive memorial museum and research/study center at Sighet prison in 1997. Along with Romanian themes, the Sighet symposia have included events and participants from elsewhere in Eastern Europe (such as Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Poland in the 1980s).

For additional information, interested parties can contact Romulus Rusan at the Academia Civica, Piata Amzei nr. 13, Bucuresti, Romania; e-mail Romulus Rusan

Glenn Calderwood - 2/6/2003

These WWII records in the ASV that are being opened up for scrutiny, do they include those in the second section of the archive as well as those in the first, which is what people normally think of when they think of this archive?

Glenn Calderwood
Menzies Centre for Australian Studies
King's College London

Editor - 2/5/2003

National Public Radio (NPR)

SHOW: Weekend Edition Sunday (12:00 Noon PM ET) - NPR

February 2, 2003 Sunday

HEADLINE: History of the successes and tragedies of manned space travel


Manned spaceflight grew out of the early days of the Cold War; a time when it was unimaginable that some day 40 years later the United States and Russia would pool their knowledge and their resources to build and operate an International Space Station. But long before a spirit of cooperation fueled mutual ambitions in space exploration, competition and fear spurred man's desire to rocket into space.

HANSEN: And on October 4th, 1957, a lone beeping signaled the opening salvo in the space race, accompanied by a boast from Radio Moscow.

Unidentified Man #1: As a result of intensive work by research institutes and designing bureaus, the first artificial Earth satellite in the world has now been created. This first satellite was today successfully launched in the USSR. (Soundbite of 1998 interview)

Mr. ROGER LAUNIUS (NASA Chief Historian): I think before Sputnik there was not nearly the same sense of a race that was under way.

HANSEN: NASA chief historian Roger Launius talked about the early days of the space race in a 1998 interview with NPR.

Mr. LAUNIUS: Both were competitors technologically, and there had been this competition played out in a variety of other technical fields. I mean, the United States was the first to develop the atomic bomb, but the Soviet Union developed their own in 1949. The United States developed the hydrogen bomb and exploded it in 1953, and the Soviet Union did so just in a very short period of time thereafter. The delivery system for both of those massively destructive weapons looked like it was going to become missiles and that gets us into the rocket race.

HANSEN: A year after Sputnik, the United States responded as best if could at the time. Not by putting a satellite into space--that was still beyond America's technological reach--but by launching the National Aeronautics & Space Administration, a federal bureaucracy devoted to space exploration. NASA set to work on matching Russia's accomplishments. John Logsdon is director of Space Policy Institute at George Washington University. In an interview with NPR, he recalled a naive John F. Kennedy, new to the presidency in 1961, and fresh with the desire to work with the Russians on space exploration.

Mr. JOHN LOGSDON (Director, Space Policy Institute, George Washington University): Kennedy came into office with the hope he could cooperate with the Soviet Union and space as one of the areas to reduce tensions between the two Cold War adversaries, and he said so in his inaugural address. He said, 'Let's explore the stars together.' Three months into his administration, Yuri Gagarin was launched. The US and the world political reaction kind of said this was a second strike against the US.

HANSEN: The United States strained to respond to Russia's triumph at putting the first man into space. But cosmonaut Gagarin's orbital flight in April 1961 could only be met by the Americans a few weeks later with a modest suborbital mission. Even then, after repeated delays, US astronaut Alan Shepard Jr., sitting aboard a Mercury Redstone missile, waiting to become the first American in space, grew impatient, and testily told Mission Control 'Let's light this candle.' They finally did.

Unidentified Man #2: This is Freedom 7. The fuel is go. 1.2g. Cabin at 14psi. Oxygen is go.

HANSEN: America was exuberant, and President Kennedy used the exuberance of America's newfound yet modest success in space to establish an almost unimaginably ambitious objective.

President JOHN F. KENNEDY: I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal before this decade is out of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth.

HANSEN: But first, the United States needed to put a man into orbit, and NASA had just the man.

Unidentified Man #3: And godspeed, John Glenn. Ten, nine, eight, seven, six...

HANSEN: The ambitious future senator and presidential candidate provided a vivid description from his window on the sky.

Mr. JOHN GLENN: Now this is Friendship 7. At this mark, at this present time, I still have some clouds visible below me. The sunset was beautiful; it went down very rapidly. I still have a brilliant blue band clear across the horizon, almost covering my whole window.

HANSEN: Glenn's almost boyish enthusiasm sparked imaginations in America and around the world. Children wanted to grow up to become astronauts and adults looked to the heavens with a new sense of the horizon. But in January 1967, the United States space program met tragedy. A flash fire erupted inside a three-man capsule during a simulated launch in preparation for the first Apollo mission; a prelude to shooting for the moon. Former NASA flight director Chris Kraft recalls the moment in a March 2001 interview on NPR's "Fresh Air."

Mr. CHRIS KRAFT (Former NASA Flight Director): I heard some screaming. I heard some confused people in the--on the launchpad external to the spacecraft. I heard a voice with which I was very familiar say, 'We're on fire.' And I heard another voice that I was very familiar with, saying, 'Get me out of here.' And then I heard silence.

HANSEN: The fire killed astronauts Virgil "Gus" Grissom, Roger Chaffee and Edward White, and it threatened to slow America's pace in its race for the moon. But former NASA director of mission operations Gene Kranz made certain that the NASA team regained its confidence and determination and that the mission would be accomplished.

Mr. GENE KRANZ (Former NASA Director Of Mission Operations): We had to start the process of healing and recovery. And I called the control team into the auditorium--this was two days after the accident--I gave them what became known as my 'tough and competent speech.' And I said, 'From now on the people of Mission Control will be known by many words, but the two words that will be dominant in our language is "tough" and "competent." "Tough" meaning we will never again shirk from our responsibilities. We are forever accountable for what we do or what we fail to do. "Competent"--we'll never again take anything for granted. We'll never stop learning. From now on, this team will be perfect.'

HANSEN: With that determination and commitment to precision led to a series of successful Apollo missions, Earth orbits, then flights to circle the moon and return home and, finally, in the summer of 1969, the Apollo 11 mission to land on the moon and the fulfillment of Kennedy's ambition.

Unidentified Man #4: Tranquility Base here. The eagle has landed.

Unidentified Man #5: Roger, Tranquility. We copy you on the ground. You got a bunch of guys about to turn blue with breathing again. Thanks a lot.

HANSEN: The achievement was marked by the first man to set foot on the moon, astronaut Neil Armstrong.

Mr. NEIL ARMSTRONG: That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.

HANSEN: The success of the Apollo 11 mission and then Apollo 12's return to the moon riveted the nation's attention during some of the darkest days of the war in Vietnam. And then, less than a year later, at a time when success in space was beginning to be taken for granted by an overconfident nation. Trouble tens of thousands of miles from home threatened the calm veneer of NASA's cool astronauts and controllers.

Unidentified Man #6: OK. Yeah, we've got a problem here.

Unidentified Man #7: ...(Unintelligible) windshield is clear.

Unidentified Man #8: What's matter with the data you count?

Unidentified Man #9: And the computer current looks normal.

Unidentified Man #10: OK.

Unidentified Man #11: We've got more than a problem.

Unidentified Man #12: OK. Listen--listen, you guys.

Unidentified Man #13: What?

Unidentified Man #14: We've lost fuel cell one and two pressure.

Unidentified Man #15: We lost O 2 tank 2 pressure and temperature.

Unidentified Man #16: ...(Unintelligible), you want to look at it?

Unidentified Man #17: Houston, we've got a problem.

Unidentified Man #18: OK.

Unidentified Man #19: OK. Stand by. They've got a problem.

HANSEN: Fifty-six hours after liftoff of Apollo 13, an oxygen tank ruptured in the spacecraft's service module. The capsule had already left Earth's orbit on the way to the moon, and the three men aboard struggled to stay alive while engineers on the ground jury-rigged a way to get them safely home. NASA regrouped, and recovered, and successfully returned to the moon.

The moon missions were followed in the 1970s by the trouble-prone but ultimately successful Skylab program. The first orbital workshop was damaged by vibrations during liftoff, but a second mission repaired the station, making it possible to complete a series of medical studies and a handful of experiments designed by school students. Then in 1975, during the era of detente between the United States and the Soviet Union, the two longtime space competitors cooperated to dock an Apollo capsule with a Soyuz craft.

Unidentified Man #20: We are now equalizing the pressure between the docking module and the Soyuz.

Unidentified Man #21: OK.

Unidentified Man #22: Cap Com.

Unidentified Man #23: (Russian spoken)

Unidentified Man #24: That's set.

Unidentified Man #23: (Russian spoken)

Unidentified Man #20: Hello!

HANSEN: American astronauts and Soviet cosmonauts shook hands in a show of unity that was far more symbolic of eased superpower tensions than any significant scientific achievement. For two days, the crews conducted a few experiments, undocked their spacecrafts and went their separate ways.

On the ground, American engineers had long been at work designing a spacecraft that could be launched and returned to Earth to land like an airplane. And on April 12th, 1981, space shuttle Columbia, the first of the nation's reusable spaceships, lifted off. Two days later, Columbia's crew did what no other astronauts had done.

Unidentified Man #25: He will get ready to slap down the gear any minute now. It's not down yet.

Unidentified Man #26: He's--he's doing ...(unintelligible).

Unidentified Man #25: They're flaring, flaring at about 220. There comes the landing gear.

Unidentified Man #27: Two, one...

Unidentified Man #26: Approved. One. Liftdown.

Unidentified Man #25: There's the first down, a beautiful touchdown. Beautiful.

HANSEN: Columbia was joined by space shuttles Endeavour, Discovery, Atlantis and Challenger. The ambitious shuttle program became so routine that many Americans were only vaguely aware when a craft was in orbit. Then on a clear blue morning in late January of 1986, the calm voices of NASA's controllers spoke words that signalled disaster.

Unidentified Man #28: Flight controllers here looking very carefully at the situation; obviously a major malfunction. We have no downlink.

HANSEN: Challenger exploded 73 seconds into flight, killing the shuttle's crew members. President Ronald Reagan spoke to the nation.

President RONALD REAGAN: We've never had a tragedy like this, and perhaps we've forgotten the courage it took for the crew of the shuttle. But they, the Challenger seven, were aware of the dangers and overcame them and did their jobs brilliantly. We mourn seven heroes: Michael Smith, Dick Scobee, Judith Resnik, Ronald McNair, Ellison Onizuka, Gregory Jarvis and Christa McAuliffe.

HANSEN: NASA took no chances. The space agency studied and studied the cause of the accident that destroyed Challenger. Early suspicions were confirmed. A leak in one of the spacecraft's solid rocket boosters ignited the main fuel tank, setting off the fatal explosion. More than two years passed before the next space shuttle mission. NPR's Ira Flatow was at the Kennedy Space Center for the launch of space shuttle Discovery.

Unidentified Man #29: Six and...

IRA FLATOW: There--you can hear it. The main engines have started. Huge white plumes of steam are coming up. There are the solid rocket boosters. We have liftoff. The shuttle has cleared the tower. A big, beautiful orange flame is coming out of the back. It is beginning--the shuttle is beginning to turn on its back and rotate sort of like an upside-down flying machine. It is headed straight up into the sky. Up into this point, everything looks beautiful.

HANSEN: Discovery Commander Frederick H. "Rick" Hauck talked about his feelings and thoughts before liftoff. He recognized the dangers and he shared the determination that spurred other Americans to return to space following disasters in the past.

Commander FREDERICK H. HAUCK: If there were to be one, I hope that we would be resilient, but I am trying to be a realist, and I think that it would be very difficult to bounce back from that. I think that we cannot, as a nation, shrink back from pursuing things that are difficult to do. And if you think they're worthwhile doing, then you've got to try, try again.

HANSEN: For more than a dozen years, until this weekend, the space shuttles lifted off and landed, reused with experienced and rookie astronauts aboard. The shuttle became a mainstay of space exploration. It carried the Hubble Space Telescope into orbit, and when the telescope turned out to have blurry vision, the shuttle was used to send up a repair crew. The shuttle has also been the essential ferry to carry parts and supplies and crews for the International Space Station, the joint Russian-American project that would have been so unimaginable more than 40 years ago when the space race began.

HANSEN: You're listening to WEEKEND EDITION from NPR News.

Charles V. Mutschler - 2/5/2003

Interesting comment re: SATC. Our university (then a state normal school) had a Student Army Training Corps unit, which was outfitted with uniforms. I think they also did little except march around campus and do PT, though some of the young men did serve in the AEF. Any comments on why Whitman's SATC unit was without uniforms?

Charles V. Mutschler

Editor - 2/5/2003

National Public Radio (NPR)

SHOW: Weekend Edition Sunday (12:00 Noon PM ET) - NPR

February 2, 2003 Sunday

HEADLINE: Professor Alex Roland discusses his concerns regarding the space shuttle program

LIANE HANSEN, host: Duke University Professor Alex Roland worked for eight years as a historian with the National Aeronautics & Space Administration. He is also a critic of the shuttle program. An article he wrote for Discover magazine outlining his concerns was published just before the Challenger explosion in 1986. Afterward, he predicted that the shuttle program would get into trouble again. He joins us now by phone from his home.

HANSEN: Professor Roland, let me ask you, are you opposed to the concept of manned spaceflight the concept, or are your concerns more specific to the shuttle program?

Prof. ROLAND: My concerns are entirely about the shuttle program. In other words, I think it's inevitable that we will send people into space. We'll probably send them there permanently one day. The shuttle is simply not the launch vehicle we should be using.

HANSEN: Why not?

Prof. ROLAND: It is--it was a good idea when it was first proposed. The belief was that expendable launch vehicles were too expensive because we were throwing away the rocket every time. And wouldn't we save money if we had a reusable vehicle? It turned out not to be true. The shuttle was actually more expensive to use than the expendable vehicles it replaced. And because of that, the whole economic model of how manned spaceflight will work with the shuttle has turned out to be flawed.

PALCA: Professor Roland, is there any reason to think that it was possible initially to design a shuttlelike system that was reusable? I know that some of the original plans that NASA had was to have something that was truly one piece to orbit. Would that have solved the problems that we're seeing?

Prof. ROLAND: We just can't--no. In other words, I don't fault NASA for the attempt. I think the shuttle was a good idea. And what none of us appreciated at the time was the enormous wear and tear on the vehicle, both during launch and re-entry. And the result is it takes an enormous amount of time and effort to refurbish each spacecraft after their trips, and that's where the added cost comes in. If we were using a less stressful launch, then we might not have this problem. But we can't really know that.

PALCA: But aren't you also faced at this point with a sort of there's not really an option? I mean, certainly, there's not an option for the next five years.

Prof. ROLAND: That's exactly right, and this is entirely NASA's fault. The Rogers Commission and all the other boards that investigated the Challenger accident told NASA two things. First of all, do not rely upon the shuttle. It is a fragile and expensive launch vehicle that's too complex to be the mainstay of our launch vehicle stable. And, secondly, begin immediately to design and develop a replacement launch vehicle. And here we are 16 years later, they're massively dependent on the shuttle and there's no replacement vehicle in sight.

HANSEN: In your opinion, then, given that we are--we do have this shuttle program, and that's what we have, what do you think is needed to make this program viable?

Prof. ROLAND: Oh, I don't think we can. I think we have to, again, do a full investigation as we did after Challenger, develop a workable launch schedule for the shuttle. In other words, give it more funding, but have it fly less often. And invest our money in that replacement launch vehicle so that we have some long-term prospects that our space program will have the resources it needs.

HANSEN: How do you feel about the International Space Station?

Prof. ROLAND: We ought to close that up immediately and begin design plans to turn it into a space platform. That is, a research facility in space that we would visit periodically to maintain and rotate experiments, but not try to keep people on it indefinitely until we have this new, more practical, more reliable and safer launch vehicle in place.

PALCA: Professor Roland, as you speak, I think, you know, I'm not sure that a lot of people in an academic role wouldn't agree with you. But I wonder in the practical world of Washington, the space station serves, perhaps, a function that goes beyond space research and into geopolitics. A few years ago, when the Clinton administration was deciding what to do with this, they had to decide, 'Yes, we're going to pursue this because we want the Russians to be spending their space expertise on something peaceful.' And you said also earlier that NASA, you know, made a mistake, but they're under tremendous financial pressure from Congress, and they're being asked to do a lot and to cut back money. So is it fair to put all this blame on NASA?

Prof. ROLAND: NASA has been given a very generous budget for 30 years now; as a matter of fact, if you go back through the Apollo program, even before that. And the country's social contract with NASA was always the same: 'We will give you a very handsome budget; you must decide on what space program you can operate within it.' And NASA has consistently decided to overspend that budget and to try and design a program that that budget can't sustain. And so this is a problem of their own making. If they had spent their money developing a reliable and practical launch vehicle instead of flying the shuttle around all the time, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.

HANSEN: One more question, Professor. Do you think the public might lose interest if all there is is unmanned exploration?

Prof. ROLAND: There have been lots of unmanned missions that have captured the public imagination, that little rover that was going around the surface on Mars. We should have had a major Mars surface rover program 20 years ago. It was within our technological capability. The public would be fascinated by this. The real payoff we're getting from the space program is coming entirely from the unmanned facilities, not from the space station that the public is, frankly, bored with.

HANSEN: Alex Roland is a professor of history at Duke University, and served as a NASA historian for eight years. He joined us from his home in Durham, North Carolina.

Editor - 2/5/2003

The Washington Post

February 03, 2003, Monday, Final Edition


HEADLINE: Douglas's Military Claim Questioned by Biographer

BYLINE: Charles Lane

William O. Douglas, the liberal firebrand who served as a Supreme Court justice longer than anyone else in history, has lain since his death in 1980 at Arlington National Cemetery, under a headstone that reads, in part: "Private, United States Army."

But now Douglas's eternal rest is about to be disturbed by a charge from a scholar of court history who has concluded, based on extensive archival research and interviews with Douglas's old acquaintances, that the justice's claim to have served in the military during World War I is false.

If these assertions, which are made in a forthcoming biography of Douglas by Lafayette College professor Bruce Allen Murphy, are true, it would mean that Douglas obtained burial at Arlington even though he may not have been entitled to it. Though Murphy acknowledges that "after Douglas' great service to the nation on the Supreme Court he deserved to be buried at Arlington," that honor was reserved for honorably discharged veterans of the U.S. military. Others could gain admission only by special order of the president. It is perhaps fitting that Douglas should be the focus of controversy in death, because few justices aroused more of it during their lifetimes.

Appointed to the bench by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1939, Douglas scandalized Washington by divorcing and remarrying three times while on the court. His penchant for speaking out on foreign policy subjects and accepting payments from private foundations made him the focus of four unsuccessful impeachment efforts in Congress.

But Douglas also had a passionate following, based not only on his judicial philosophy, but also on his personal story, which, according to his memoirs, was that of a poor kid who emerged from Yakima, Wash., to conquer Wall Street, the Ivy League and Washington, D.C., through hard work and brains. Among the achievements he claimed -- and that have heretofore been accepted by historians -- were victory over polio in early childhood and a second-place rank in his class at Columbia Law School.

Yet in his book, advance galleys of which are being circulated by Random House, Murphy debunks those and other claims. For example, though Douglas wrote that he worked his way through Columbia, he actually depended on the income of his first wife, Mildred, a schoolteacher. Douglas got around this by reporting the date of their marriage as a year later than it actually was.

Murphy writes that Douglas's military service consisted of a few months as a private in the now-defunct Student Army Training Corps (SATC) at Whitman College in Walla Walla, Wash.

The students who participated in this organization, Murphy says, marched around campus without guns, boots or uniforms, and Douglas was sidelined by influenza for much of the time. When uniforms finally arrived after the November 1918 armistice, Douglas suited up for a photo, but his military record, Murphy writes, shows that he was never actually inducted into the Army or honorably discharged, and never served in France, as many people apparently assumed.

Douglas did not enlist when the United States entered the war in 1917, Murphy argues, because at the time he was younger than 21 and would have needed parental permission, which his overprotective mother would have surely denied. After the draft age was lowered to 18 in August 1918, when Douglas was almost 20, he joined the SATC. He served for just over two months, from Oct. 1 to Dec. 10, when the unit was dissolved because the war was over.

Murphy quotes one of Douglas's fellow SATC members as implying that they entered the outfit to avoid true military service. "We had to be there," Hallam Mendenhall told Murphy. "If we hadn't, we'd have been drafted."

According to Murphy, Douglas was aided in this alleged rsum inflation by the fact that World War I-era military records were destroyed in a fire in 1973. Douglas asked his wife Cathy to have him buried at Arlington when the time came. Having no reason to doubt his story, she made the request, and officials went through the required background check.

Finding nothing in the records to dispute the claim, they accepted Douglas's version, Murphy writes.

Cynthia Riddle, a spokeswoman for the Department of Veterans Affairs, which is responsible for confirming service records for those wishing to be buried at Arlington, said that Douglas's records were indeed destroyed in the 1973 fire, but that a pay voucher survived showing that he drew a check from the Army for the period of his SATC participation. He even had a service number, 5200182, Riddle said.

A spokeswoman for Random House, Laura Moreland, said that Murphy is not giving any interviews until the book's publication in early March. Douglas's widow, Cathy Douglas Stone, was traveling and could not be reached for comment.

Why would such a brilliant and accomplished man embellish his already considerable achievements? In Murphy's view, Douglas was a great disappointment -- to himself. Having failed to attain his true ambition, the presidency, he felt the need to compensate in other ways. His 1950 memoir, "Of Men and Mountains," which introduced the polio story, earned him public acclaim.

"Douglas now had what he always wanted," Murphy writes. "He was finally number one in the public's heart."

Editor - 2/5/2003

National Public Radio (NPR)

SHOW: Tavis Smiley (9:00 AM ET) - NPR

January 31, 2003 Friday

HEADLINE: Emancipation Proclamation



TAVIS SMILEY, hostJanuary marks the 140th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation, so we thought we'd start our commemoration of Black History Month a day early with a look at Abraham Lincoln, the great emancipator and the cunning politician.

Mr. EDWARD ASNER: (As Abraham Lincoln): That on the first day of January, AD 1863, all persons held as slaves within any state or designated part of a state, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then thence forward and forever free.

ROY HURST reporting: With those words, an American president began the end of slavery. Three million Africans were suddenly declared free, and the course of the Civil War was about the change. Mr. ASNER: As the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons.

HURST: The stamp of the commander in chief on the Emancipation Proclamation would seal Abraham Lincoln's reputation as the greatest American president. Yet, he was achieving for the US what Britain and France had already achieved.

Mr. ASNER: Warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God. Abraham Lincoln, January 1, 1863 AD.

HURST: In 1863, Lincoln was presiding over the losing side in a grueling Civil War, and the motivation for the emancipation was perhaps less humanitarian than strategic.

Dr. EDNA GREENE MEDFORD (Howard University): When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, the war was not going well for the North. So he issues it as a military necessity.

HURST: Dr. Edna Greene Medford is professor of history at Howard University.

Dr. MEDFORD: The Confederacy's doing pretty well during most of the war, at least up until--the first two years. And one of the reasons why they're doing so well is because they have this huge enslaved labor force. And those enslaved laborers are being impressed into military service as military laborers; not as soldiers, but as military laborers. And as a consequence, the South had an advantage.

Mr. ASNER: And I further declare and make known that such persons of suitable condition will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison...

Dr. MEDFORD: So Lincoln realizes that by emancipating the enslaved population in those areas still in rebellion, then that would weaken the Confederacy.

HURST: But historians overwhelmingly agree that Lincoln hated slavery. As early as the 1830s he was speaking out.

Mr. ASNER: If the Negro is a man, well, then my ancient faith tells me that all men are created equal and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another.

HURST: But by 1860, during a bid for the presidency, Lincoln's message had softened. He would place an emphasis on the idea of containing slavery, preventing it from moving into the Western territories.

Dr. MEDFORD: In fact, when he came to the presidency in March of 1861, he made it very clear in his inaugural address that he would not interfere with the laws of the land, including the Fugitive Slave Act.

Mr. ASNER: I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists.

Mr. ASNER: I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Mr. BROCK PETERS: (As Frederick Douglass) The Republican president bends the knee to slavery as readily as any of his infamous predecessors.

HURST: In 1861, at the outbreak of the Civil War, the abolitionists' call against slavery was as loud as ever. Perhaps the strongest voice among them belonged to the former slave Frederick Douglass.

Mr. PETERS: Mr. Lincoln next proceeds with nerves of steel to tell the slave holders what an excellent slave hound he is and how he regards the right to recapture fugitive slaves their constitutional duty.

Dr. MEDFORD: Frederick Douglass was a thorn in Lincoln's side throughout the war. Douglass was the one that seemed to be most vociferous in his objections to the Lincoln administration's policies during the war, especially as they involved African-Americans.

HURST: Douglass had a mixed reaction to the Emancipation Proclamation. It did not include all enslaved people. The border states and the states already occupied were allowed to continue slavery. They were not in rebellion against the Union.

Mr. PETERS: When Virginia is a free state, Maryland cannot be a slave state. Slavery must stand or fall together. Strike it at either extreme, either on the head or at the heel, and it dies.

HURST: But Lincoln's decision to leave some blacks enslaved was consistent with his major goal. A few months prior to the Emancipation Proclamation, he'd written a letter to the editor of the New York Tribune.

Mr. ASNER: If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it. And if I could do it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it. And if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I'd do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.

Dr. MEDFORD: I think we have to believe him. When he wrote that and when he realized that he could not preserve the Union without freeing some of the enslaved population, then that's exactly what he did.

HURST: Lincoln soon permitted Negroes to fight the Confederacy. At the end of the war, some 168,000 black troops had fought and more than 35,000 had died. By January 1865, the Union Army had worn down the Confederacy. Lincoln capitalized on the moment, forcing the ratification of the 13th Amendment which ended slavery throughout the United States for good. For African-Americans, the Emancipation Proclamation had opened a world of possibilities. Once again, Edna Greene Medford.

Dr. MEDFORD: They saw freedom as meaning full inclusion in American society, equality of opportunity, full citizenship rights, meaning full political participation, social equality, economic opportunity. And they hoped that during Reconstruction, especially, those things would occur. But it did not. Large numbers of African-Americans, the bulk of them, became sharecroppers. It's almost like quasi slavery at its worst, so they never were able to acquire that economic independence that they sought. And I dare say that we are still suffering from that today.

Singers: Weep no more, children. Praise the Lord. Nothin' gonna trouble the water.

SMILEY: That piece was reported for the TAVIS SMILEY show by Roy Hurst, with the voices of Edward Asner as Abraham Lincoln and Brock Peters as Frederick Douglass.

Editor - 2/5/2003


January 31, 2003, Friday


HEADLINE: 'She was game for anything' Do the latest revelations about Wallis Simpson give a truer picture of her character? Cassandra Jardine talks to those who knew her


The latest revelations from the Public Record Office do nothing to enhance the reputation of Wallis Simpson. She was having a secret affair with Guy Trundle, a married man from the motor industry, while she was both married to Ernest Simpson and being courted by the Prince of Wales. This feeds the view of her as a duplicitous nymphomaniac, for whom it was the height of folly for Edward VIII to throw up his crown.

Those who see the romance between the handsome king and the American divorcee as one of the great love stories of our time have suffered another blow. Had David, as she called him, known of his beloved's behaviour, perhaps he would never have decided that she mattered more to him than the Empire.

Once again, the unanswered questions about Wallis arise. Was she an adventuress who set out to ensnare the most desirable man in the world? Was the life that the Windsors led after the Abdication a long, regretful coda to a rash decision? Can love survive such sacrifice? And, perhaps, above all, what was it about her that made her so irresistible to him? The answers that those related to the Royal Family give remain damning. One member of the family, who did not wish to be named, described the Duchess as "hard, cold and tough" - but, as she explained, "Of course, I saw how many lives she shattered".

Those who knew the Duchess in her later years are not so harsh. The interior designer Nicky Haslam met her for the first time in 1962, when he was working for American Vogue; he was smitten. "I loved her. She was nice, kind, funny, sassy. When she came into a room, something sparked. She always had the latest quip and the most wonderful clothes. She was very informal and open, too. 'Hi, I'm Wallis,' she would say."

Over many lunches, they talked about where they'd been, who they'd seen, about magazines and American musicals. Haslam adored her taste - French, stylish, avant garde: "She learnt it from Lady Elsie Mendl." Mendl's cushions were embroidered with the words "You can never be too thin or too rich" -words that were later credited to Wallis. Although she didn't invent the maxim, she certainly seemed to live by its lights.

"She liked rich people, but who doesn't?" says Haslam. "I don't think she set out to get him. She didn't realise what was happening. He was the biggest catch in the world and she did try to get out of it but he threatened to kill himself."

As for Wallis's affair with the car salesman Guy Trundle, Haslam doesn't see the problem. "Ernest was having an affair and she didn't have to be faithful to the Prince of Wales before she married him. If anything, it shows a side of her I liked: she was uncalculating."

Haslam was more fond of her than of the Duke, who "wasn't so hot", in his opinion. "I've a funny feeling that the Royal Family disliked him more than her. He was strange about money, so mean that he refused to give his brother an allowance for the Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret Rose."

David Metcalfe, the Duke of Windsor's godson, calls the Trundle story "rot". He is not hostile to Wallis so much as loyal to the Duke. "He was the one with charm. She was amusing, quick not witty, bright but not charming - though clearly she had charm for him. She used to wave her hands around a lot - they were very large hands and she also had a loud voice, an ugly one, and she never stopped talking."

He saw them often, in their houses in France, at his parents' house in Gloucestershire (his father, "Fruity" Metcalfe, was the Duke's ADC). He was fond rather than admiring of the Duke, whose opinions he describes as "extremely Right-wing" and "often wrong": "What others thought of him was one thing, what he thought of himself was another.

"As for the Duchess, she was a superb maitresse de maison. Everything about the house was perfect. That was her point. She felt he had given up so much for her that she tried very hard to make him happy."

Their house in the Bois de Boulogne, the one later bought by Mohamed Fayed, was not to everyone's taste. Lord Lichfield, a cousin of the Queen, visited several times to take photographs for American Vogue. He describes it as "a dark, gloomy, very stately mini-chateau, memorable for the enormous number of porcelain pugs".

Despite his background, he found Wallis intimidating. "In the running of her house, she was more formal than any royal here: she wanted things done instantly. But every comfort was provided and this was long before the days when people put Jo Malone in the guest bathroom. Everything was so immaculate that I felt embarrassed even stubbing out a cigarette. I felt I was spoiling their perfect world.

"The Duke was very vain, very dressy. He always wore a kilt for dinner and had an enormous collection of immaculate suits. The Duchess was constantly thinking and talking clothes. I remember a terrible scene when she appeared at a party and there was another woman wearing the same dress. It was Givenchy's fault, but she carried it off well: she went up to the other woman and embraced her."

As a photographic subject, however, she was tricky. "She was quite fussy; she wasn't a beauty and I hadn't photographed many mature women. It was difficult, too, because Diana Vreeland [the editor of American Vogue and a friend of the Duchess's] wanted her photographed in profile so she could see if she had had cosmetic surgery."

When he took his traveller's tales back to England, they were not well received. "Really?" said the Queen Mother icily, when he told her he had been to visit the Windsors. "People felt they had let the side down," he explains.

Wallis's reputation for being the best dressed woman in the world was one she lived up to, says constitutional historian Kenneth Rose. He describes her conversation as like "the rattle of a cocktail shaker" but he has an abiding image of her at one of the dinner parties he attended.

"She was wearing something I hadn't seen before, raw silk. It was absolutely sheer over her wonderful figure and the only jewels she wore were two huge diamonds. Her hair was always marvellous. And the food it made everyone else's look like boarding house fare."

Haslam says that she served nouvelle cuisine before the term was invented. But she ate little of it herself, and in her later years consumed little apart from vodka and lettuce. Conversation was her forte and she was adept at teasing guests and tossing the conversation across the table.

The Windsors' guest lists have been described as "cafe society flotsam" but Kenneth Rose remembers gatherings of ambassadors, scientists - and always one or two German speakers, because the Duke loved the language. Often, Haslam remembers, the Duke would get drunk and start singing German songs, at which point Wallis would say, "Oh David", and cross the room

They entertained, but, in other ways, the Duke was mean. David Metcalfe never received any presents from his godfather and was amazed to be left a pair of cufflinks. On his wife, however, the Duke lavished money. They lived in great luxury: waited on at home by servants in royal white-tie livery; abroad, they stayed in suites in the very best hotels, such as the Waldorf in New York. He showered her with jewellery, furs and couture clothes.

Much of the non-family jewellery was made in New York by Kenneth J Lane. "I loved dining with her," he says. "The lighting was always marvellous, very flattering and she had a wonderful sense of the ridiculous, too. That's what got him in the first place.

"Also, she was game for anything. I once drove with her down Broadway past the sleazy cinemas and she asked me if I ever went to movies like that. I said I'd taken Diana Vreeland to Deep Throat. 'Oh, I'd love to see that,' she said."

To Lane, she remained very real, very American, and never expressed any bitterness about how life had worked out. But were the Windsors happy? Many of those who knew Wallis best are now dead, and Grace, Countess of Dudley, who accompanied her to her husband's funeral, remains tight-lipped. "I will never speak about my dear friend. It's another world," she said sadly, when I caught up with her in Kenneth Lane's shop.

Wallis had certainly done well after a difficult early life. Although her parents came from notable Baltimore families, her father died young, leaving her mother to supplement the family income by sewing. Aged 19, she had made a disastrous first marriage to a naval officer who drank and abused her. Her second marriage introduced her to British society and, before long, she was not just the latest in the Prince of Wales's string of married or divorced women but the love of his life.

Some say the marriage was uneasy. Nicky Haslam suspects they had no sex life, although there was never any talk of him chasing other women. Rose, who has read the Duke's correspondence with earlier girlfriends, thinks there is no reason to suppose that it was a mariage blanc. Certainly, the Duke was constantly attentive to his wife, invariably coming downstairs to open her car door when she went out to lunch or to one of the endless string of appointments with couturiers, hairdressers or shoe shops.

Wallis has been called a dominatrix. "She was too nice for that," says Haslam. "She had great sympathy for him; she knew the horrors he had been subjected to in childhood." But Rose was shocked by the way she bossed her husband around. "Everyone wants you to leave," she said to the Duke once, when he and Rose sat chatting after dinner.

The marriage was only obviously wobbly at one point. "In the early Fifties, she got tied up with Jimmy Donohue [son to the heir to Woolworth's]," says Haslam. "He was one of the funniest men you've ever met and she couldn't go anywhere without him. It made the Duke very unhappy but it only lasted 18 months."

Rose thinks that Wallis would have been happier living a quiet life, "like Camilla". The Duke certainly appeared wistful for the glory he had lost. The royal historian Hugo Vickers, when he visited in the Seventies, noticed a red royal box and a garter banner in the hallway. Patrick Lichfield was shown to a barn at their mill in France that was full of memorabilia from his time as Prince of Wales and King: "A vast map showed all the places he had visited and the implication was that they would still be pink if he were king".

And, of course, it was a life without work. "Was their existence pointless?" asks Metcalfe. "I don't think they thought so, though others might. He loved golf, but she was the point of it all for him and I don't think he ever regretted it. As for Wallis, she was well aware that no man had ever given up so much for a woman since Antony and Cleopatra."

Editor - 2/5/2003

By Dennis Hans

Greetings, members of the United Nations. I am writing on the eve of Secretary of State Colin Powell’s February 5 presentation on Saddam Hussein and Iraq’s alleged links to al Qaeda and its possession of and/or ongoing attempts to develop banned weapons of mass destruction. Many of you will read this after February 5, and that’s fine. You will be debating and discussing the import and details of Powell’s presentation in the days and weeks that follow, and you will be aided immeasurably by a fuller understanding of the man and his standards.

Judging from the following excerpt of an article in Sunday’s Washington Post (, European diplomats in particular have far too rosy a view of Powell’s character and credibility:

“Any hope of an agreement, a European diplomat said, rests with Powell. He is widely trusted by council governments, and many said his words this week will have a heavy impact. ‘You are lucky to have a representative for this administration that is as credible as he is,’ the European diplomat said. ‘If you didn’t have him, you’d really have much, much greater difficulties working with a whole lot of Europeans.’”

Secretary Powell is a brilliant man, but I ask that you leave open the question of trust and credibility. For starters, you might ask Hans Blix to expound on this portion of a recent New York Times article: “Mr. Blix took issue with what he said were Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's claims that the inspectors had found that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials within and outside of Iraq to prevent their discovery. He said that the inspectors had reported no such incidents” (

If Blix is correct, this suggests that Powell is willing to deceive on matters that are easily checked. What would such a man be capable of when presenting “evidence” that is not subject to verification?

Although our immediate focus is Iraq, I include below a postscript that offers evidence and citations from reputable human rights groups of Powell’s “fictitious” certifications to Congress on aid to Colombia, as well as his devotion in the 1980s to murderous governments and rebel forces in Central America and Africa whose depridations would make that European diplomat’s skin crawl.

Iraq: Powell for the prosecution

U.N. members, if you prepare properly for Powell’s presentation, you can make an invaluable contribution to your own and the world’s understanding of the true extent of Iraq’s threats to its neighbors and the global community, as well as its links, if any, to al Qaeda. If you’re not prepared, you could make a horrendous mistake with unfathomable repercussions.

Powell’s presentation will be in the form of “here is the unvarnished truth as we understand it.” But his will be a case for the prosecution and should be viewed as such. He will present only those tidbits that strengthen his case while suppressing tidbits that undermine it — and he will have a great advantage over a prosecutor in an American court.

You see, that prosecutor would earlier have taken part in what is called the “discovery” phase. The rules differ by state and by type of case, but the idea is that both sides in a trial get access to just about all the information and evidence the other side has gathered. You, on the other hand, will not be privy to the mountain of evidence from which Powell has selected his damning tidbits. You won’t have access to the material that places each accusation in its proper context, or the material that weakens or directly contradicts each accusation.

Nor will you know if certain evidence is unreliable because it was obtained through torture. On Monday Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, wrote a letter to Powell ( urging him to denounce the use of torture and not to include in his presentation any “information” obtained through torture or severe mistreatment. (An in-depth story in the Dec. 26 Washington Post, cited by Roth, indicates the administration now countenances torture.) Would the Bush administration permit U.S. intelligence agencies to torture directly and/or ship detainees to foreign torture centers in hopes of extracting the magic words “Saddam and al Qaeda — all for one and one for all”?

You might want to ask Secretary Powell.

[subhead in bold] The tubes: What did Powell know and when did he know it?

Powell has known for many months that officials in his own State Department, as well as experts in the Energy Department, doubted that those aluminum tubes Iraq tried to purchase were intended for use in a nuclear-weapons program. Yet Powell stood by as President Bush delivered three major speeches where he stated as incontrovertible fact that Iraq’s purpose for the tubes was nuclear. If the president wanted to mislead the American people — to scare them into supporting his desire for war — that was just fine with Powell.

It was in President Bush’s September speech to your body, the United Nations, that he made his first categorical statement that Iraq had attempted to purchase aluminum tubes necessary for building centrifuges for the enrichment of uranium. He didn’t say that the tubes “could” be used in a nuclear project, or that “we have grave concerns” that this might be the case. He didn’t say what he and Powell knew to be true: “Even though we lean hard on all our intelligence pros to put the worst possible spin on Iraqi actions, the truth is that many of our best people make a persuasive case that the tubes are for a non-nuclear program.”

Bush repeated his categorical statement about the tubes’ nuclear purpose in a national address October 7. He repeated it again January 28, in his State of the Union address. Between the two speeches, evidence continued to mount that the tubes were indeed for the purpose that Iraq told the U.N. inspectors: for conventional artillery rockets.

We now know, thanks to the work of">Washington Post reporter Joby Warrick (not to be confused with pretend-reporter and Powell-mouthpiece Bob Woodward), that the nuclear theory had plenty of holes from the start (“U.S. Claim on Iraqi Nuclear Program Is Called Into Question.”

Amazingly, the primary reason cited by CIA and Pentagon proponents of the nuclear theory — the fact that Iraq was seeking tubes of a precise size — is the strongest evidence for the conventional-rockets theory! (So much for the pretense by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz that the CIA is too eager to dismiss allegations of Iraqi misdeeds.) In fact, the 81mm tubes were a perfect fit for the conventional-rocket program that dated back to the 1980s, and not even close to a fit for centrifuges. On Jan. 8, reports Warrick, Dr. el Baradei of the IAEA issued his “preliminary assessment that the tubes were ‘not directly suitable’ for uranium enrichment but were ‘consistent’ with making ordinary artillery rockets -- a finding that meshed with Iraq’s official explanation for the tubes.” Yet on Jan. 28, the president continued to pretend otherwise in a nationally televised speech, confident that the major U.S. news media would let him get away with one more lie. Confident that his much admired and respected secretary of state would side with him, rather than the American people who were the target of the lie.

Big lies that go unchallenged produce big results for Bush and Powell

Recall what else Bush was saying around the time he first told his tall tubular tale: He was trying to scare the hell out of the American people and Congress with warnings about the grave and imminent nuclear threat posed by Saddam. At a Sept. 7 news conference, Bush said, “I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied — finally denied access [in 1998], a report came out of the Atomic — the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need.” But as Joseph Curl reported three weeks later in the conservative">Washington Times, there was no such report: “In October 1998, just before Saddam kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq, the IAEA laid out a case opposite of Mr. Bush’s Sept. 7 declaration: ‘There are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance,’ IAEA Director-General Mohammed Elbaradei wrote in a report to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.”

But Bush’s lie was reported widely as fact, and along with other lies it has had a tremendous impact on public perceptions. According to a recent">Knight-Ridder poll, 41 percent of Americans believe Saddam has nuclear weapons while only 24 percent know the truth: he has none. If Bush and Powell had a policy of leveling with the American people, support for a war would plummet.

There is a long list of lies and half-truths in Bush’s three major speeches on Iraq, as the Institute for Public Accuracy ( and others have shown. Each lie and half-truth merits its own investigation, to determine just how long that Powell and Bush have known it was all or partly false, yet continued to peddle it. It is bad enough to take unconfirmed rumors and pass them off on the public as certified facts. But it is unconscionable to knowingly, willfully mislead the American public and the community of nations in order to trick them into waging a war of aggression.

How to stage your own “discovery” phase

You won’t have access to the raw data from which Powell will build his case, but if you try hard enough you can have the next best thing: honest national-security bureaucrats who’ve seen all this data and, in recent months, have provided to the handful of serious reporters in Washington careful analyses that directly contradict the party line pushed by Powell and Bush. These reporter include the Post’s Joby Warrick, Knight-Ridder’s Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel ( ), and the Los Angeles Times’ Greg Miller and Bob Drogin (

The reporters and their sources can help you start your own “discovery” process. It could begin the day of Powell’s presentation and continue in the days and weeks that follow. It can be carried out in a manner that safeguards intelligence “sources and methods” and in conjunction with those members of the U.S. Congress who are still eager to have the free, open and honest debate they were denied last fall.

These dedicated, experienced officials, Landay and Strobel report, “charge that the administration squelches dissenting views and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House’s argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary. ‘Analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books,’ said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity. A dozen other officials echoed his views in interviews. No one who was interviewed disagreed.”

I can’t tell you their names. I don’t know them because they spoke to the reporters on the condition they not be named. Landay and Strobel explained why: “None of the dissenting officials, who work in a number of different agencies, would agree to speak publicly, out of fear of retribution.”

Powell is on the side of the squelchers and the bullies. He is no friend of the frightened officials who want nothing more than for their leaders to be honest with the American people.

Bring these reporters to New York. Ask them to tell you what their sources told them. Ask them how to reach their sources, and plead with those sources to go public. Tell them there is safety in numbers. If 20 blow the whistle, it will be impossible for the White House to discredit them all. Ask dissident members of the U.S. Congress, former President Jimmy Carter and retired General Anthony Zinni to echo your plea. It only takes a few brave bureaucrats to open the floodgates for dozens more to follow.

Only by bringing these well-informed, honorable patriots out into the open can U.S. citizens and the world community begin to have the full, open and honest debate that we absolutely must have before making such a momentous and fateful decision to go — or not to go — to war.

The ultimate “team player” on a team that cheats

All his career, Colin Powell has been known as a “team player.” But as was the case in the 1980s, today he’s playing on a team that cheats. Ponder for a moment the words of the thoughtful Wall Street Journal reporter David Wessel, writing in the December 12 edition:

“[T]his administration seems particularly proud of its skill in misleading the press, the public and Congress, when convenient. It has even hired Elliott Abrams and John Poindexter, both of whom were convicted of lying to Congress about Reagan-era aid to Nicaraguan rebels. . . . A White House aide who had told me one thing on the record a few weeks ago tried to persuade me over the weekend, not for attribution, that the opposite was true. I protested. His reply: ‘Why would I lie? Because that’s what I’m supposed to do. Lying to the press doesn’t prick anyone’s conscience.’”

Lying to the press is the same thing as lying to the public. It’s a hallmark of the Bush team, and Powell is its all-star. Beware.

Sincerely yours, Dennis Hans

Postscript: More Reasons to Be Wary of and Sickened by Powell

Human Rights Watch says Powell files “fictitious” certification on Colombia

On January 14, 2003, Human Rights Watch (HRW) held a press conference to announce the release of its latest world report. Executive director Kenneth Roth said that Powell’s State Department twice in 2002 issued “fictitious” certifications that Colombia had met the human-rights and rule-of-laws conditions that the U.S. Congress had attached to Colombia aid. Congress required him to make an honest judgment, and HRW, Amnesty International and the Washington Office on Latin America demonstrate in a collaborative report that Powell did no such thing ( He says Colombia met all of the conditions; they say none. If you read the report, you’ll be hard-pressed to consider this an “honest disagreement.”

Two of my own articles (, address Powell’s slippery — dare I say “Clintonesque” — language in 2001 when the State Department designated the AUC (a rightwing paramilitary death-squad federation in Colombia) a “Foreign Terrorist Organization.” The carefully worded statement included not a hint of a relationship between the AUC and the U.S.-backed Colombian army. HRW has, for years, documented that intimate working relationship. If Powell had acknowledged the obvious truth, he and President Bush would have been placed in the awkward position of justifying continued aid to an army that, in a myriad of ways, aids and abets terrorists.

Powell proud of his support for murderous contras

During the 1980s, thousands of Nicaraguan were murdered by a terrorist rebel force known as the contras, which had been created by the U.S. from the remnants of the hated National Guard of the deposed Somoza dictatorship. The U.S. organized, armed and trained the contras, directed them to attack defenseless Nicaraguan villages, and produced and distributed a handbook that justified and encouraged the assassination of local officials. In 1986 the International Court of Justice ordered the Reagan administration to end the contra war and pay reparations to Nicaragua. It did neither.

You can read all about the contras in the gruesome reports of HRW, whose careful documentation has stood the test of time. But, you ask, what does that have to do with Powell? To this day, Powell is proud of his contribution to the contra cause. Here’s what he said to journalists Norman Solomon and Robert Parry in 1995:

“Working for Ronald Reagan as his deputy national security adviser and national security adviser, I worked very hard, fought very hard to get adequate support to the contras, the freedom fighters, who were resisting the communist government of the Ortegas in Nicaragua.... I have no regrets about my role.” (

According to HRW, the contras made torture, murder of defenseless civilians, and execution of surrendered enemy soldiers standard operating procedure. In the eyes of Powell, the contras were “freedom fighters.”

A word on the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Negroponte

The Reagan team had bribed the brutal generals who ran Honduras behind a democratic façade to provide bases and sanctuary for the contras. You see, the contras, unlike a legitimate guerrilla force, could not establish themselves in their own country. The CIA helped the worst of the Honduran military set up a death squad called Battalion 316, which developed a habit of torturing suspects to death. The man whose job it was to hush this up, to pretend that no systematic abuses were being committed by our allies, was the U.S. ambassador. His name is John Negroponte, and many U.S. senators, as well as his predecessor in Honduras, consider him dishonest. But he’s a good friend of Powell’s, and today he’s the U.S. ambassador to the U.N.

The only notable black American to countenance Constructive Engagement

Ask your fellow ambassadors from South Africa, Angola, Mozambique, the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire) and Namibia what they thought of the “Reagan Doctrine” and of “Constructive Engagement” with South Africa. Ask them how many of their countrymen were slaughtered in the 1980s as a result of U.S. support for monsters named Savimbi and Mobutu. Ask them about the strategic alliance between Powell’s president and the apartheid regime that was destabilizing the entire southern African region. The number slaughtered as a direct result surely is in the hundreds of thousands. Ask these African ambassadors what they think of a black man who is proud to have served in the uppermost foreign-policy reaches of an administration that conceived the abomination known as Constructive Engagement.

No African American of stature other than Powell would have willingly served as a cheerleader for the Reagan Doctrine, with its murderous consequences in Africa and beyond. Perhaps this helps explain why Powell is so beloved by the big names of America’s lilywhite, center-right news media.

My background

I’m a moderate liberal who, in the 1990s, taught courses on American foreign policy and mass communications as an adjunct (part-time) professor at the University of South Florida’s St. Petersburg campus. In the 1980s I wrote a number of essays and book reviews on U.S. intervention in the Third World and how the major U.S. media tended to stick close to the White House party line (a tendency that’s in full force today). The essays appeared in Christianity & Crisis, the National Catholic Reporter and the Berkshire Eagle newspaper. Today I write as an opponent of the looming war, hoping to persuade you to join me in opposition.

I have no love for Saddam Hussein. I regard him as one of many brutal dictators whose most grisly crimes were committed in the 1980s, when they had strong support from the Reagan administration that Powell so loyally served. My preferred solution to the current crisis is for Saddam to go into exile, with a 5-year grant of immunity from international prosecution, after which he must fend for himself. He can come to my state, sunny Florida, where two U.S.-backed Salvadoran generals whose human rights record is nearly as appalling as Saddam’s are enjoying their retirement in relative tranquility.

# # #

Bio: Dennis Hans is a freelance writer whose work has appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, National Post (Canada) and online at, Slate and The Black World Today (, among other outlets. He has taught courses in mass communications and American foreign policy at the University of South Florida-St. Petersburg, and can be reached at

©2003 by Dennis Hans


Editor - 2/5/2003

Sydney Morning Herald

January 30, 2003 Thursday

SECTION: News And Features; Pg. 11

HEADLINE: Another Attempt To Get At The Truth About Pius XII

BYLINE: Desmond O'grady

The controversy over the alleged silence of the head of the Catholic Church about Nazi treatment of Jews is about to be revisited, Desmond O'Grady reports.

THE troubled Catholic-Jewish relations are certain to be put under further stress when Vatican archival material about the controversial Pope Pius XII is released next month.

An attempt to investigate the pontiff by a team of Catholic and Jewish scholars broke down in 2000 amid much acrimony. Some members accused the Vatican of a cover-up, but there were answering charges of prejudice and breach of confidence against some of the Jewish scholars. The release of archival information comes at an unusually sensitive time for Rome as Vatican procedures are under way which could lead to Pius XII being declared a saint. But he is also accused of being "Hitler's Pope", culpably silent about wartime persecution of Jews.

During the 1920s the future Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli, was the Vatican's man in Germany and, from 1930, was the Vatican secretary of state. On the death of Pius XI in 1939, he was elected Pope, taking the name Pius XII.

In the past, all archival material concerning a pontificate had to be ready before the Vatican made any available. But this time is different. The archives regarding his predecessor, Pius XI (1922-39), will be ready on January 1, 2005. But it has been decided to make available now a portion of them, the 640 files regarding Holy See-Germany relations, from February 15.

Cardinal Jorge Maria Mejia, an Argentinian in charge of the Vatican archives and library, has pointed out that the Vatican has 46 archivists for 90 kilometres of archives and fewer than 90 librarians for 50 kilometres of library shelves (compared with 4200 librarians at the Library of Congress in Washington).

"Opening archives is not like opening a wardrobe where everything is ready," said Mejia. What guarantee is there that compromising documents will not be hidden or that whitewashing alterations made? "It is a matter of trust," he said.

He has said that this year the archives will also issue six CD-ROMs containing nearly 4million entries on prisoners of war and other people dispersed in the period 1940-46.

A wartime office Pius XII established to help people searching for lost relatives or friends gathered this information. The Vatican handled 100,000 requests on the fate of Jews who had remained in Germany.

When the Australian Cardinal Edward Cassidy headed the Vatican Council for Christian Unity which has a section concerned with Catholic-Jewish relations he encouraged establishment of the joint Catholic-Jewish panel of historians to examine Pius XII's wartime behaviour. Although it caused further controversy, Cassidy's successor, the German Cardinal Walter Kasper, has continued to push for Vatican openness over Pius XII.

Some Vatican officials believe that the 640 files now unsealed will help end "unjust speculation" about Pius XII.

Anyone can apply to consult the files but the archives can accommodate only about 70 people daily. Applicants must indicate the pontificate they want to study but do not have to specify further within the period concerned.

In the 15 years to 1981, four Jesuit historians trawled the Vatican archives to gather material for 12 volumes on the Minutes and Documents of the Holy See during World War II. But church outsiders question whether they provide an impartial record.

The Vatican defence of Pius XII has been that he wanted to avoid saying anything, even if it was true, which could worsen the situation of potential Nazi victims.

His temperament and training disposed him to take a diplomatic approach. Nevertheless, many Jews were saved in Catholic religious institutes opened to them at Pius's suggestion.

Immediately after the war, Jews of various nations thanked Pius. The Israeli leader Golda Meir said: "When fearful martyrdom came to our people in the decade of Nazi terror, the voice of the Pope was raised for the victims."

However, the mood changed in 1963 when a 31-year-old German, Rolf Hochhuth, in his play The Deputy, alleged that Pius pussyfooted about the Nazi persecution. He contended that the Pope might have prevented deportations and the murder of many Jewish people had he spoken out against the Nazi extermination camps.

When the play was first unveiled in Berlin, Hochhuth's work attracted much attention in a Germany populated by a generation still coming to terms with the 1945 defeat. Soon translated into English, The Deputy opened on Broadway in 1964 and in a welter of publicity was condemned allround. "[The] facts may be in dispute, the history imperfect; the indictment too severe," The New York Times declared.

But the unmentionable had been uttered publicly and arguments broke out on both sides that still reverberate in Catholic and Jewish circles. Over the years, the charge escalated to collusion with the Nazis and the controversy caused increasing damage to Catholic-Jewish relations.

Father Peter Gumpel, the German Jesuit who is relator for the cause of Pius XII,said: "I welcome the unsealing of the files because I'm confident that the more is known about Pius XII the better it will be for his reputation."

It is a safe bet that there will also be appeals to open the wartime files. As Pius reigned until 1958, it is likely to be many years before the Vatican's understaffed archivists catalogue his pontificate's documents.

Editor - 2/5/2003

Ottawa Citizen

January 30, 2003 Thursday Final Edition

SECTION: Arts; Pg. F1

HEADLINE: The new Cromwell: 50 per cent more mean

SOURCE: The Daily Telegraph

BYLINE: Elizabeth Day and Chris Hastings


LONDON - A new British film that depicts Oliver Cromwell as a homicidal thug who bathes his hands in the blood of King Charles I has been condemned by historians for "violating" the nation's history.

The producers of To Kill A King, a $50-million blockbuster that stars Rupert Everett, Dougray Scott and Tim Roth, have been accused of attempting to turn Cromwell --one of the founding fathers of parliamentary democracy -- into a caricature villain for American audiences.

The historians argue that Cromwell is unnecessarily vilified and audiences will be deeply misled about one of the most critical periods in British history.

In one scene invented by the film's scriptwriters, Cromwell, played by Tim Roth, defends the execution of the King while standing over the body, his hands dripping with the monarch's blood. In another, he shoots dead a market trader selling trinkets because such activity is apparently contrary to the "revolutionary spirit" of the times. Professor Richard Holmes, the military historian who profiled Cromwell for the BBC's Great Britons series last November, said: "There's no evidence at all for the bathing hands in blood incident. It's join-the-dots history. I worry enormously about the damage done to history by some films. I would have hoped we were above demonizing Cromwell, but obviously we're not."

Referring to the film's explicit portrayal of brutality and bloodshed, Professor Holmes added: "There was no gulag; there were no killing fields. Cromwell is unpopular precisely because he tried to pursue a middle path and appease different sides.

"He's not a comfortable man to understand, but to depict him as a monster is utterly wrong."

The film, to be released later this year, charts the deteriorating relationship between Oliver Cromwell and Lord Fairfax, his military commander. Cromwell is accused of executing the monarch because of personal spite.

John Morrill, professor of British and Irish history at Cambridge University and the author of a number of books on Cromwell, said: "From having read the synopsis I think the film is taking a lot of poetic licence: it violates history. It looks to me as though it is simplified much more than it needs to be, given that the real story itself is such a good one.

"The execution of the King was actually a very reluctant move on Cromwell's part. Throughout 1647, Cromwell was desperately trying to reach a settlement with Charles I and underwent a long period of doubt and uncertainty."

Lord Russell, the Liberal Democrat peer, historian and author of several books on the Civil War, added: "Historical films have a duty to be compatible with the record and not deliberately go against the facts.

Cromwell was capable of extreme ruthlessness, but almost always in the cause of long-term peace. He was far too complex to judge in this way on film."

Fairfax was made commander-in-chief of the parliamentary New Model Army in 1645, with Cromwell as his second-in-command. While the two men were known to respect each other's military reputations, there is scant evidence suggesting the profound friendship depicted in the film.

Born to a noble family in 1599, Cromwell was to distinguish himself as both a military commander and a parliamentarian. After the defeat of the Royalists in 1648, he was named Lord Protector of the newly established Commonwealth and became King of England in all but name.

Shortly after his death in 1658, Cromwell's body was exhumed on the orders of the restored Charles II as a warning to would-be traitors. Although opinion about his legacy is polarized, his statue appears outside the House of Commons in honour of his position as one of the key figures in parliamentary democracy. Mike Barker, the film's director, admitted he had taken an imaginative approach with the facts, but he insisted the film captured the spirit of the times.

He said: "We have included our own amendments and half-truths in the film because, after all, it is a drama. We do show him at the scaffold when the King is executed, and we do show him putting his hands in the blood of the King.

"I know those things didn't happen, but we are trying to illustrate the idea that Cromwell was responsible for the execution of the King."

Editor - 2/5/2003

The Guardian (London)

January 30, 2003

SECTION: Guardian Home Pages, Pg. 12

HEADLINE: Monarch's unheard public appeal to hang on to throne

BYLINE: Stephen Bates

At the height of the 1936 abdication crisis, Edward VIII was only narrowly headed off from making a radio appeal for public support and professing his intention to return.

The text of what would have been an explosive broadcast is revealed for the first time in the papers published today, together with the government's successful attempts to prevent it being made.

Although the fact that Edward wanted to make the broadcast, on December 4, had been known to historians, the text shows how incendiary it would have been. It would have been made three days after the news of the king's plans to marry Mrs Simpson broke on a largely astonished British public and while he and the government were still discussing what should happen. It is thought the script was at least partially written by Winston Churchill. He and the fascist leader Oswald Mosley were the only leading politicians to back the king.

Addressing "my friends, British men and women wher ever you may reside, within or without the Empire", Edward thanks the British press for their "courtesy and consideration" in not publishing details of his situation. He goes on: "It was never my intention to hide anything from you. Hitherto it has not been possible for me to speak, but now I must."

What follows is a clear plea for understanding, with echoes of the broadcast he made after his abdication a week later: "I could not go on bearing the heavy burdens that constantly rest on me as king, unless I could be strengthened in the task by a happy married life; and so I am firmly resolved to marry the woman I love, when she is free to marry me.

"You know me well enough to understand that I never could have contemplated a marriage of convenience. It has taken me a long time to find the woman I want to make my wife. Without her, I have been a very lonely man.

"With her, I shall have a home and all the companionship and mutual sympathy and understanding which married life can bring. I know that many of you have had the good fortune to be blessed with such a life and I am sure that in your hearts you would wish the same for me."

Then, economical with the truth, he denies that he ever wanted Mrs Simpson to be queen: "All that we desired was that our married happiness should carry with it a proper title and dignity for her, befitting my wife." That was something that, to his lasting grievance, would always be denied her by the royal family.

The message ends with a naked bid to retain position: "Now that I have at last been able to take you so fully into my confidence, I feel it is best to go away for a while, so that you may reflect calmly and quietly but without undue delay on what I have said.

"Nothing is nearer to my heart than that I should return; but whatever may befall, I shall always have a deep affection for my country, for the Empire and for you all."

An unknown government hand scrawled in pencil underneath the transcript: "No word about abdication."

Stanley Baldwin's government was appalled. The cabinet met and a memo was drafted "for PM, Saturday morning breakfast Dec 5" to point out the difficulties - chiefly that the monarch could only say what his ministers allowed. The prime minister rushed the government's view to Fort Belvedere, the king's private home near Windsor.

By then, however, the fight was already going out of Edward and later that day he told the prime minister he was prepared to abdicate. "Our cock won't fight. No dice," Lord Beaverbrook, the press magnate and another supporter, told Churchill.

A week after the putative broadcast, once his abdication was formally confirmed, Edward did indeed broadcast live to the British people, in another address believed to have been at least partly drafted by Churchill.

This time he made clear he was going: "You must believe me when I tell you that I have found it impossible to carry the heavy burden of responsibility and to discharge my duties as king as I would wish to do without the help and support of the woman I love."

Editor - 2/5/2003

The Washington Post

February 02, 2003, Sunday, Final Edition


HEADLINE: A Long Trek to The Truth

BYLINE: Robert Manne

For an under-the-radar movie that takes an obscure and disturbing slice of Australia's history as its subject,"Rabbit-Proof Fence" -- currently playing in just two area theaters -- has drawn a surprising amount of attention. Many critics, however, while praising the film, have wondered whether it portrays Australia's past Aboriginal policies accurately. The movie triggered the same question, and far more discord, when it was released in Australia a year ago. Outlook asked Melbourne historian and journalist Robert Manne to respond.

"Rabbit-Proof Fence" tells the purportedly true story of three "half-caste" girls from an Aboriginal settlement in the north of Western Australia who, in accordance with state policy at the time, were seized from their families by police in 1931 and transported to a government compound far to the south. The girls escaped, evaded a hunting party and, in a remarkable feat of ingenuity and endurance, walked 1,000 miles home through the desert. Guiding them was the north-south fence that had been built to keep rabbits out of pastoral lands to the west. "Rabbit-Proof Fence" is an absorbing drama, as might be expected of a film by Phillip Noyce, a director who is as well-known in Hollywood as he is in his native Australia. In general, it is a faithful account of a real incident, based on public records and on a memoir written by the oldest girl's daughter. But it is also much more than that. In showing that the girls were seized from loving mothers, who suffered overwhelming grief, and that the architect of the removal policy was a man driven by the vision of a society cleansed of so-called half-castes, the film offers a clear and controversial interpretation of Aboriginal child removal policies in 20th-century Australia.

No episode in the country's history is more ideologically sensitive than the story of what are now called the "stolen generations." In 1997 the publication of an official report into Aboriginal child removal precipitated a harrowing and as-yet-unresolved national debate. Liberal opinion was shocked by the revelation that a violation of such a profound and universal kind -- the forcible separation of mothers and children -- had occurred so widely and so recently. (The policy continued until 1970.) The right responded that if children were taken it was either because of maternal neglect or because half-castes were rejected by the "full-blood" tribes. The issue was clouded by preexisting arguments between supporters and opponents of Aboriginal land claims and the idea of reparations for past wrongs. Many people dismissed the report as propaganda.

When "Rabbit-Proof Fence" was released in Australia last February, and the story became part of popular culture, this debate deepened. Now the film has reached an international audience, which may not previously have thought of Australia as a country confronted by internal issues of race. It is self-evidently important for audiences to know whether the story it tells is representative and whether the historical interpretation it offers is, broadly speaking, true.

Around the turn of the 20th century, the so-called "chief protectors" of Aborigines in Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia -- the three colonies where traditional Aboriginal communities still existed -- were each struck by an identical thought. As a result of the frequency of sexual relations between Aboriginal women and European men, a discomfiting new racial type had emerged at the frontier. The protectors believed that it was of the greatest importance that the "problem" of the half-castes be "solved."

In 1899, the chief protector in Western Australia, Henry Prinsep, wrote the following typical report: "The intercourse between the races is leading to a considerable increase of half-castes. Each half-caste is a menace to the future moral safety of the community." Prinsep's aim was to remove such children from the Aboriginals' bush camps. Standing in his way was the fact that the law gave him no power to remove Aboriginal children without parental consent.

In 1905, the law was changed in Western Australia to allow for the removal of half-caste children. Other states soon followed suit. The transfer of such children to Christian missions or state institutions now began in earnest. In Western Australia the most enthusiastic enforcer of the policy was James Isdell, that state's traveling protector for the north. In November 1908, Isdell wrote to the chief protector, "I consider it a great scandal to allow any of these half-caste girls to remain with the natives." In January 1909, Isdell was issued the authority to "collect all half-caste boys and girls." He expressed his gratitude: "It should have been done years ago."

Isdell was aware that sentimentalists from the south sometimes wrote letters to newspapers "detailing the cruelty and harrowing grief of the mothers." This seemed to him nonsense. He did not believe that the Aboriginal mother felt the forcible removal of her child any more deeply than did a bitch the loss of a pup. "I would not hesitate," he wrote, "to separate any half-caste from its aboriginal mother, no matter how frantic momentary grief might be. They soon forget their offspring."

In 1915, A.O. Neville, a young, English-born public servant, was appointed chief protector in Western Australia. He was to become one of the most influential administrators of Aborigines in Australian history. Neville, played by Kenneth Branagh, is the main non-indigenous character in "Rabbit-Proof Fence."

The Western Australian archives reveal much about Neville's half-caste policy. Under this system the preferred minimum age for removal was 6, especially in the case of girls. Removals occurred without any reference to the courts; the selection criteria were solely age and racial caste, never parental neglect. Neville was aware that his policy occasioned great suffering among Aboriginal mothers. In 1919, he warned the commissioner of police that it was unwise to notify a local station "beforehand of the date upon which the children are to be taken away, as this would undoubtedly lead to the mother hiding the youngsters."

The institution to which the three girls in "Rabbit-Proof Fence" were sent was the Moore River Native Settlement, established 80 miles north of Perth in 1916 and operated by the government. In part it served as an Aboriginal dumping ground. In a separate compound, fenced off from the camp, it also served as a place where half-caste children were prepared for work in European society, as manual laborers if they were boys and as cheap domestic servants if they were girls. Not surprisingly, escapes from the compound were common, although successful escapes, of the kind shown in the film, appear to have been rare.

Of all the racial anxieties concerning Aborigines of mixed descent none went deeper in the interwar period than the alarm Europeans felt when they encountered a "near-white" child -- the offspring of a half-caste mother and a European father -- living among the blacks. In one scene in "Rabbit-Proof Fence," Neville inspects the skins of the compound children. His purpose is to select lighter children for transference to a "quarter-caste" institution. Was it true that in the early 1930s an Australian government official might be involved in choosing children for placement in a special-purpose home exclusively on the basis of the color of their skin?

The facts are these: In 1932, Sister Kate Clutterbuck of Perth wrote to Neville offering to establish a home for orphaned or abandoned Aboriginal children. Neville convinced her to establish instead a home for so-called quarter-castes. In 1933, such children began entering Sister Kate's. All connections between them and their families were severed. The children received a standard education and training in "civilized" manners. But that wasn't all. At Sister Kate's the aim was to exorcise from those children all trace of Aboriginality. In a trivial sense the selection scene in "Rabbit-Proof Fence" is slightly inaccurate. These three girls escaped from Moore River two years before recruiting for Sister Kate's began. In a non-trivial sense, however, the skin-color selection scene is real. In another scene in the film, Neville lectures a small audience of middle-class ladies on his plans for "breeding out the color" of the "half-castes."

This takes us to the heart of Neville's philosophy -- his determination, as he explained to a startled Perth journalist in 1933, to turn blacks into whites within three or four generations. Neville's racial strategy can be explained briefly like this: Around 1930 most Australians were convinced that tribal Aborigines were certain, eventually, to die out. But they were also becoming aware that throughout Australia the number of half-castes was rapidly increasing. If these half-castes continued to mate freely with "full-bloods" or their own kind and to form half-caste communities, an incalculable menace to social stability and to the dream of White Australia would arise.

What was to be done? Very occasionally, the sterilization of half-castes was suggested. Far more commonly, however, a program of encouraged miscegenation -- between half-caste or quarter-caste females and European males -- was proposed, as the only practical solution to the "problem." Neville was one of the most influential advocates of this policy.

The implication is clear. If it was believed that tribal or full-blood Aborigines would not survive, then a scientific program for the racial extinction of the half-castes represented a policy for the elimination of the Australian Aborigine. This Neville understood. In April 1937, at the first-ever national conference of Aboriginal administrators, he posed the following question: "Are we going to have a population of one million blacks in the Commonwealth, or are we going to merge them into our white community and eventually forget that there were any Aborigines in Australia?"

At this conference, Neville's absorption policy was accepted as a national goal, although after 1945 it was called assimilation and lost its overtly eugenic dimension. A survey conducted in the early 1990s discovered that between 1910 and 1970, when the practice was abandoned, as many as 10 percent of Aboriginal children had been taken from their mothers and communities. The pain of child removal lives on in the memories of almost all Aboriginal families, who still await a formal government apology.

"Rabbit-Proof Fence" is far from being propaganda. Rather, this simple story of the seizure and escape of three young half-caste girls is a sober, historically accurate account of the racial fantasies and phobias, as well as the frankly genocidal thoughts, that masqueraded as policies promoting Aboriginal "welfare" in Australia's interwar years. </body> Robert Manne, professor of politics at La Trobe University, Melbourne, is the author of "In Denial: The Stolen Generations and the Right" (Black Inc).

Editor of HNN - 2/5/2003


February 02, 2003, Sunday


HEADLINE: Revealed: the secret tapes made by the Queen Mother Her real opinions on the Royal Family and her assessments of politicians were set down in interviews during her final decade. Andrew Alderson reports


QUEEN ELIZABETH the Queen Mother spent the last decade of her life giving secret tape-recorded interviews for her official biography, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

The interviews, in which the Queen Mother discloses her most intimate thoughts on a wide range of controversial subjects, were conducted in order to provide accurate, first person material that could be used after her death.

It is believed that the Queen Mother, who died last year aged 101, discussed the abdication crisis of 1936, her views on other members of the Royal Family and her assessment of leading politicians.

The interviews were carried out by Sir Eric Anderson, her friend and the former Head Master of Eton College. He conducted hours of taped interviews with her and had lengthy notes typed up which he has given to the Queen for the Royal Archives at Windsor Castle. The material will be given to the Queen Mother's official biographer when he, or she, is chosen by the Queen later this year. The writer will also be given access to the Queen Mother's letters and private papers. Capt Sir Alastair Aird, who was private secretary to the Queen Mother for the last nine years of her life, yesterday confirmed that the interviews had taken place, usually at Royal Lodge, the Queen Mother's country house in the middle of Windsor Great Park.

"Sir Eric did interview the Queen Mother on a number of occasions. Obviously all the notes he made and any conversations he recorded will be of great help to the person who is eventually appointed as the official biographer. This was done for historical purposes and to get an accurate record of her views," he said.

Kenneth Rose, 78, the writer and a friend of the Queen Mother, said yesterday that he had also known about the recorded interviews and was surprised that the Queen Mother had allowed her memories to be recorded.

Mr Rose, who wrote an acclaimed biography of George V, said: "The Queen Mother was always rather inhibited by machines and being recorded so that when I had talks with her at Clarence House about King George V, I never even made notes."

Most friends of the Queen Mother, who prided herself on her discretion, will, however, be surprised that she was willing to give long interviews. She spent the last 79 years of her life unwilling to give official interviews after an unfortunate early experience with the media in 1923.

She made indiscreet remarks to newspaper journalists when, aged 22, it was announced that she had become engaged to Prince Albert, Duke of York, the second son of George V. The King and Queen Mary were angry and told her not to speak to the media again. It meant that few members of the public ever heard her voice.

Andrew Roberts, the historian whose latest book Hitler and Churchill is published on Tuesday, was astonished yesterday to learn of the taped interviews. "This will be invaluable to the future biographer. They will form the 'Crown Jewels' of all the material about her life," he said. "To hear the Queen Mother's voice reminiscing about her life in any tie-in television programme linked to the book would be wonderful."

Sir Eric, who is now Provost of Eton, and the Queen Mother used to meet in what is known as the "saloon", the spacious and airy ground-floor room at Royal Lodge.

As the sun shone through the large drawing room windows, the Queen Mother would sit, sipping tea, in her favourite armchair - she always insisted on somewhere to rest her frail arms - gently supported in her seat by soft dark green and red leather cushions. Next to her sat Sir Eric, then Dr Eric Anderson, whom she had known and admired for more than 20 years. As they discussed her life, Sir Eric would make notes but, because he did not have shorthand and wanted to be entirely accurate, he also used a small tape recorder to record their conversations.

According to royal officials, the meetings were "'haphazard": they took place when both could fit them into their busy diaries. On most occasions just the two of them were present, but it is understood that occasionally Princess Margaret, who also died last year, would listen in out of interest.

The meetings first began a decade ago when senior royal officials decided that, with the Queen Mother entering her nineties, it would be a good idea to have her thoughts on her life permanently recorded. It was always intended that the material should be made available to the Queen Mother's official biographer after her death.

The idea of formally interviewing the Queen Mother was first discussed by senior aides to the Royal Family including Sir Alastair and Sir Robert Fellowes, then the Queen's private secretary. The Queen, who keeps her own diary, also supported the idea as, eventually, did the Queen Mother but only after gentle persuasion.

It is thought that Sir Eric was introduced to the Queen Mother by the late Lord Charteris, who was the Queen's private secretary and the Keeper of the Royal Archives from 1972-77. Lord Charteris was Provost of Eton from 1978-91 and was instrumental in the appointment of Sir Eric as Head Master in 1980, a role he fulfilled for 14 years.

Sir Eric was chosen because he was liked and respected by the Queen Mother and he had a reputation for being competent and discreet. It also helped that, while Head Master of Eton, he lived only a few miles from Royal Lodge, where the Queen Mother spent several months every year.

Sir Eric, 66, who is married with two children, is extraordinarily well-connected, with close contacts among the Royal Family and senior politicians. He is in the remarkable position of being a teacher to both the Prime Minister at Fettes and the heir to the throne at Gordonstoun. Tony Blair and the Prince of Wales remember him fondly. For Prince Charles, he mitigated some of the gloom of Gordonstoun by encouraging him in acting and for the Prime Minister, he was, in Mr Blair's words, "an extraordinary influence".

Sir Eric, who was Mr Blair's house master, considered the young Blair to be argumentative but "unforgettable". In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph four years ago, Sir Eric said of the rebellious Mr Blair at the age of 14: "He took his part in arguing about every rule as it was brought into force. He was very interested in making a new house better than the old houses had been. New House, New Ways. He didn't get quite as far as New Labour then." In 1998, Mr Blair, however, supported Sir Eric's appointment as the chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, which at the time had a budget of more than pounds 250 million.

Sir Alastair, who served the Queen Mother for 42 years, said of Sir Eric: "He is a very erudite, extremely able, charming and sensible. The Queen Mother liked him: they got on well and so she told him things which he recorded and this material is now lodged in the archives."

It is understood that after interviewing the Queen Mother, Sir Eric would go home to transcribe the tapes and type up a full record of the interview.

He then gave the typed records to Sir Alastair who, in turn, relayed them to the Queen's private secretary: first Sir Robert Fellowes and, more recently, Sir Robin Janvrin.

The transcripts are now believed to be in the Royal Archives at Windsor and will be given to the Queen Mother's official biographer, along with her letters and private papers, when, he or she, is chosen later this year.

Sir Robin Janvrin, the Queen's private secretary, is currently drawing up a shortlist of candidates for the position in his role as Keeper of the Royal Archives.

They are likely to include Philip Ziegler, who wrote the acclaimed biography of Edward VIII; Antonia Fraser, the biographer of Mary Queen of Scots and Charles II; and Hugo Vickers, the biographer of Cecil Beaton.

Two biographers of the Queen, Ben Pimlott and Sarah Bradford, will also be considered, as will the younger generation of historians and royal biographers, including Flora Fraser, Lady Antonia's daughter, and Amanda Foreman, who is currently living in New York where she is researching her latest book about British volunteers who fought in the American Civil War.

Because the person chosen as the biographer will be given access to such sensitive material, his or her copy will have to be shown to the Queen.

The Queen, in turn, will be able to remove passages she thinks are inaccurate or in bad taste.

Yesterday Sir Eric was attending a family wedding and declined to discuss his role in recording the Queen Mother's views. However, he did end incorrect media speculation that he might be chosen as the Queen Mother's official biographer. "I am not a biographer and I can categorically state that I will not be writing a biography of the Queen Mother," he said.

Editor - 2/5/2003

St. Petersburg Times

February 2, 2003 Sunday


HEADLINE: Striking similarities between George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan



Ronald Reagan will turn 92 on Feb. 6 in the cruel oblivion of Alzheimer's. The former president of the United States began slipping from the national consciousness after announcing eight years ago, in an eloquent handwritten letter to "my fellow Americans," that he had the disease. Since then, his sharpest critics have for the most part held back, lest they appear to be kicking a dying American icon. As a result, the assessment of Reagan's two-term presidency has been left largely to conservative historians. Adoring biographers are exalting Reagan, straining to gloss over or ignore some of the more moderate aspects of his presidency as they try to spin the man and his legacy into mythology.

There is no question that Reagan was one of the most conservative presidents of the 20th century. However, a close examination of his record suggests that he was not the heroic embodiment of conservatism the faithful would have us believe. In some key areas, his rhetoric was more conservative than his record. Revisionism or heresy? Maybe it's a little of both, depending on how you feel about the man and his presidency. Two recent magazine articles offer useful, nonpartisan - and in some ways surprising - appraisals of the Reagan record. Under the headline of "Reagan's Liberal Legacy," Joshua Green writes in the Washington Monthly:

"A sober review of Reagan's presidency doesn't yield the seamlessly conservative record being peddled today. Federal government expanded on his watch. The conservative desire to outlaw abortion was never seriously pursued. Reagan broke with the handlers in his administration and compromised with the Soviets on arms control. His assault on entitlements never materialized; instead he saved Social Security in 1983. And he repeatedly ignored the fundamental conservative dogma that taxes should never be raised."

After Reagan's early victories on defense and tax cuts, according to Green, the Gipper "never seriously tried to enact the radical agenda he'd campaigned on." Conservatives still celebrate the massive cuts in income tax rates Reagan achieved in the first year of his presidency. However, that Reagan raised taxes four times between 1982 and 1984 is rarely mentioned. "Just two years after declaring, "there is no justification" for taxing corporate income," Green writes, "Reagan raised corporate taxes by $120-billion over five years and closed corporate tax loopholes worth about $300-billion over that same period."

While the devout credit Reagan with ending the Cold War with his massive defense budgets, they just as soon not talk about the fact that toward the end of his presidency Reagan, despite his bellicose rhetoric, came to believe that nuclear weapons could and should be abolished. Is it possible that disarmament was the endgame of his military buildup all along? It certainly didn't seem to be at the time.

Looking back, the Reagan Revolution wasn't much of a revolution, even if Democrats thought it was at the time. In some ways, the Reagan agenda - or at least the parts of it he cared about - was less radical than Newt Gingrich's Contract With America or George W. Bush's presidential agenda. In fact, Bush is now being hailed on the Republican right as the new Reagan, a bolder and more ideological version of the original.

In a recent article in the New York Times Magazine titled "Reagan's Son," Bill Keller concludes that Bush is the "fruition of Reagan." He writes: ". . . Far from being the lightweight opportunist of liberal caricature or the centrist he sometimes played during the campaign - (Bush) stands a good chance of advancing a radical agenda that Reagan himself could only carry so far. Bush is not, as Reagan was, an original, but he has adapted Reagan's ideas to new times, and found some new language in which to market them. We seem not only to be witnessing the third term of the Reagan presidency; at this rate we may well see the fourth."

Old Reagan hands say there are striking similarities between Reagan and Bush, not only in their governing philosophies but in personality and style. Like Reagan, Bush is an optimist and risk-taker. Like Reagan, Bush approaches foreign policy with moral certainty (Reagan's "empire of evil" and Bush's "axis of evil"). Like Reagan, Bush has made a political career out of being underestimated by his opponents. And like Reagan, Bush is seen by critics as lazy and not very bright. (One obvious difference: the inarticulate Bush will never be the Great Communicator.)

"I think he's the most Reagan-like politician we have seen, certainly in the White House," Michael Deaver, Reagan's image master, told the Times. "I mean, his father was supposed to be the third term of the Reagan presidency - but he wasn't. This guy is."

If Bush succeeds, Keller writes, "he will move us toward an America Ronald Reagan would be proud to call his own."

What Bush is striving far, he continues, "is bold in its ambition: markets unleashed, resources exploited. A progressive tax system leveled, a country unashamed of its wealth. Government entitlements gradually replaced by thrift, self-reliance and private good will. The safety net strung closer to the ground . . . A court system dedicated to protecting property and private enterprise and enforcing individual responsibility. A global common market that hums to the tune of American productivity. In the world, America rampant - unfettered by international law, unflinching when challenged, unmatchable in its might, more interested in being respected than in being loved."

It's enough to make one long for Ronald Reagan's "shining city on the hill."

Editor - 2/5/2003

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

February 2, 2003 Sunday EARLY EDITION


HEADLINE: Wild about Harry;

Once scorned as a failure, President Truman now commands respect

BYLINE: BRIAN BURNES Knight Ridder News Service

Kansas City, Mo. -- When he left the White House 50 years ago, Harry Truman was close to being a national joke.

His approval rating had bottomed out at 23% a year earlier. Adlai Stevenson, his party's 1952 presidential nominee, avoided Truman during the campaign. And when President-elect Eisenhower's limousine picked up Truman for the 1953 inauguration, Eisenhower didn't even get out of the car.

But Truman's triumphant train ride home to Independence, Mo., where he was welcomed by several thousand well-wishers, was a truer signal of how he would be regarded in the history books.

Today, Truman is among the most admired American presidents.

His reputation's revival actually might have begun with Truman's televised farewell address, when the president boldly defended his record and made a prediction about the Soviet empire that has since come true.

"The address challenged what was then the dominant opinion, that Truman's presidency was a failed presidency," said Truman scholar Richard S. Kirkendall, whose speech Jan. 9 at the Truman Presidential Museum & Library launched the museum's yearlong commemoration of Truman's return to private life.

Academic historians began to write favorably of Truman in the 1970s, but it was in popular culture that Truman's stock first began to soar.

Truman died Dec. 26, 1972, as the Watergate scandal was erupting around President Nixon. In the wake of televised hearings and the numbing repetition of "at this point in time," some commentators pined for Truman's blunt, unambiguous speech.

Soon, it seemed, Harry was everywhere. Speaking plainly and giving 'em hell.

It hardly mattered that the hugely successful 1973 Truman oral biography "Plain Speaking" since has been demonstrated to have been largely fabricated. Truman has been known ever since for saying it simply.

Other tributes followed in 1975: James Whitmore in the film version of his one-man show "Give 'em Hell, Harry," and the band Chicago's "Harry Truman," which rose to No. 13 on the rock charts.

'Honesty and style'

"You would play the piano," Chicago sang, "each morning walk a mile / speak of what was going down / with honesty and style."

Then there was Gerald Ford. A Republican.

Ford, who assumed the White House after Nixon resigned in 1974, installed a Truman bust in the Oval Office and hung a portrait of the Missouri Democrat in his cabinet room, alongside those of Republican icons Eisenhower and Abraham Lincoln.

"No one is more important in pushing Truman up in the national regard than Ford," Kirkendall said.

A second Truman boomlet began in the early 1990s.

That was due, in part, to Truman's farewell address, which predicted the end of the Soviet empire.

"Nobody can say for sure when that is going to be, or exactly how it will come about, whether by revolution, or trouble in the satellite states, or by a change inside the Kremlin," Truman said Jan. 15, 1953.

But he had no doubt it eventually would occur.

"I have a deep and abiding faith in the destiny of free men," he said.

That empire indeed crumbled, with the Berlin Wall falling in 1989 and the Soviet Union dissolving in 1991.

Historian David McCullough, in his 1992 biography "Truman," made much of the prophecy. "Read many years later," McCullough wrote, "it would seem utterly extraordinary in its prescience."

Movie on HBO

Throughout the 1990s, America again celebrated all things Harry. McCullough's book won the Pulitzer Prize and was the basis of an HBO film starring Gary Sinise.

All three major 1992 presidential candidates -- Bill Clinton, Ross Perot and incumbent George Bush -- invoked the Truman legacy. Truman's popularity didn't hurt while the Truman museum staff successfully raised funds through the 1990s to bankroll a $22 million makeover.

Since the museum opened its permanent exhibit on the Truman administration in 2001, visitor comments about the president have been glowing.

"They are far more complimentary to Truman than, frankly, we had expected," said Clay Bauske, Truman museum curator. "People almost gush about Truman's policies and how they wish policy-makers today would followTruman's example."

Editor - 2/5/2003

Independent on Sunday (London)

February 2, 2003, Sunday




BYLINE: JULIA STUART Facing the future, clockwise from left: Paul Hansen outside his former Lebensborn home; Gerd Fleischer, a war children seeking compensation; Agnes Moller Jensen; Solvi Kuhrig Henningsen; and pictures from the Norwegian National Archive of a Lebensborn Photographs by Tom Craig

As a child growing up in Norway, Tove Laila Strand learnt to take the pain of being whacked with a wooden clothes hanger. It was the names her mother and stepfather called her during the assaults that hurt her more. "Hit me all you want, but please don't call me a German child," she would beg. For children born of a Norwegian mother and a soldier from the occupying German forces, this was a particularly vindictive insult. Today, sitting in a cafe in Oslo, the 61-year-old grandmother's eyes fill with tears as she recounts eight years of abuse, which included being repeatedly raped by her stepfather. "It wasn't that strange," she says. "I was, after all, the child of the enemy."

Some weeks ago, Laila Strand was spat at while shopping in Oslo. That too made her cry. No doubt she had been recognised from her recent television appearances as one of an estimated 10,000 to 12,000 "war children" born in Norway. Such was the level of abuse meted out to them after the war that, last December, Norway's parliament finally agreed to formally apologise and award them compensation. If Laila Strand and other claimants consider the amount to be insufficient, they will take their case to the European Court of Human Rights. Norway declared itself neutral at the start of the Second World War, but was invaded by Germany in April 1940. The following June, the country's government, king and crown prince fled to London to continue their fight against Hitler, and the remaining troops capitulated. A Nazi government was formed under the auspices of the leader of the Norwegian National Socialist Party, Vidkun Quisling, whose name became a byword for traitor.

That December, Wilhelm Rediess, the chief of the SS and German police in Norway, wrote to SS leader Heinrich Himmler about the increasing number of relationships between Norwegian women and occupying troops. "Individual cases are already arising... of Norwegian women, made pregnant by Germans, seeking the aid of the German Reich, above all on the ground that they are despised and boycotted by the Norwegian population because their pregnancy was caused by a German", he wrote. It was a matter of particular interest to Himmler. In 1935, concerned about the falling birth rates among Aryans in Germany, he set up the Lebensborn (Spring of Life) association to care for unmarried, racially valuable pregnant mothers. The mothers, who otherwise may have had an abortion, checked into specially set up secretive maternity homes, where they received free, high-quality nursing and medical care. Some Lebensborn mothers had their children adopted, and the Lebensborn placed them with staunchly Nazi families.

As the vast majority of women in Norway were Nordic - the purest Aryans in Nazi terms - the fraternising mothers could not have been more racially valuable. In his letter, Rediess noted that only a small proportion of the German fathers wanted to marry the pregnant women and bring them back to the German Reich. There was another potential problem. If they failed to do anything for Norwegian mothers, they could increase the number of opponents to Germany's occupation. To add to the "stock of racially valuable blood in our racial community", Rediess suggested establishing German- controlled maternity homes.

In March 1941 - six years after the scheme had been set up in Germany - the Lebensborn arrived in Norway, the first of such ventures outside Germany. Hotels and villas were requisitioned and around 10 centres were established. As well as paying all the costs for the birth, the association gave the mothers substantial child support, and money for clothes and a pram or cot.

Most mothers took their children home, some took them to Germany to live with the father's family. Around 200 children were adopted by families in Germany and 100-odd were taken in by Norwegian couples.

It was the most successful Lebensborn outside Germany (there would eventually be two such homes in Austria and one each in Belgium, Holland, France, Luxembourg and Denmark). By the end of the War, 8,000 children had been registered. Many more were born outside the scheme by women who refused to reveal, or could not prove, the identity of the father, making the estimated number of war children in Norway as high as 12,000. It is believed that around 10 per cent of all Norwegian women between 15 and 30 had a German boyfriend during the war.

There have been claims that the homes operated as "stud farms". However, Kare Olsen, an historian at Norway's National Archives and author of Children of War, The Norwegian War Children and Their Mothers, dismisses this idea. "Having read through hundreds of files in the Lebensborn archive, I am convinced that nearly all the women had their children as a result of a normal' relationship," he says. "The soldiers were encouraged to be polite and behave well towards the Norwegians, who were considered to belong to the same race as them. It was largely a peaceful occupation. Many of the soldiers came from cultivated parts of Germany to the farming areas of Norway and were seen as exciting strangers."

One woman who found herself captivated was Agnes Moller Jensen, now 79, who met her German lover, Toni Mensch, in a coffee shop in Larvik, where she still lives. She was 20 and he was 24. "I just liked him, as you would anyone," she says. Many of her friends also had a German boyfriend. "People didn't like it so we hid by taking trips to the woods. People didn't dare say anything at the time. That started in 1945 although the war ended in that year, many of the occupying soldiers were unable to leave Norway until 1947 ." The couple had a child, Bjorn Toni, but didn't marry as Moller Jensen would have lost her Norwegian citizenship. The pair kept in touch until Mensch's death last year.

The Norwegian government in exile in London, who had heard of these liaisons, warned of the consequences through BBC broadcasts. One stated that: "Women who do not reject contact with Germans, will have to pay a dreadful price for the rest of their lives." Another declared the women imbeciles.

When the war ended, many Norwegians needed no further encouragement and took it upon themselves to cut off the hair of many of the "German whores". Though the women hadn't broken any law, several thousand were arrested and many interned. A large number lost their jobs, some just for having been seen talking to a German. "The reaction against these women was far stronger than those who collaborated economically," says Olsen.

While this was echoed across Europe, what appears to be unique to Norway was the rabid hatred also shown to the resulting children. Immediately after the war, letters and articles started appearing in the Norwegian press condemning them. In July 1945, one writer in Morgenbladet feared the boys would "bear the germ of some of those typical masculine German characteristics of which the world has now seen more than enough". Many insisted that the children would grow up to become a "fifth column", and there were loud calls for them and their mothers to be sent to Germany. In August 1945, the Norwegian government brought in a new law stating that any women who had married a German soldier would lose her citizenship and be sent to Germany. Several thousand were duly sent packing.

Perhaps the cruellest claim was that many of the children were mentally retarded. Else Vogt Thingstad, a doctor who took part in a meeting on European war children in Zurich after the war, wrote an article in Arbeiderbladet in December 1945 claiming that many of the "German women" were retarded "... and that we therefore expected their children to a large extent to have hereditary weaknesses". One doctor said these children had as much chance of growing into normal citizens as cellar rats had of becoming house pets.

Twenty-seven children in Godthaab, the Lebensborn home just outside Oslo, were considered to be mentally retarded. Seventeen of them - including Paul Hansen (see below) - were sent to Emma Hjorth, the state asylum nearby. The rest to other institutions. Many spent their lives there, a situation believed to have been repeated in other parts of Norway. In 1990, one of the doctors at Emma Hjorth said: "If the children had got the possibility of a new start and a normal life in 1945, they probably would have grown up normally."

At one stage, Norway's Children of War Committee, set up by the Ministry of Social Affairs after the War to decide what should be done with these children, offered all 8,000 to representatives from Australia, who had approached Norway looking for new immigrants. The idea was abandoned.

In the end, around 3,000 children grew up with their single mothers, and between 2,500 and 3,000 were raised by their mothers and stepfathers. Around the same number were adopted. About 100 lived with their fathers in Germany, and several hundred grew up in orphanages or other institutions in Norway. Many mothers tried to conceal their children's heritage, by giving them their own surname or that of their stepfather.

But for some, there was no escape. "If the mother was a German whore' then the child was the same, and you were free to do whatever you wanted with them. Nobody cared," says Tor Brandacher, spokesman for the War Child Organisation Lebensborn. "Everybody hated them, everybody beat them, everybody sexually abused them, everyone urinated on them. Every perversion known to man was performed on them," he claims. "One boy was raped by nine men, who then urinated on him to clean him up. Another woman told me that when she was four, and in a foster home, she would be hung up inside a barn and when the farmer needed oral sex he just opened the door and helped himself."

In a children's home in Trysil, youngsters were force-fed until they vomited, and were made to eat the vomit, says Brandacher. A war child himself, he started researching the subject in 1987 when adoption laws changed to allow people to know the identities of their biological parents. Elsewhere, he says, people came to the homes at night, paid staff half a ham and a bottle of alcohol, and were let in the back door to abuse the children. One group of men branded a girl's forehead with a swastika. It has also been claimed that 10 of the war children were subjected to official experiments with LSD. Four or five are said to have died as a result. At least six are believed to have committed suicide - the most recent, a former academic at Oslo University, died last November.

Agnes Moller Jensen's son, Bjorn Toni, drank himself to death at the age of 37. "They called him terrible things in school and all the time he was growing up," she says. "It built up inside and he tried to forget it by drinking. I can't describe the pain of losing him. But I don't regret what I did. There was nothing wrong with my son. There was something wrong with the people." Nearly 60 years after the war, Moller Jensen - known locally as the Mother Teresa of Larvik for her work with homeless people - is still discriminated against. Like all women who had a relationship with the enemy, if her Norwegian husband dies, the state will not pay her his war pension.

For some, the torment is still to come. After the War, 30 children found living in a home in Germany were secretly sent by the Norwegian authorities to Sweden. Their names were changed and they were adopted by couples who were told that their parents were resistance fighters or that they were Jewish orphans. "One woman, a war child, suffered great psychological trauma when she found out the truth," says Lars Borgersrud, who is working on a research project funded by the Norwegian government. "The majority probably don't know even today. I know their true identity, but it's not my task as a historian to inform them as it will create a huge change in their lives." Some mothers fled with their children to Sweden after the War to escape harassment. One such woman was the mother of Frida Lyngstad, of Abba, whose father was a German soldier.

Brandacher believes the "whore children" were treated so badly because of the nation's guilt over the occupation. "Around 250,000 men volunteered to work for Nazi Germany. Norway was the biggest collaborative state that has ever existed in Europe," he says. "There was full employment and a building boom like none other in Norwegian history. The resistance in Norway was a joke. After the war people needed somebody to hate to get rid of all the shame they felt."

After appeals for redress failed, in 1999 seven war children started legal proceedings against the state claiming that it had violated the European Convention on Human Rights, seeking between pounds 50,000 to pounds 200,000 each. They have since been joined by a further 115. "The stigmatisation, the shame, the oppression was so absolute it took us 50 years to come forward," says one, Gerd Fleischer.

Prime minister, Kjell Magne Bondevik, apologised to the war children in his New Year's speech in 2000. Last December, Norway's Supreme Court determined that the case fell under the statute of limitations. On the same day, the country's parliament unanimously voted, however, to pay compensation and to formally apologise. The details are still to be decided by the government.

Finn Kristian Marthinsen, a member of the Justice Committee that recommended to parliament that the war children be compensated, said: "Norwegian society has to say that we are sorry. It was wrong because these children did nothing criminal. It is a black spot on the history of Norway."

Randi Hagen Spydevold, lawyer for 122 claimants, says she will wait to see the government's proposals before deciding whether to take their case to Strasbourg. "This is an embarrassment for Norway. It seems that parliament has been shamed into action," she says.

Gerd Fleischer, whose Norwegian step-father, a former member of the resistance, was particularly violent to her, believes the state felt compelled to act because of embarrassing international press coverage. "There has not been much public pressure inside Norway about this. The press has written about it, but very silently. It started coming out in the foreign media and then the Norwegian embassies starting reporting back.

"Norwegian society is not an inclusive one. The same discrimination exists today. It has only changed focus. Before it was the Sami, the German children and the gypsies. Now it's the dark ones. But officially racism doesn't exist in Norway. We don't do those bad things here," says Fleischer.

While most in Norway support parliament's decision, in some cases, the hatred lingers. When Laila Strand appeared on television, a neighbour, whom she considered a very good friend, ignored her. When asked what was wrong, the woman sneered: "I don't say hello to whore children and my tax money will certainly not go to paying your compensation." Kristian Marthinsen has been accused of being a traitor. "There are still people who call me or write saying that I'm not a supporter of Norway because I'm giving the children of the enemy a kind of reward," says the MP.

For a number of war children, finding their German relatives has finally given them a sense of identity and a unique source of comfort. Solvi Kuhrig Henningsen, 59, still lives in Sandefjord where she grew up and keeps her past quiet as she still feels hostility. She was mistreated by her stepfather, her mother turned to drink and her neighbour refused to allow her to play with her daughter.

In 1995, encouraged by her husband and children, she traced eight relatives in Germany. "At last Otto's daughter has found us," was her delighted aunt's reply. Kuhrig Henningsen, whose face still carries the pain of her childhood, says: "I became a new person when I met them because not only did they look like me, they loved me." n

Tove Laila Strand - My German family were angels'

Tove Laila Strand was born in Honefoss, 60km from Oslo, in 1941. Her parents met in a laundry. Her father was sent to the Russian border and was killed in 1942. Her mother stopped caring for her and was convicted for neglect. Laila Strand spent several months in the Lebensborn home in Godthaab, near Oslo. Then, at the age of three, the association sent her to her paternal grandparents in Germany. "They were angels," she says.

In 1948, aged seven, the Norwegian government forced her to return to Norway. Her mother beat her when she spoke German and her stepfather physically, mentally and sexually abused her. Her mother's sister threatened to chop off her head if she visited.

Laila Strand left home at 15, by which time she was vomiting blood. She married at 20 and had two children. She is now divorced, for which, in part, she blames the legacy of the sexual abuse. She stopped working in an office 20 years ago because of continuing stomach problems. She is in regular touch with her father's two siblings. "When I go to my aunt's place it really feels like home," she says.

Karl Otto Zinken - I will never work again'

Karl Otto Zinken was born in Bergen in 1941, the result, he believes, of a one-night stand. When he was a year old, he was sent to the nearby Stalheim Lebensborn home, and returned to his mother when the War ended. She couldn't cope with having a Lebensborn child so sent him to a state children's home. "I sat in a room with six doctors and was told that I was mentally retarded, that I shouldn't have kids and that I was the scum of the earth. Two guys who worked in social services performed oral sex on me, claiming it was therapy. I was about five." After two years, he was sent to a special school where he was bullied.

Zinken spent 12 years in the merchant navy. In 1996 he had a breakdown and lost his job as a salesman. His marriage collapsed and he spent a year in a psychiatric hospital with manic depression. He has been in and out of hospital eight times since.

His mother died in the late 1980s. His father, "a nice man" whom he traced and met in 1997, died a year ago.

"I have no good feelings towards Norwegians," he says, "I feel empty. I will never work again."

Paul Hansen - I never felt loved by anyone'

Paul Hansen was born in 1942. When his mother, who worked in the barracks kitchen in Drammen, told her father that she was pregnant by a Luftwaffe pilot he threatened her with an axe. Hensen was born in a Lebensborn home in Hurdals Verk. His parents split up and he was sent to a Lebensborn orphanage in Godthaab. His mother hated him. "I was the reason she had been kicked out of the family."

When he was three, he was moved to the Emma Hjorth asylum. "The first thing I heard was people screaming. They ate and relieved themselves in the same place - on the floor, on the tables. I was scared to death. People were sitting in chains."

Deemed retarded, he went from one institution to another, most of them for the mentally ill. In 1964 he got a job as a steel worker. That year, he met his mother, who lived in East Germany with her husband. She still hated him. He found out his father had died in 1952.

Hansen is now a cleaner at Oslo University. "The worst thing about all this is that I missed my education. I still can't read or write very well. And I never felt loved by anyone."

Reidun Myking - I have been destroyed'

Reidun Myking was born in 1943, two days after her father was killed at sea. At six months, she was sent to Godthaab, as her mother was too ill to look after her. When the War ended, it was claimed that she was retarded and, at the age of seven, she was sent to the Emma Hjorth asylum where she remembers being put into a straitjacket at night. From there she was sent to succession of institutions, many for the mentally ill.

Myking joined society at about the age of 30. She's worked in an old people's home and for 10 years as a cleaner at Emma Hjorth. She has been hospitalised for short periods for psychosis.

She and Paul Hansen (left) who was with her in a number of institutions, were married for five years from 1975. They didn't have children.

Her mother, who didn't know where she was, was traced Myking just before she turned 40. The pair kept in touch until her death in 1991. "I feel the way I have been treated has totally destroyed my life," says Myking. "I've been on medication for 37 years and I think it's slowed my brain."

Editor - 2/5/2003

The Scotsman

January 29, 2003, Wednesday



BYLINE: Brian Pendreigh

Agnes Sampson frolicked with the Devil in a North Berwick church, sailed off to sea in a magic sieve and employed dark powers to summon up a storm to sink the king's ship. It sounds like a piece of hokum overbaked by some weird alliance of the Brothers Grimm, Stephen King and JK Rowling.

But back in the 16th century people took such stories very seriously, and Sampson was at the centre of a supernatural conspiracy that held a nation in a grip of terror and hysteria. A widow and midwife from East Lothian, Sampson would normally have been expected to live and die without making any mark on either history or contemporary society. Yet she was considered such a danger to the throne that King James VI, who prided himself on his education and intellect, took personal charge of her interrogation and then wrote a book on the subject.

The stories of witchcraft that swept the land in the late 16th century almost certainly inspired Shakespeare's witches in Macbeth, first performed a scant 15 years after the North Berwick trials, and Burns's dark comic classic Tam O'Shanter. Now, centuries later, Sampson is the subject of Witchcraze, an hour -long docu-drama on BBC 2 tonight. Writer and producer Mark Hayhurst was familiar with Matthew Hopkins, who earned a dubious place in history by relentlessly tracking down witches in 17th century England and was immortalised by Vincent Price in the classic 1968 movie Witchfinder General, but had never heard of Sampson, when he first discussed the possibility of a programme on witchcraft with the BBC. When he set to work assessing historical documents, which are still throwing up new evidence of witchcraft, or at least allegations of witchcraft to this day, he uncovered a story that he maintains makes the tale of Hopkins's reign of terror among the peasants of East Anglia seem dull.

Among those documents was James VI's own book Demonologie and News from Scotland, an account of the outbreak of witchcraft by James Carmichael, a church minister and perhaps Scotland's equivalent of Hopkins. "I'm not interested in the broomsticks aspect of witchcraft at all," says Hayhurst, "the covens and the dancing in the night ... It's the politics of the thing that's interesting.

"Most witch-hunts at that time were driven from the bottom a my neighbour's cow is bigger than mine and therefore she must be a witch, or my calf's not producing milk. But what's interesting about this story is the way it connects with the Church and State."

Belief in good and evil spirits, witches and magic stems from pagan times. Until fairly recently, most people lived in fear of the supernatural - though no doubt some delighted in the rituals with which it was associated, adding a little spice to humdrum lives.

Many an old widow accepted offerings of oatmeal and milk from neighbours, whose suspicions were fuelled by nothing more than the old dear's age and preference for feline company. Before the Reformation of 1560 witches were largely accepted in Scotland, as forces of nature or supernature, like floods and storms. Executions were virtually unknown. It would be like a man with a hole in his roof, who gets annoyed at the rain coming through, and sets about punishing hole and rain with a sledgehammer. Far better a bribe - keep them sweet, cross your fingers, touch wood and hope for the best.

However, Continental churchmen exposed these old crones as part of an international conspiracy to undermine the Church. Authorities in Central Europe and Scandinavia initiated huge witch hunts and in 1563 witchcraft became a statutory crime in Scotland. The 16th century was a time of religious and political unrest across Europe, new ideas clashing with old. James VI was an educated young man, who, unlike his tragic mother Mary Queen of Scots, embraced the new Protestant faith, and he was passionately interested in expanding his knowledge.

He was betrothed to Anne of Denmark, a tall, attractive Lutheran, but her attempts to make the short sea crossing to Scotland were repeatedly thwarted by storms. In 1589 James decided enough was enough and went to Denmark to get her, staying there till the following May, happy to escape intrigues at home and discuss progressive new ideas, such as a concerted attempt to stamp out witchcraft.

When they sailed back to Scotland, James and Anne were almost lost in another storm. There were many who wanted James dead, and witchcraft seemed an obvious explanation. Meanwhile David Seaton, a "gentleman" of Tranent, East Lothian, grew suspicious of one of his servants, Gelie Duncan, who seemed to have unusual powers of healing. She confessed to witchcraft, though modern thinking would question the validity of interrogation methods that included thumbscrews and the tightening of a cord around her head.

Her inquisitors had no quibbles over methodology. Imagine their delight when they finally broke her down, and she not only confessed to witchcraft, but named others involved in her devilish plot, including Agnes Sampson, a widow from Nether Keith, near Humbie, East Lothian.

Sampson was known to cure ailments with herbs and old Catholic chants, though they did not always work. Sometimes she could tell someone was going to die before they did. She was "the eldest witch of them all," said Duncan, significantly.

Up until now it was all relatively minor stuff, but, as more suspects were interrogated, the full story came out, with no fewer than 70 individuals named in a plot against the King, ranging from unsophisticated local folk to Satan and the King's cousin, the Earl of Bothwell, a man with a reputation for recklessness and a continuing threat to the throne.

Witchcraze focuses on four individuals - Sampson (Cathleen McCarron), Carmichael (Ewan Stewart), Bothwell (Cas Harkins) and King James (Jimmy Harrison). It is shot in the style of a documentary, with an unseen interviewer granted access to palace and jail cell. Any temptation to giggle at such a Pythonesque approach to history is dispelled by the discomfiting nature of the subject matter and graphic language and violence.

With famine stalking the land, the persecution had already begun in the King's absence. In Hayhurst's programme, Carmichael notes that a quarrel over land could suddenly turn into accusations of witchcraft. It was not that he doubted the existence of witches, far from it, he simply wanted the pursuit of them to be more formally organised. "It's too serious to be left to the whim of peasants," he says.

Torture was regarded as a fair means of extracting the truth. If a witch still refused to confess, it was seen as evidence, not of innocence, but that the Devil was in too deep. Sampson proved stubborn, until James took charge of the interrogation.

"It's an incredible encounter because kings don't meet peasants normally," says Hayhurst. He believes Agnes would have been flattered and relieved, trusting in the wisdom of her King, yet at the same time eager to please him and spinning out the tale.

"It starts off with leading questions and it ends with you inventing a whole scenario because you are pleasing your captors a There's a kind of sexual energy going on there, because it ends with her whispering to him what happened on his wedding night. She says she flew over. She was there on his wedding night when he was deflowering his bride."

Eventually the whole story came out. It transpired 200 witches met the Devil at the Auld Kirk in North Berwick, where he bared his backside in the pulpit and everyone kissed it, and he confirmed James VI was his greatest enemy - confirmation no doubt to the self-important King of the threat he represented to the forces of darkness.

The Devil explained how to throw a cat into the sea to summon up a storm and sink James's ship, and off they went to sea in their sieves to do his bidding.

Agnes Sampson is significant among the "North Berwick witches" as the one who persuaded James the plot was real, according to Julian Goodare, lecturer in Scottish history at Edinburgh University, editor of the recently published The Scottish Witch-hunt in Context and director of the Survey of Scottish Witchcraft 1563-1736, a two-year project that will produce an electronic database of witches.

"We're finding lots of new information," he says. "We go and look at manuscripts that nobody has looked at for this purpose before, in particular records of presbyteries a We certainly know of more witches than the latest research had previously thought."

But was Sampson part of a coven that met in North Berwick or a conspiracy to overthrow the King? "The evidence seems to have consisted of confessions extracted under torture," says Goodare. "And the way in which the confessions of the various witches got elaborated actually would in itself make one sceptical."

Louise Yeoman, historian and co-director of the Survey of Scottish Witchcraft, says Sampson's confession was the result of torture, probably sleep deprivation and a series of leading questions.

"Agnes is one of the common-or-garden traditional healers," she says. "She just gets very, very unlucky in that she's pulled into this scandal that's going to engulf very, very prominent people a There were lots of people who went round Scotland using charms to heal and they were never tried as witches."

Another of those implicated in the plot was John Fian, a schoolmaster who supposedly acted as clerk to Sampson's ungodly assembly. He had reputedly tried to cast a love spell on a local gentlewoman. He needed some of her hair, but she substituted animal hair, and the luckless suitor was thereafter trailed by a lovesick cow. Apparently.

It would be funny if it were not so tragic. Sampson, Fian and many of the other conspirators were executed. Some were strangled, but they were the lucky ones. Some were burned alive at the stake, which was sometimes soaked in water, so it would not burn too quickly. Witchcraze suggests as many as 1,500 "witches" were executed in Scotland between 1590 and 1597.

Some escaped to England, which, despite Hopkins's fearsome reputation, never saw anything like the level of persecution in Scotland. Bothwell later returned and demanded to be tried for witchcraft. By that time most of the witnesses were dead and the hysteria had died down, though the story of the North Berwick witches spread far and wide.

There were further witch-hunts throughout the 17th century in Scotland, and the last legal execution of a witch took place in Sutherland in the early 18th century, though a Perthshire woman was convicted and imprisoned under witchcraft legislation during the Second World War.

Agnes Sampson has attracted increasing attention in recent times. And now she is brought back to life on television - a medium James VI would have regarded as much less plausible than witches sailing up the Forth in magic sieves.

James VI long ago earned the sobriquet "the wisest fool in Christendom", while today you will find Anges Sampson listed not only in Chambers Scottish Biographical Dictionary, but also on an internet site dedicated to Great Scots Women. "When she eventually and inevitably caved in, she didn't just confess, she took the supreme piss out of her accusers," says the site admiringly. "Magic sieves! Love it!"

But to suggest Sampson was a prototype feminist comedian playing some sort of dark joke on the King is to miss the point about the continuing dangers of intolerance and the sort of mass hysteria that can end with the persecution and deaths of innocent people.

Editor - 2/5/2003

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

January 29, 2003 Wednesday ALL EDITION


HEADLINE: Eye of the Civil War; Soldier's diaries, drawings paint unmatched picture of conflict

BYLINE: DENNIS MCCANN of the Journal Sentinel staff

Madison -- When Robert Knox Sneden and his fellow Union prisoners reached the gates of what would become the infamous Andersonville Prison on Feb. 29, 1864, their appearance and condition were as wretched and dismal as their new surroundings.

"We were about 750 men all told, all tired, hungry, weak, and depressed mentally," he wrote in his journal. "We could hardly drag one foot after the other; our confinement of five days in the boxcars, crowded in like sheep, cramped our limbs so that they ached all over. We reached one of the gates of the prison and were marched into the enclosure at dark. And the high strong gates shut us out from the world."

Another day he wrote that "the whole camp looked like a collection of pig pens," and later he described the hanging -- by prisoners themselves -- of six of their colleagues who had been preying on other vulnerable captives. After this "terrible example had been made of the murderers," he wrote, "the remaining raiders yet in the stockade were cowed at once, and thieving, robbery and murder stopped for a time."

Many of the poor Northern soldiers who entered Andersonville didn't record their awful experiences at the time, or live to recount them later.

Sneden did both -- and, as a remarkable exhibit at the Wisconsin Veterans Museum reveals, he did much more.

By the time he was freed in a prisoner exchange late in 1864, he was an 80-pound invalid. He lived and made his way home to New York.

The journal he had kept during his early years in battle and later in Confederate prisons -- some sections had been sent home for safekeeping, other chapters were smuggled out of prisons in his clothing, shoes and hat -- came to thousands of pages of descriptions of a private's life in the Civil War.

Most valuable, though, were his drawings.

Scenes from diary

Many Civil War soldiers and officers kept journals. In recollecting his war, Sneden not only drew on memory but on paper as well, producing sketches, watercolors and maps of the same scenes his diary described in words. He didn't merely tell of a hanging; he left a vivid image of six soldiers swaying at the end of ropes.

Nearly 100 of those images are included in the traveling exhibit "Eye of the Storm: The Civil War Drawings of Robert Sneden" that will run here through April 8, and which, on top of the capital city's other assets, is another good reason to consider a midwinter escape to Madison.

The Sneden collection of words and drawings is owned by the Virginia Historical Society in Richmond. The story of how the society acquired them after they had been -- to borrow Sneden's words -- shut out from the world for decades is as amazing as the collection itself.

Despite his condition at the end of his war, Sneden lived to the ripe age of 86, dying in 1918. His war record drew little notice either during his lifetime or in the decades that followed. Then, late in 1994, two men came unannounced to the Virginia Historical Society with a suitcase of material to share with James C. Kelly, assistant director for museums.

When they opened the suitcase, Kelly quickly went to find the society's director, Charles F. Bryan Jr., who was similarly stunned at what he saw -- page after page of detailed and still wonderfully preserved drawings and maps that Sneden had produced during and after the war.

The men with the suitcase said the albums had been in a family vault for 60 years. The society was delighted to acquire them, thanks to benefactors who made the purchase possible, even though little was then known of the artist.

It would be three years before they would track down a Sneden relative, who made their jaws drop yet again by casually asking if they were also aware of Sneden's diary. They were not but eventually acquired it -- along with nearly 500 more watercolors and maps like those in the suitcase. In all, the discoveries included nearly 5,000 pages of memoir and almost 1,000 watercolors and maps.

An unrivaled collection

The society calls Sneden's work the largest collection of Civil War soldier art ever collected, and an invaluable contribution to America's never-ending fascination with its bloodiest war.

Bryan called it "unrivaled in every respect." It became the basis of two popular books, "Eye of the Storm: A Civil War Odyssey," which includes Sneden's eyewitness memoirs, and "Images from the Storm," a coffee table-style work focusing more on the drawings.

However useful the drawings and memoirs are to academics and historians, they are equally intriguing for those with only a casual interest in the Civil War.

The images on display at the Wisconsin Veterans Museum are a good representation of the larger collection, ranging from his early accounts of a war that took its sweet time getting started and his later impressions of a hell that had gone on too long.

In January 1862, when Northern units were struggling to organize and convince raw recruits the war was for real, he drew a deserted guard post and matched it with words. "The men and officers are very slack while on picket. They look upon this duty as a sort of excursion in the woods."

Flames and battles

In July of that year, while at the James River, he "made a sketch of the Cole House . . . and while doing so, was surprised to see persons in the cupola surveying our position . . . I could plainly see the cupola to be occupied by Rebel officers." When it was later burned by Union soldiers he drew the flames noting, as wartime photographers might think in future conflicts, the lighting was perfect.

"The sun had set," he wrote, "and the scene was grand."

But the war was seldom grand. At 2nd Bull Run, he drew the burst of bombs and rising flames. At Antietam, he sketched the "Bloody Lane" worn in the ground by thousands of bedraggled soldiers and at Fredericksburg, he observed -- and drew -- a great battle.

"After repeated attempts to carry the heights (shown here) our troops were forced to fall back to the river defeated with great slaughter."

In 1863, he was captured, pistol-whipped and thrown in the first of several Confederate prisons in which he would spend time. There, he produced pencil sketches of the horrors around him that he carefully hid away, to be filled in with watercolors after the war.

Editor - 2/5/2003

The Guardian (London)

January 29, 2003

SECTION: Guardian Features Pages, Pg. 2

HEADLINE: The thing about Hitler: Mussolini, Mao, Stalin - the 20th century spawned its fair share of monstrous dictators. But none lives on in our minds like Hitler. On the eve of the 70th anniversary of his gaining power, acclaimed biographer Ian Kershaw unpicks our continuing fascination with the Fuhrer

Hitler . . . a mix of fascination and repulsion ensures that he is still very much with us

Nazi rule, it has been said, is "a past that will not pass away". Tomorrow it will be 70 years since Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany. Only a tiny proportion of people alive today, and those by now very old, can remember that fateful day. Even those who experienced the end of Hitler's rule, 12 years later, are now elderly. And yet it seems as if scarcely a day goes by without Hitler and the Nazis in one way or another - in newspapers, films, books, on radio and television - entering into our public consciousness.

This is so not just in Germany itself, where Hitler might be expected to have cast a long shadow, but in this country, in other parts of Europe, in the US, and elsewhere. In fact, it appears at times as if we are becoming more prepossessed with Nazi Germany the further in time we move away from it. This has happened with no other 20th-century dictator - not with Mussolini, Franco, Mao, Pol Pot, even Stalin. However nasty their regimes, however vicious their repression, however horrific their inhumanity, they leave little mark on our present-day consciousness. Why is it so different with Hitler? The explanation is not altogether straightforward. Part of it, of course, lies in the very magnitude of Hitler's historical legacy. Very few observers of his moment of triumph in 1933, when he was finally handed power over the German state (and after the Nazi party had suffered serious losses at the previous general election), had any inkling of the scale of the human calamity that would follow. The left, inside and outside Germany, thought of him as the frontman for big business, presuming that he would not last long and would usher in the terminal crisis of capitalism. He was frequently taken for a political charlatan - a big mouth without substance. The biggest-selling newspaper on the left in this country, the Daily Herald, described him as a "clown".

On the conservative right, too, he was grossly underestimated. He was generally thought at first to be "not up to the job". Many assumed he would soon make way for the traditional wielders of power in Germany. Even after he had had the leaders of his own stormtroopers massacred in June 1934, the British foreign office feared "Prussianism" - the power of those who had taken Germany into war against Britain in 1914 - more than Hitler. Such misjudgments, based on established prejudices and helping to condition contemporary responses to Hitler, sound bizarre today. For we know what contemporaries only gradually grasped - that Hitler meant war and genocide.

So if we ask why nazism continues to feed the imagination more than the horrors of Stalinism, or of other dictatorships, the first point is that no other dictatorship has spawned both a world war (which produced the greatest explosion of bloodletting and violence the world has yet known) and the worst genocide in history to date. The second world war shaped the rest of the 20th century across the globe, while the Holocaust has come to be seen in many ways as the defining episode of that grim century. For both, Hitler was the inspiration. But this historical legacy, monumental though the scale of the evil was and clearly as Hitler's central responsibility can be established, does not entirely account for our continuing concern with the Third Reich, and the sense that this seems to be increasing, not decreasing with the passage of time.

Somehow nazism feeds the imagination more than the Stalinist or other forms of dictatorship. Mussolini, Franco, even Stalin appear to be more understandable products of their own societies and state systems, whereas the riddle of how such a devastating doctrine of inhumanity and regime of breathtaking brutality and destruction could arise in a modern, economically advanced, and culturally sophisticated country such as Germany (with its many similarities to our own society) prompts unceasing interest and inquiry. Beyond that is the perennial anxiety: could it happen again?

While there is no fear of Stalinism ever regaining any popular appeal, there are many reminders in today's world that some, at least, of the idiocies and illusions that went into inter-war fascism are by no means dead. Even here, the implicit worry is less of a recurrence of the brand of fascism associated with Mussolini's Italy, but of a revitalisation of the racism, antisemitism, and imperialist aggression associated with Nazi Germany. In reality, there will be no reversion to the politics of the 1930s. Racist intolerance and atavistic nationalist chauvinism are of course by no means eradicated, and are even worse in eastern than western Europe. But short of unforeseeable - even now with a new, dangerous war looming - apocalyptic disaster, there is little or no chance of racist nationalism moving back from the lunatic fringe to the centre stage of politics in Europe. More likely, as security threats and social tensions grow, is that western states themselves will become less tolerant and less liberal, as we see happening at present. However unwelcome and unpleasant, this will still not make them fascist.

If the worry that nazism is still embedded in our society plays a part in keeping Hitler and his regime in the foreground of our attention, a further unattractive speculation comes to mind. While all dictatorships are sordid, brutal, inhumane regimes (and none more so than that of Stalin), nazism seems even now to have a sort of "negative appeal" to many individuals which other regimes do not have. It represents a form of aesthetics of absolute power in which the grandiosity of the evil vision retains a compelling, macabre fascination. The orchestrated might of the black-uniformed SS in the lengthy march-past scenes of Triumph of the Will licits fear, but the image of the would-be master race intrigues at the same time. Fascination and repulsion are not far apart.

Memory and memorialisation are, without doubt, a further important strand of the answer to our conundrum. The second world war and the Holocaust created a lasting presence in many countries of the world in the countless victims of Hitler's regime and their descendants. Mussolini, Franco, even Stalin, left nothing like the same international legacy of their ill-deeds. Many still alive who suffered under Hitler, now into old age, still inwardly scarred by the events that seared their lives, want to recount their own experiences before it is too late.

Beyond personal memory, a series of 50th anniversaries during the 1990s of major events of the second world war, most notably the commemoration of the German capitulation in 1995, reasserted the centrality of the titanic struggle against Nazi Germany in public consciousness - most obviously, perhaps, in this country and in the US, the two countries which had a "good war", fighting a heroic cause, and - in international perspective - with a relatively small death-rate.

How important the memorialised (and at times mythologised) war against Hitler's Germany remains, subliminally at least, to public consciousness in this country can be seen whenever Germany and England play each other at football. Encouraged by an irresponsible tabloid press, victory in war over the Germans (unthinkingly equated with Nazis) provides, through yobbish football chants, a form of compensation for lack of success (until recently, at any rate) against "the enemy" on the football pitch. Moronic as such trivialisation is, it is an indication of how deeply embedded the second world war is in the psyche of this country, in generations far too young to have experienced it.

In Germany, by contrast, present-day consciousness of nazism and the second world war has nothing of the trivial about it. How impossible it has been to "get out of Hitler's shadow" - despite the exhortations of conservative politicians over many years - has been shown in recent years in heated public debates conducted in the German mass media over the complicity in crimes against humanity of ordinary soldiers of the Wehrmacht, not SS men, or the question of compensation for slave labourers forced to work for the German war economy. For today's young Germans, leaving aside the small neo-Nazi minority, the second world war is not about cheap sloganising or "guts and glory" glamorisation of the mass slaughter. Those potentially involved in the atrocities are their grandfathers.

The history of Nazi Germany still matters intensely to today's Germans, therefore, and the often acrid public debates about the Nazi past that have continued almost unabated since the 1960s have played a real part in the shaping of present-day political and moral consciousness. The assumption, still often heard today, that the Germans have not confronted their Nazi past could not be more wrong. The present-day democratic Germany has benefited more than most countries from learning the lessons of the past.

In keeping Hitler and nazism in the public eye, nothing has played a greater part than an increasing awareness of the Holocaust. Somewhat surprisingly, the persecution and extermination of the Jews of Nazi-occupied Europe took a long time to establish itself in public consciousness. Even for many surviving Jewish victims, the memories were too recent and too painful to revive and dwell upon until long after the end of the war. The Eichmann trial in Jerusalem, then the Auschwitz trial in Frankfurt stirred new interest in the early 1960s. But this remained largely confined to scholarly circles and survivors. Both trials prompted important research in Germany, especially at the renowned Institut fur Zeitgeschichte in Munich. German universities at this time, by contrast, hardly offered lectures or seminars on the Holocaust.

This gross deficiency began to be remedied in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Historical scholarship since then has made massive strides both in research on Nazi extermination policy and on the Jewish communities that were destroyed. The breakthrough to wider consciousness about the Jewish catastrophe was not, however, primarily the work of scholars, but of new forms of mass-media portrayal. A television docu-drama of 1979 called simply Holocaust, and portraying in soap-opera form the fate of German and Jewish neighbours, was suitably awful, but produced - amid much criticism - new public awareness of the murder of the Jews. An outpouring of works of all kinds on the Jews under Nazi rule followed. More recently, Steven Spielberg's film Schindler's List played an even more important role in spreading awareness to vast audiences which would never struggle through an academic tract on the subject.

Alongside such mass-media dramatisation, other changes were taking place. As awareness of the monumentality of the horror deepened, and sensitivity to racism in western society more generally increased, the victims began to be seen as more than just the objects of persecution and extermination. Their voices were now heard and listened to. The memory and experience of the Holocaust became institutionalised through museums such as the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, the permanent exhibition in the Imperial War Museum in London, and the Jewish Museum in Berlin. As the core racial thrust to Nazi ideology and policy became ever more apparent, historians started to look at new and differing aspects of the Holocaust, and broadened their investigation to previously neglected victims of nazism, such as Gypsies and homosexuals.

Schools and universities increasingly focused upon nazism and the Holocaust. Whereas such courses were relatively rare down to the 1970s, they are now to be found, filled to capacity, in practically all universities. In this country, too, Hitler's Germany is a central component of the A-level syllabus. Further valuable educational work is carried out by the admirable Beth Shalom Centre in Nottinghamshire. And, beginning a couple of years ago, the institutionalisation of the Holocaust in this country was cemented by the creation of Holocaust Memorial Day each January 27. In myriad ways, therefore, the Holocaust is brought ever more to public attention.

And because there is such widespread - and apparently ceaseless - interest in Hitler, nazism and the Holocaust, publishers are keen to bring out books on these topics since they know they will sell. Journalists are keen to write articles, since they know magazines will want to publish them. And television producers are keen to make documentaries and feature films, since they know there is an audience for them. The most arcane aspects of militaria or sordid speculation on Hitler's (fairly non-existent) sex life are dredged up for public consumption.The Nazis are "business". Stick a swastika on a magazine or book cover and it will sell. All this means that the Third Reich is kept in the public eye. So the spiral continues. The mass media exploit the often lurid interest they have helped to create in the first place.

Does it do any harm? First we must acknowledge the immense good that has come out of the extraordinary outpouring of research. Since 1990, the opening up of archives in the former Soviet bloc has enabled real breakthroughs in research on the Holocaust and on Nazi rule in eastern Europe, achieved mainly through the work of younger German historians. Compared with even a quarter of a century ago, we are enormously enriched in knowledge and understanding. Without the slightest complacency and with full recognition of the pernicious race-hatred and antisemitism that still mar our society, this has contributed to the changed ways in which we now look at race, gender, nationalism, and international aggression.

But there is a negative side, too, to the continued preoccupation with Hitler and Nazi Germany. This has nothing to do with historical scholarship, but a lot to do with the trivialisation of nazism in the mass media. Incessant TV films on the Third Reich contribute to this. Certainly, there are some excellent and important documentaries. But we would lose nothing if many films were never made. Often they contribute little or nothing to deepened understanding, and probably go some way to reinforcing existing stereotypes and helping to foster continued anti-German prejudice. And, serious though the educational work of dedicated teachers is in the British A-level syllabus, the over-emphasis upon Nazi Germany - as the German ambassador recently reminded us - encourages a limited and distorted view of modern Germany history.

So there are many reasons why the Nazi past is still with us. One day it will pass into history. However great its historical significance, it will at some future point be possible to view it with detachment, much as we now look back at the French revolution. But this day is still far off. Probably in 10 years' time, on the 80th anniversary of Hitler's takeover of power, we shall still be asking: is there no end to Hitler?

through museums such as the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, the permanent exhibition in the Imperial War Museum in London, and the Jewish Museum in Berlin. As the core racial thrust to Nazi ideology and policy became ever more apparent, historians started to look at new and differing aspects of the Holocaust, and broadened their investigation to previously neglected victims of nazism, such as Gypsies and homosexuals.

Schools and universities increasingly focused upon nazism and the Holocaust. Whereas such courses were relatively rare down to the 1970s, they are now to be found, filled to capacity, in practically all universities. In this country, too, Hitler's Germany is a central component of the A-level syllabus. Further valuable educational work is carried out by the admirable Beth Shalom Centre in Nottinghamshire. And, beginning a couple of years ago, the institutionalisation of the Holocaust in this country was cemented by the creation of Holocaust Memorial Day each January 27. In myriad ways, therefore, the Holocaust is brought ever more to public attention. And because there is such widespread - and apparently ceaseless - interest in Hitler, nazism and the Holocaust, publishers are keen to bring out books on these topics since they know they will sell. Journalists are keen to write articles, since they know magazines will want to publish them. And television producers are keen to make documentaries and feature films, since they know there is an audience for them. The most arcane aspects of militaria or sordid speculation on Hitler's (fairly non-existent) sex life are dredged up for public consumption.The Nazis are "business". Stick a swastika on a magazine or book cover and it will sell. All this means that the Third Reich is kept in the public eye. So the spiral continues. The mass media exploit the often lurid interest they have helped to create in the first place.

Does it do any harm? First we must acknowledge the immense good that has come out of the extraordinary outpouring of research. Since 1990, the opening up of archives in the former Soviet bloc has enabled real breakthroughs in research on the Holocaust and on Nazi rule in eastern Europe, achieved mainly through the work of younger German historians. Compared with even a quarter of a century ago, we are enormously enriched in knowledge and understanding. Without the slightest complacency and with full recognition of the pernicious race-hatred and antisemitism that still mar our society, this has contributed to the changed ways in which we now look at race, gender, nationalism, and international aggression.

But there is a negative side, too, to the continued preoccupation with Hitler and Nazi Germany. This has nothing to do with historical scholarship, but a lot to do with the trivialisation of nazism in the mass media. Incessant TV films on the Third Reich contribute to this. Certainly, there are some excellent and important documentaries. But we would lose nothing if many films were never made. Often they contribute little or nothing to deepened understanding, and probably go some way to reinforcing existing stereotypes and helping to foster continued anti-German prejudice. And, serious though the educational work of dedicated teachers is in the British A-level syllabus, the over-emphasis upon Nazi Germany - as the German ambassador recently reminded us - encourages a limited and distorted view of modern Germany history.

So there are many reasons why the Nazi past is still with us. One day it will pass into history. However great its historical significance, it will at some future point be possible to view it with detachment, much as we now look back at the French revolution. But this day is still far off. Probably in 10 years' time, on the 80th anniversary of Hitler's takeover of power, we shall still be asking: is there no end to Hitler?

Ian Kershaw is professor of modern history at Sheffield University and the author of Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris and Hitler 1936-1945: Nemesis.

Editor - 2/5/2003

The Christian Science Monitor

January 29, 2003, Wednesday


HEADLINE: The Pinta, Santa Maria, and a Chinese junk?

BYLINE: By Amanda Paulson Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

A new book claims the Chinese discovered America in 1421, but historians refute thesis.

To the Norsemen, the Japanese, and the Carthaginians; to the Irish, the Africans, and a long list of others who, it is claimed, crossed the oceans to America long before 1492, add one more: the Chinese.

They toured up and down both coasts of the Americas, established colonies, made maps, and left behind chickens. That, at least, is the theory posed by former British naval officer and amateur historian Gavin Menzies.

What is surprising is not so much the claims themselves but the buzz they've created in popular culture both here and in Britain - especially given that few professionals in the field find his case convincing. Mr. Menzies's book, "1421: The Year China Discovered America," has sold more than 75,000 copies since it hit British shelves in October. It debuted in the US at No. 8 on the New York Times bestseller list earlier this month. Mr. Menzies, who reportedly received an $ 800,000 advance from Bantam, has appeared on TV and radio. He's been profiled in the New York Times magazine. A PBS documentary is close behind.

"He's come up with a story people want to believe in," marvels Gillian Hutchinson, curator of cartography at London's National Maritime Museum who heard Menzies give a lecture last spring at the Royal Geographic Society. "There was almost a religious fervor in the audience."

This isn't the first time a tale of preColumbian discovery has captured the popular imagination. Thor Heyerdahl's 1950 book "Kon-Tiki" claimed that ancient Peruvians crossed the Pacific by raft - and documented his own attempt to emulate them. Then there was Harvard marine biologist Barry Fell, who translated scratches on rocks as ogham script, claiming evidence of Asian, African, and Celtic exploration. And many an Irishman insists the first person to reach America was none other than Brendan the Navigator, a 6th-century Irish monk.

Before Christopher Columbus was born

But Menzies's tale, which looks at a well-documented voyage by a Ming Dynasty fleet in 1421, is more specific in its assertions than most theories. In his version, a fleet led by admiral Zheng He rounded the Cape of Good Hope and then split up. One group explored South America, Antarctica, and Australia, while other ships toured Central and North America, circled Greenland, learned to measure longitude, and established settlements. Menzies says all records of the voyages were later destroyed.

For evidence of his theory, Menzies casts a broad net, citing shipwrecks, anchor stones, language, and maps that he says helped guide Columbus and Magellan. The historian points to a map the Portuguese had by 1428 that suggested some Caribbean islands long before any European was known to have traveled there. Menzies believes the chart was derived from Chinese explorations.

The book is more detective novel than history, with Menzies as the Hercule Poirot who pieces together the clues, helped by his navigation experience. "If I have found information that escaped [eminent historians]," he writes, "it is only because I knew how to interpret the extraordinary maps."

There's just one problem: Mainstream historians consider the book hogwash.

"It's absolutely preposterous," laughs Donald Blakeslee, an archeologist at Wichita State University in Kansas, referring to one of the book's claims: that ships with "gilded sterns" had sailed up the Mississippi River and into the Missouri. "A seagoing vessel couldn't have gotten close to that area."

Dennis Reinhartz, who teaches the history of cartography at the University of Texas at Arlington and is a past president of the Society for the History of Discoveries, agrees. "There's a whole genre of this stuff," he says with a laugh. "People are forever saying this line [on a map] represents this or that ... but it's still shaping a square peg to fit a round hole." Much of the evidence Menzies points to - a mysterious tower in Newport, R.I., for instance, and several 15th-century maps - has been used to support other theories.

None of this, however, takes away from the charm of the author or his story. Read it, or better yet, listen to Menzies for a few minutes, and it's hard to resist his enthusiasm. Charismatic, with a delightful British accent, he sounds like a kid who's just worked out the solution to a particularly tricky riddle.

"There's a flood of new evidence," he exclaims, ticking off a list of clues of Chinese settlements in America.

"So, for New York, the first person who got there was Giovanni de Verrazzano, and in trying to find the Northwest Passage he met people he described as Chinese! In Florida, Pedro Menendez de Aviles found wrecks of Chinese junks in the Atlantic. In Peru, Friar Antonio de la Calancha found pictures people had painted of the Chinese cavalry...." He keeps going, enthusiasm unabated.

Unconventional theories

That exuberance may account for some of the book's popularity. "It's a delightful read," says Nancy Yaw Davis, an independent scholar in Anchorage, Alaska. Dr. Davis understands what it's like to have academics attack a pet theory. Most dismissed her book, "The Zuni Enigma," which described the influence of 13th-century Japanese explorers on Zuni Indians. Though disappointed in some of his evidence, Davis admires Menzies.

"He was gutsy," she says, adding, "I was a wee tad envious. I had hoped my book would generate that kind of recognition."

What is it about discovery theories that can so capture the imagination? "It's about rewriting history," says John Steele, an executive producer of the upcoming PBS documentary, "1421: The Year China Discovered the World." Menzies upends Captain Cook's claim to Australia and Magellan's claim to the first circumnavigation, he notes. "But the thing that really gets everyone is discovering America before Columbus."

The Italian-American community, perhaps the fiercest defender of Columbus's legacy, is used to such challenges. "Every nationality claims to have a Columbus," says Adolfo Caso, author and founder of the Internet-based Dante University. "Regardless of who may have been here before or after, the Europeans met the Indians because of Columbus," he says firmly.

If Menzies is correct - what to do about that well-known rhyme? A visitor to his website,, offers one suggestion:

"In fourteen hundred twenty-one

China sailed there before anyone."

Just don't look for fifth-graders to be memorizing the couplet anytime soon.

Editor - 2/5/2003

The Times (London)

January 28, 2003, Tuesday

SECTION: Features; 33

HEADLINE: London Gazette puts 350 years of history online

BYLINE: Patrick Kidd

GENEALOGY and historical research have become easier with the official launch this month of the first phase of Gazettes-Online, a major project to make the entire archive of the London, Edinburgh and Belfast Gazettes accessible on the internet.

The London Gazette is the world's oldest surviving periodical. It was first published in 1665 as the official form of government communication after King Charles II moved his court to Oxford during the Great Plague. The first news story -dated November 7, 1665 -began: "This day the Reverend Dr Walter Blandford, Warden of Wadham College in this University, was Elected Lord Bishop of this See, vacant by the death of Dr Paul, late Bishop here." The first edition also included stories on the "pricking", or election, of the county sheriffs, new taxes imposed on the French and the "prosperous condition" of the English garrison in Tangiers, despite attacks by the Dutch. The Gazette also complained about the weather. A report from Plymouth said: "The weather of late has been very tempestuous on these Coasts...a ship from Virginia was cast away about 3 Leagues from this place, and 5 men lost."

The Gazette became the official chronicler of all major national and international events. The edition for September 3, 1666, began: "The ordinary course of this Paper having been interrupted by a Sad and Lamentable Accident of Fire lately hapned in the City of London: It hath been thought fit for satisfying the minds of so many of His Majesties good Subjects, who must needs be concerned for the Issue of so great an Accident, to give this short, but true Accompt of it." The Gazette outlined the progress of the Great Fire and speculated upon the cause, attributing it to "an effect of unhappy chance, or the heavy hand of God upon us for our Sins".

The newspaper had incomparable sources of overseas information. In peacetime its foreign correspondents were the British embassies; in times of war, British generals reported directly to the newspaper's editor. The first news of Wellington's victory at Waterloo was carried in the Gazette, and when The Times, which had been founded as the Daily Universal Register 30 years earlier, stopped its presses to run the story, it reprinted in full the dispatch, published as a "Gazette Extraordinary".

Today The London Gazette is a newspaper only in a very specialised sense (the circulation is barely 1,500) but its role in publishing official information is still significant and each edition bears the original legend "Published by Authority".

The Gazette, like its sister publications in Edinburgh and Belfast, contains a wide range of official notices including awards and medals, obituaries, matters of state, parliamentary and ecclesiastical bulletins and bankruptcy notices.

The Stationery Office, publisher of The London Gazette, began work on the website early last year, and intends to have all 56,000 editions (covering some two million pages) online by 2006. The first tranche from the archive covers the First and Second World Wars, as well as all 20th-century honours and awards. The next phase will include the rest of the 20th-century editions.

The site includes a search facility that will take users to the exact place in an edition where a particular entry occurred. For family historians it is possible to check the awards of gallantry medals, the promotion of officers or the naturalisation of an ancestor simply by typing in a surname.

Before the pages were scanned in, the documents had to be cleaned, a time- consuming process because of the varied paper quality, from brittle wartime stock to more uniform modern paper. The ink also posed similar problems, with the older oil-based ink used in early printing varying greatly from modern quick-drying inks.

"The clarity of the pages on the internet is actually pretty good," said Richard Hollis of the Stationery Office, "but we may have more difficulty with the older editions."

Editor of HNN - 2/5/2003

The Straits Times (Singapore)

January 28, 2003 Tuesday


HEADLINE: Historical amnesia bars Japan from progress


IT IS often said that three times is a charm, and the Japanese public and its politicians may very well have been charmed by Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's recent visit to Tokyo's Yasukuni Shrine for the third year in a row.

Like a batsman who has used up his three strikes, Mr Koizumi may be batting Japan out of the prospects of forging the kind of relations that North-east Asia has long been needing.

South Korea expressed 'anger and disappointment' and 'deep regret' at Mr Koizumi's visit. China's Foreign Ministry summoned Japan's ambassador in Beijing and issued a protest of 'strong dissatisfaction and indignation'. Both countries were occupied by Japan in the last century and regard the shrine, which is dedicated to its 2.5 million war dead, as a symbol of Japanese militarism. Mr Koizumi said that he wanted 'to meditate on peace with a clear mind' and never again allow Japan to cause a war. Yet, it is easy to empathise with Chinese and Korean distrust for his words when he chooses to conduct his meditation in a place built for remembering Class A war criminals.

Neither immediacies such as the current threat of North Korea, or even Japan's philanthropic provision of Overseas Direct Aid, or its development of extensive trade links and production networks with China and South Korea can fight against the tide of history.

This is not the history of Francis Fukuyama's complex abstraction of an evolutionary process culminating in the grand triumph of liberal democracy. It is the history, which as Elsa Morante's History: A Novel tells us, that 'reaches the realm of ordinary people'.

It is the pain of Japan's past transgressions of World War II which it chooses to deny that haunts the people of China, South Korea and much of Asia today.

Historians estimate that 3.5 million people were enslaved or slaughtered by Japanese forces. Of these, 200,000 women were forced into sexual slavery. Countless people were butchered in biological and chemical warfare experiments and atrocities such as the 1937 Rape of Nanking.

Today, new horrors continue to be unveiled, from mass graves or 'people-reducing kilns' in Thailand and China.

It is hard for any of us to make sense of the barbarism that comes with war. Yet, while it is easy to forego such understanding in the pursuit of closure, it often cannot do without the act of repentance and forgiveness.

There continues to be an expectation for Japan's Prime Minister to do what Mr Richard von Weizsacker did for Germany. As President of the Federal Republic from 1984 to 1994, he often used his position to appeal to Germany's conscience on troublesome issues.

In 1985, he made a famous speech challenging older German's assertions that they 'knew nothing' about the Holocaust. According to Japan specialist John Dower, Mr Koizumi could have followed Mr von Weizsacker's example by using Yasukuni 'as an occasion to give a great cathartic speech about what Japan did to its neighbours and people during World War II'.

Instead, the Japanese Prime Minister reads a wooden statement of 'regret' for Japan's role in the war every Aug 15 (the date of its surrender), while a procession of Cabinet ministers pay homage at the Yasukuni Shrine that honours ex-Prime Minister General Tojo and 13 convicted war criminals.

The possibility of closure between Japan and its neighbours is becoming remote and not just because of Yasukuni.

First, Japan's post-war leaders created the impression that the country was deflecting the charges brought up by the Tokyo War Tribunals by appointing several Class A war criminals to power 10 years after. Mr Kishi Nobusuke, minister of commerce and industry in Tojo's Cabinet, became Prime Minister in 1957. To many, this was as bizarre as a former Nazi luminary becoming Chancellor in post-war Germany.

Second, nationalist religious groups such as the powerful Japan Association of the Bereaved Families of the War Dead belie Mr Koizumi's rhetoric. This lobby group has stated that to describe the war as an aggressive act is tantamount to saying Japanese soldiers spilled their blood for nothing. Under Shinto belief, this would preclude their souls from resting in peace.

Third, the atheists among the growing Japanese right prefer 'historical amnesia'. Many of them argue for a 'correct' history: that Japan was never a colonial state; that the war was not aggressive; that the mass enslavement of women and the 'great massacre' in Nanking cannot be proven.

Consequently, through the insistence of Japan's Ministry of Education on 'correct' history in the school curriculum, a generation of Japanese has grown up with a poor sense of the realities of the war.

In truth, Japan must confront, interrogate, and resolve its past if it is to segue into the future. Otherwise, we can forget all that lies along this path: Sino-Japanese entente, Japan's forging of closer ties with South Korea and the realisation of Japan's desire to do more than contribute financially to United Nations peacekeeping activities.

We can only hope that Japan has some charm left to do things differently for its future and ours.

The writer is a research associate at the Institute of South-east Asian Studies. He contributed this comment to The Straits Times.

Editor - 2/5/2003

The San Francisco Chronicle
HEADLINE: Drawing fire;

Cartoon museum explores what happens when the funny pages take on serious issues

SOURCE: Chronicle Pop Culture Critic

BYLINE: James Sullivan

When Doonesbury's Garry Trudeau drew two unmarried characters lying in bed together in the mid-1970s, many readers were outraged. One who took exception, a minister, wrote a letter objecting to the suggestion that sex had taken place.

"A dung hill has a foul odor," he wrote, "but cultured people see no artistic value in reproducing its likeness."

That inspired bit of correspondence is on display, along with the offending comic strip and several others that have provoked similar reactions, at "Hate Mail: Comic Strip Controversies," a new exhibition at the Cartoon Art Museum.

Sex and sexuality, violence, racism, class warfare and political agendas have all been addressed on the so-called funny pages, in some cases since the early days of the medium. Harold Gray's Little Orphan Annie lampooned FDR's New Deal and depicted labor unions as unruly mobs in the 1930s, exasperating the left. In the 1950s, Walt Kelly's Pogo parodied then-popular Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy and his House Un-American Activities Committee with a character called Simple J. Malarkey, months before journalist Edward R. Murrow was recognized for discrediting the congressman.

But few comics have drawn the kind of indignation leveled at The Boondocks a year ago, when creator Aaron McGruder skewered post-Sept. 11 patriotism.

The strip's precocious young activist Huey Freeman calls an FBI anti-terrorism hot line, ready to name names: "Reagan," he begins. "R-E-A-G-A-N." In subsequent days, McGruder -- anticipating the backlash -- ran farcically jingoistic surrogate strips called The Adventures of Flagee and Ribbon.

"People actually believed newspapers had pulled his strip," said Cartoon Art curator Jenny Dietzen the other day, standing in the main gallery with director Rod Gilchrist. Framed originals of the McGruder and Trudeau strips, as well as others by artists including Berke Breathed (Bloom County and Outland), Scott Adams (Dilbert) and Lynn Johnston (For Better or For Worse), leaned against the baseboard, awaiting hanging.

McGruder, speaking on the phone from his Southern California home, said campaigns to keep the comics page innocent and issue-free are misguided and outdated.

"The argument that the comics should be innocent is really just an excuse to attack political views (some readers) don't like," he said. "At the end of the day, people just need a reason to get mad, to justify their anger. But you can't just say 'I don't want to hear dissent.' "

The Pulitzer-winning cartoonist Breathed, retired from the funnies since 1995, said that in a country nostalgic for its lost innocence, "the comics page is still perceived as the page laid out on the living room floor with the kids laying on top.

"I think (Charles Schulz's) Peanuts solidified that idea. The irony is, that strip was actually very much appreciated by adults." But Schulz's dogged maintenance of innocence perpetuated the idea, Breathed said, that comics "don't stretch the envelope."

Oddly, the comic strip originated a century ago as a mass entertainment for grown-ups, said historian Robert C. Harvey, author of "The Art of the Funnies" and a member of the Cartoon Art Museum's advisory board. Some of the earliest strips -- the Yellow Kid, the Katzenjammer Kids -- were tailored to immigrant adults, he noted.

But even then they attracted strenuous objection. "These were vulgar, low-class kids" in the strips, Harvey said. "Readers complained about the possible influence of these lowlifes on the upbringing of their children."

Matters of taste have been debated in the funnies "as long as there have been comic strips," Harvey said. A more recent phenomenon is the gradual acceptance of certain levels of political and social commentary, which has been traditionally reserved for the editorial page and the alternative weeklies.

"Aaron McGruder would have been impossible 100, even 50 years ago," he said. "The fact that he can make a living as a syndicated cartoonist is a testament to the courage of newspaper editors, the syndicate that distributes him and also the maturation of the American reading public."

And McGruder doesn't just eke out a living -- he's thriving. In a medium in which openings are as scarce as pleasant bosses in Dilbert, the Boondocks premiered four years ago in 150 newspapers, one of the biggest strip launches ever. Today, 250 papers carry it, including The Chronicle.
But its creator has paid for his outspokenness. The New York Daily News dropped the strip for more than month during the Sept. 11 uproar; episodes addressing the National Rifle Association were pulled in Dallas.
Both McGruder and Breathed believe that there's a generation gap of comics readers. Those who grew up accustomed to Doonesbury are less inclined to take offense at serious topics.
"Comics are an aging medium," McGruder said. "Not only the creators but a lot of readers are old people. And old people aren't quick to change."
"I don't think a lot of people under 30 are calling in shock that Boondocks is poking them in the eye," Breathed agreed.
The comics pages have taken huge strides from midcentury, said the historian Harvey, when distribution syndicates required illustrators to obey a long list of arbitrary no-no's. Snakes, for instance, were verboten; so were wives telling fibs to their husbands.
Those taboos are long gone. Yet the syndicates, still beholden to huge numbers of readers and publications, remain no haven of progressive thought. McGruder says his syndicate, Universal Press (distributors of Doonesbury and Johnston's For Better or for Worse, which introduced a gay character a decade ago), is supportive if not always on his wavelength.
"I'll say, 'Trust me, people will get this -- people my age, black people.' And they trust me and send it out."
Breathed too used the forum to promote his beliefs; his contribution to the exhibition includes an amusing exchange he had with cosmetics manufacturer Mary Kay over animal testing. But he is also represented by some old-fashioned crude humor.
In the strip in question, Opus and Bill the Cat have just told a dumb joke about women. A sharply dressed female suddenly appears with a withering warning: "Men should take another long, hard look at the very thing that brings meaning to their meaningless lives," she says.
In the last panel, the critters peer forlornly into their tighty-whities, assessing the damage.
"I don't hold that up as my proudest achievement," the cartoonist said with a laugh. "But that's the image people want the most, on T-shirts and things.
"It goes where all entertainment eventually goes -- pushing the taste envelope."

1900s: The Yellow Kid and the Katzenjammer Kids are cited for bad influence on youth.

1910s: In Polly and Her Pals, the "new woman" dares to show ankle.

1930s: Little Orphan Annie creator Harold Gray ridicules labor and FDR's New Deal. Dick Tracy becomes the first action strip to depict violence in America's backyard.

1940s: In Li'l Abner, Al Capp kicks against the establishment.

1950s: Pogo creator Walt Kelly lampoons Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy.

1960s: On Stage introduces a black character; several papers cancel the strip.

1970s: "How come there's no blacks in this honky outfit?" asks Lt. Flap in Beetle Bailey. Garry Trudeau brings hashish and Watergate to the funnies in Doonesbury.

1980s: Bloom County and Mary Kay spar over animal testing.

1990s: A gay character premieres in For Better or For Worse.

2000s: B.C. is accused of anti-Semitism. The Boondocks spoofs post-Sept. 11 jingoism.

John Alexander - 2/5/2003

There appear to be a number of errors in this article.

First, there is no indication that the conflict between the English and the French had anything to do with the abduction. Such abductions were relatively common, and were intended to add to the numbers of a tribe. (It is not even known for sure what tribe was involved.) This kind of kidnapping was often committed between tribes long before the arrival of Europeans.

By most reliable reports, several of the Indians killed were children.

No one was "slated to run the gauntlet the next day." The group was far from where it was headed, reportedly in Canada. Further, a gauntlet did not involve attacks with "hatchets." It would be rather counterproductive to go to the trouble of taking someone and transporting her a great distance only to kill her. The gauntlets were unquestionably dangerous, but rarely resulted in serious injury.

I recently visited the monument, and I do not believe the inscription cited in the article appears on the monument.

If your goal is to get the facts right, then get them right. You might also wish to mention what Hannah did with the scalps when she got back home.

John Kohn - 2/5/2003

Double trouble

By Yossi Melman

For the first time, the Egyptian media, a month ago, has revealed what it calls one of the most important assets the Mossad had in Egypt: the source who confirmed in October, 1973 that a war was in the offing. A month ago, newspapers in Egypt raised the question of whether Dr. Ashraf Marwan, a businessman who is the son-in-law of President Gamal Abdel Nasser, was an Israeli agent. In Israel, the name of the agent has never been exposed and, in the discussion surrounding his activities, he is referred to as a "senior agent" operated by the Mossad in Egypt, who supplied Israel with important information including that regarding the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War.

The person behind the debate is Dr. Ahron (Roni) Bregman, who has been living in Britain for many years and was involved several years ago in the production of a BBC television series to mark Israel's Jubilee. He served as an artillery officer in the Israel Defense Forces, but says he had no ties with the intelligence community. A few months ago, he published in Britain a book called "A History of Israel" (Palgrave Macmillan, September, 2002). One of the chapters in the book was abbreviated into an article that was published in September 2002, in a special edition of the daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, to mark the 19th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War. In that article, Bregman hinted at the agent. Among other things, he wrote that the man had been a relative of Egyptian President Nasser, and that his runners from the Mossad called him "the in-law."

The newspaper article did not create any reverberations in the Israeli public. In Egypt, however, they swooped down on Bregman's hints, which were easy to work out, and revealed that the person was Ashraf Marwan. Bregman was also interviewed by the Egyptian media and confirmed that Marwan had indeed been an Israeli agent, but in fact had been a double agent who cheated Israel and made it possible for the Egyptians and the Syrians to surprise Israel in the Yom Kippur War.

Suspicious motives

Dr. Ashraf Marwan was born in 1944, the son of a respected Egyptian family who studied in England and married Muna, Nasser's third daughter, in the 1960s. The marriage brought him close to the president's innermost circle. He was given the status and title of roving ambassador, and set out on delicate diplomatic missions around the world. In the media of the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s, he was mentioned as having served as bureau chief for the presidency, and sometimes it was even noted that he was the coordinator on behalf of the president with the Egyptian intelligence services.

According to these same sources, the senior agent was recruited by Israel apparently in 1969. The surprising thing is that the agent volunteered his services. One day, he walked into the Israeli Embassy in Kensington in London and offered to provide information. The mission of running him, according to these sources, was given to the Mossad. It is possible to assume that a thorough background check of him was conducted. A "walk-in" agent who volunteers inevitably arouses great suspicion as to his motives, especially if he is well-connected to his country's regime and appears to have access to secret information. The great fear is that the volunteer might have been sent by enemy intelligence to serve as a double agent and to transmit false information.

When the check was completed, it was concluded that the new volunteer was worth running. Among other things, it emerged that his motives were not purely financial, but also stemmed from a combination of ideological-political and family reasons.

If Ashraf Marwan was indeed an agent of the Mossad, as was discussed in the Egyptian media, it is likely that he would have been well-paid. It may also be assumed that, as he was a wealthy man, he did not need to have his expenses covered for his trips to meetings with his handler (in such cases, it is preferable for one regular operator to run such an important agent). Because he had the ability to come and go as he pleased, it is reasonable to assume that running him did not cause many problems and the meetings were held in European capitals. For the services of such a valuable agent, the Mossad is prepared to pay tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of dollars. The deal is usually payment according to the value of the information.

Seeds of failure

In May, 1973, the senior agent provided the information that, in the guise of a military exercise, Egypt was planning to go to war. On the orders of the chief of staff at the time, Lieutenant General David Elazar (and contrary to the opinion of then defense minister Moshe Dayan), Israel called up reservists, which incurred a heavy and unexpected burden on its budget. The Egyptians did not go to war and it was then that the seeds of self-delusion were sown that led to the intelligence failure half a year later. In retrospect, the crisis of May, 1973 served as ammunition in the hands of the head of Military Intelligence at the time, Major General Eli Zeira, whom the official commission of inquiry after the war, headed by Justice Shimon Agranat, perceived as responsible for the intelligence failure. Zeira argued before the commission that the Mossad's agent was, in fact, a double agent and was transmitting false information in order to put Israeli intelligence to sleep, as in the story of the boy who "cried wolf."

The Mossad, on the other hand, believed that the agent was not a double agent, and that before the Yom Kippur war, he delivered the goods for which he was recruited and run. He indeed provided the warning that a war was in the making, including the precise date. But his information came up against the so-called in Hebrew "konseptzia" - the biased thinking, mainly of Military Intelligence, that the Egyptians would not go to war on their own, that their chances of doing so in coordination with the Syrians were small and that, in any case, they would not dare to launch an attack as long they did not have a missile capacity that would counter Israel's air superiority.

And thus, despite all the information that had been gathered by Military Intelligence and the Mossad - and despite the warning from King Hussein and from the senior Egyptian agent - General Zeira and the head of the research division at that time, Brigadier General Arieh Shalev, stuck to the original opinion that just as in May, 1973, the preparations made by the Egyptian army west of the Suez Canal were intended for maneuvers and would not turn into a war.

Mossad head Zvi Zamir, who believed otherwise, decided on May 5 to fly to a special meeting with the agent in Europe, to get evidence that would contradict the version of the head of Military Intelligence. Zamir, along with the agent-handler, flew to the meeting a day before the war. He met with the agent on Friday night and hastened to contact his bureau chief, Freddy Eini, to tell him in a prearranged code the words that have become famous: "Tomorrow a war will break out."

Nevertheless, Israel was surprised by the combined attack by the armies of Egypt and Syria. After the war, Golda Meir's government appointed the Agranat commission to investigate the reasons for the failure (the terms of its appointment included limitations that were actually intended to blame the military). During the commission's deliberations, in order to cast off the blame, or at least to share it with the Mossad, Military Intelligence's Eli Zeira gave his assessment that the Mossad's senior agent was a double agent, who had deceived Israel. He did provide real information, from time to time, in order to gain the trust of his runners, but his aim was to deceive them. Even though the Agranat Commission did not accept Zeira's explanations, he did succeed in planting doubts as to the reliability of the senior agent. The doubts also spread among senior officials in the intelligence community. Not only in Military Intelligence, but also in other organizations such as the Shin Bet and even in the Mossad itself.

Zamir himself stuck to his opinion that the agent was not a double agent and that all the information he had provided was true and precise. This conclusion was also reached by a special committee appointed at the Mossad to examine the issue. Among those participating on the committee were the agent's runner, research and operations officials and intelligence experts. The entire affair, from the moment of the agent's recruitment through all the runners' reports and research assessments that were based on his information, was thoroughly reconstructed and checked repeatedly.

To the investigation committee, as to most of the officials who are privy to the affair, it is clear that the agent was genuine and not a double agent. He did not deceive and he did not lie. The intelligence failure in the war was due to the refusal by Israel's intelligence chiefs - especially Military Intelligence, led by Eli Zeira and Arieh Shalev - and by Prime Minister Meir and Defense Minister Dayan to believe that Egypt was capable of launching a war.

Last week, Zamir refused to comment on the matter and said: "Many stories have been published and I have no intention of relating to them."

But now, Dr. Bregman has come along and in his book, as in the interview he gave to the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram, he again adopts the double agent version from the school of thought of Eli Zeira. In the interview, which was published on December 22, Bregman was asked: Why didn't you mention the agent's name in your book? His reply: "In my book, I was very scrupulous about not mentioning his name. I did not even mention that the individual was the husband of Abdel Nasser's daughter. But I did say that this person was close to Nasser. Ashraf Marwan said in a recently published interview that my story is a ridiculous detective fiction or something like that, but I have to defend my good name as a historian and I cannot accept this. The man who was called `the daughter's husband' in my book is Ashraf Marwan. He is the spy I spoke about and he was a double agent - I am one of his greatest admirers. I think that he was a model spy. He was a very professional spy. He succeeded in tricking Israel. He is the person who more than anyone else should be credited with Egypt's success in deceiving Israel before the war of October, 1973."

Marwan himself has denied the charge against him in an interview he gave to the newspaper Saut al-Uma. He is an international businessman who divides his time between London and Egypt. He owns 3 percent of the shares in the Chelsea soccer team, and during the second half of the 1980s, he was involved in struggles for control of the prestigious London department store, Harrods. He joined up with British businessman "Tiny" Rowland (also a friend of Israel, who aided in promoting its security, especially by taking part in missions in Africa and in Sudan, ) and with Egyptian businessman Mohammed al-Fayed. The three worked jointly but later their paths diverged. Al-Fayed, who took control of Harrods, and Ashraf Marwan became fierce rivals, hurled accusations at each other and threatened each other with libel suits.

John Kohn - 2/5/2003

Double trouble

By Yossi Melman

For the first time, the Egyptian media, a month ago, has revealed what it calls one of the most important assets the Mossad had in Egypt: the source who confirmed in October, 1973 that a war was in the offing. A month ago, newspapers in Egypt raised the question of whether Dr. Ashraf Marwan, a businessman who is the son-in-law of President Gamal Abdel Nasser, was an Israeli agent. In Israel, the name of the agent has never been exposed and, in the discussion surrounding his activities, he is referred to as a "senior agent" operated by the Mossad in Egypt, who supplied Israel with important information including that regarding the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War.

The person behind the debate is Dr. Ahron (Roni) Bregman, who has been living in Britain for many years and was involved several years ago in the production of a BBC television series to mark Israel's Jubilee. He served as an artillery officer in the Israel Defense Forces, but says he had no ties with the intelligence community. A few months ago, he published in Britain a book called "A History of Israel" (Palgrave Macmillan, September, 2002). One of the chapters in the book was abbreviated into an article that was published in September 2002, in a special edition of the daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, to mark the 19th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War. In that article, Bregman hinted at the agent. Among other things, he wrote that the man had been a relative of Egyptian President Nasser, and that his runners from the Mossad called him "the in-law."

The newspaper article did not create any reverberations in the Israeli public. In Egypt, however, they swooped down on Bregman's hints, which were easy to work out, and revealed that the person was Ashraf Marwan. Bregman was also interviewed by the Egyptian media and confirmed that Marwan had indeed been an Israeli agent, but in fact had been a double agent who cheated Israel and made it possible for the Egyptians and the Syrians to surprise Israel in the Yom Kippur War.

Suspicious motives

Dr. Ashraf Marwan was born in 1944, the son of a respected Egyptian family who studied in England and married Muna, Nasser's third daughter, in the 1960s. The marriage brought him close to the president's innermost circle. He was given the status and title of roving ambassador, and set out on delicate diplomatic missions around the world. In the media of the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s, he was mentioned as having served as bureau chief for the presidency, and sometimes it was even noted that he was the coordinator on behalf of the president with the Egyptian intelligence services.

According to these same sources, the senior agent was recruited by Israel apparently in 1969. The surprising thing is that the agent volunteered his services. One day, he walked into the Israeli Embassy in Kensington in London and offered to provide information. The mission of running him, according to these sources, was given to the Mossad. It is possible to assume that a thorough background check of him was conducted. A "walk-in" agent who volunteers inevitably arouses great suspicion as to his motives, especially if he is well-connected to his country's regime and appears to have access to secret information. The great fear is that the volunteer might have been sent by enemy intelligence to serve as a double agent and to transmit false information.

When the check was completed, it was concluded that the new volunteer was worth running. Among other things, it emerged that his motives were not purely financial, but also stemmed from a combination of ideological-political and family reasons.

If Ashraf Marwan was indeed an agent of the Mossad, as was discussed in the Egyptian media, it is likely that he would have been well-paid. It may also be assumed that, as he was a wealthy man, he did not need to have his expenses covered for his trips to meetings with his handler (in such cases, it is preferable for one regular operator to run such an important agent). Because he had the ability to come and go as he pleased, it is reasonable to assume that running him did not cause many problems and the meetings were held in European capitals. For the services of such a valuable agent, the Mossad is prepared to pay tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of dollars. The deal is usually payment according to the value of the information.

Seeds of failure

In May, 1973, the senior agent provided the information that, in the guise of a military exercise, Egypt was planning to go to war. On the orders of the chief of staff at the time, Lieutenant General David Elazar (and contrary to the opinion of then defense minister Moshe Dayan), Israel called up reservists, which incurred a heavy and unexpected burden on its budget. The Egyptians did not go to war and it was then that the seeds of self-delusion were sown that led to the intelligence failure half a year later. In retrospect, the crisis of May, 1973 served as ammunition in the hands of the head of Military Intelligence at the time, Major General Eli Zeira, whom the official commission of inquiry after the war, headed by Justice Shimon Agranat, perceived as responsible for the intelligence failure. Zeira argued before the commission that the Mossad's agent was, in fact, a double agent and was transmitting false information in order to put Israeli intelligence to sleep, as in the story of the boy who "cried wolf."

The Mossad, on the other hand, believed that the agent was not a double agent, and that before the Yom Kippur war, he delivered the goods for which he was recruited and run. He indeed provided the warning that a war was in the making, including the precise date. But his information came up against the so-called in Hebrew "konseptzia" - the biased thinking, mainly of Military Intelligence, that the Egyptians would not go to war on their own, that their chances of doing so in coordination with the Syrians were small and that, in any case, they would not dare to launch an attack as long they did not have a missile capacity that would counter Israel's air superiority.

And thus, despite all the information that had been gathered by Military Intelligence and the Mossad - and despite the warning from King Hussein and from the senior Egyptian agent - General Zeira and the head of the research division at that time, Brigadier General Arieh Shalev, stuck to the original opinion that just as in May, 1973, the preparations made by the Egyptian army west of the Suez Canal were intended for maneuvers and would not turn into a war.

Mossad head Zvi Zamir, who believed otherwise, decided on May 5 to fly to a special meeting with the agent in Europe, to get evidence that would contradict the version of the head of Military Intelligence. Zamir, along with the agent-handler, flew to the meeting a day before the war. He met with the agent on Friday night and hastened to contact his bureau chief, Freddy Eini, to tell him in a prearranged code the words that have become famous: "Tomorrow a war will break out."

Nevertheless, Israel was surprised by the combined attack by the armies of Egypt and Syria. After the war, Golda Meir's government appointed the Agranat commission to investigate the reasons for the failure (the terms of its appointment included limitations that were actually intended to blame the military). During the commission's deliberations, in order to cast off the blame, or at least to share it with the Mossad, Military Intelligence's Eli Zeira gave his assessment that the Mossad's senior agent was a double agent, who had deceived Israel. He did provide real information, from time to time, in order to gain the trust of his runners, but his aim was to deceive them. Even though the Agranat Commission did not accept Zeira's explanations, he did succeed in planting doubts as to the reliability of the senior agent. The doubts also spread among senior officials in the intelligence community. Not only in Military Intelligence, but also in other organizations such as the Shin Bet and even in the Mossad itself.

Zamir himself stuck to his opinion that the agent was not a double agent and that all the information he had provided was true and precise. This conclusion was also reached by a special committee appointed at the Mossad to examine the issue. Among those participating on the committee were the agent's runner, research and operations officials and intelligence experts. The entire affair, from the moment of the agent's recruitment through all the runners' reports and research assessments that were based on his information, was thoroughly reconstructed and checked repeatedly.

To the investigation committee, as to most of the officials who are privy to the affair, it is clear that the agent was genuine and not a double agent. He did not deceive and he did not lie. The intelligence failure in the war was due to the refusal by Israel's intelligence chiefs - especially Military Intelligence, led by Eli Zeira and Arieh Shalev - and by Prime Minister Meir and Defense Minister Dayan to believe that Egypt was capable of launching a war.

Last week, Zamir refused to comment on the matter and said: "Many stories have been published and I have no intention of relating to them."

But now, Dr. Bregman has come along and in his book, as in the interview he gave to the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram, he again adopts the double agent version from the school of thought of Eli Zeira. In the interview, which was published on December 22, Bregman was asked: Why didn't you mention the agent's name in your book? His reply: "In my book, I was very scrupulous about not mentioning his name. I did not even mention that the individual was the husband of Abdel Nasser's daughter. But I did say that this person was close to Nasser. Ashraf Marwan said in a recently published interview that my story is a ridiculous detective fiction or something like that, but I have to defend my good name as a historian and I cannot accept this. The man who was called `the daughter's husband' in my book is Ashraf Marwan. He is the spy I spoke about and he was a double agent - I am one of his greatest admirers. I think that he was a model spy. He was a very professional spy. He succeeded in tricking Israel. He is the person who more than anyone else should be credited with Egypt's success in deceiving Israel before the war of October, 1973."

Marwan himself has denied the charge against him in an interview he gave to the newspaper Saut al-Uma. He is an international businessman who divides his time between London and Egypt. He owns 3 percent of the shares in the Chelsea soccer team, and during the second half of the 1980s, he was involved in struggles for control of the prestigious London department store, Harrods. He joined up with British businessman "Tiny" Rowland (also a friend of Israel, who aided in promoting its security, especially by taking part in missions in Africa and in Sudan, ) and with Egyptian businessman Mohammed al-Fayed. The three worked jointly but later their paths diverged. Al-Fayed, who took control of Harrods, and Ashraf Marwan became fierce rivals, hurled accusations at each other and threatened each other with libel suits.

Editor - 2/4/2003

Los Angeles Times

January 28, 2003 Tuesday Home Edition

SECTION: Main News Main News; Part 1; Page 3; Foreign Desk

HEADLINE: The World;

Age-Old Nationalist Hero Gets a Demotion in China; Beijing decides that a 12th century general long reveredfor his loyalty is no longer PC.

BYLINE: Anthony Kuhn, Special to The Times


BEIJING -- "Give us back our territory!"

From statues and temples across China, the furious brush strokes of Gen. Yue Fei command the nomadic invaders who occupied northern China in the 12th century to retreat.

Since his battles during the Song Dynasty, Yue has been one of this nation's most revered historical figures, his status cemented by an official cult built by subsequent Chinese regimes.

The ruling Communist Party, it would seem, could hardly have picked a more potent symbol of nationalism to bolster its own fragile legitimacy. "Over time, Yue Fei has become not just a symbol of Chinese culture -- he has become Chinese culture," said Leo K. Shin, a historian at the University of British Columbia who is writing a book on Yue.

But nationalism cuts both ways, and Beijing occasionally has to tamp it down to keep it from tripping up government policies.

Yue's bloody campaign against northern peoples -- who are now, in fact, Chinese citizens -- doesn't exactly fit with current officials' desire to promote harmony among the nation's 55 officially recognized minority ethnic groups.

So Chinese authorities have decided: Enshrining Yue as a national hero is no longer politically correct.

But China's deeply rooted folkloric traditions are not easily discarded.

Negating Yue's status as a national hero "implies denying that wars between nations and peoples occurred in China's history. Isn't that absurd?" complained Zhai Ruofu in a letter to the Southern Metropolitan Daily newspaper.

Chinese children around the globe learn about how the young patriot Yue, born in 1103, knelt as his mother tattooed the characters for "Repay your country with utmost loyalty" on his back.

Yue led the Song armies against the invading Jurchen tribes of Manchuria. He was on the verge of triumph when Prime Minister Qin Gui, who considered the war too costly, had him recalled to the capital, imprisoned and executed on trumped-up charges in 1142.

Qin has been despised ever since as a national traitor. He is figuratively boiled in oil and eaten every morning across China in the form of a breakfast dough strip that bears his name.

The current debate started last month when front-page media reports revealed that the Education Ministry had issued secondary school curricula instructing that Yue was no longer to be considered a national hero.

Also stripped of hero status was Song Prime Minister Wen Tianxiang, who was captured and executed by invading Mongols.

The government's logic was that centuries of wars against nomads of the Central Asian steppes were little more than "domestic squabbles" among China's own ethnic groups. The status of national heroes, it asserted, should be reserved for those who fought real foreigners, such as the Dutch or Japanese.

Outraged citizens posted Education Ministry phone numbers on Internet bulletin boards so that others could register their dismay.

At the time that Yue fought, the Jurchen tribes were indeed considered foreigners. The Jurchen established their own dynasty, the Jin, in northern China, while the Song ruled the south.

Before China's current borders were drawn, the Chinese controlled parts of Central Asia, Manchuria, Mongolia and Tibet. They did not, however, consider those areas as belonging to China, which was traditionally equated with the Han majority.

Now, however, many of these regions are part of Chinese territory, and their inhabitants are considered members of China's "big family" of ethnicities.

"The premise of the Education Ministry is flawed because it is ahistorical," said Shin, the historian. "In the Song Dynasty, the idea that China was a unitary, multinational state would not make any sense."

The ministry has now issued a statement that the remarks were not in any curriculum but were instead scholarly opinions included in supplementary reference materials for secondary-school history teachers. Playing down the controversy, the statement admitted that "throughout Chinese history, Yue Fei and Wen Tianxiang have always been considered national heroes."

But this is no longer what students are taught in school.

"When we take tests, we have a multiple-choice question: Which persons are national heroes?" Beijing high school student Xin Ming told China Newsweek magazine last month. "If you pick Yue Fei, you get it wrong." Textbooks now refer to Yue simply as a "general who resisted the Jin" Dynasty.

On one level, the decision reflects Beijing's strategic priorities. China was traditionally preoccupied with the threat of invasion from the north and west by nomadic peoples, whom the Great Wall was built to keep out. But with the arrival of Western powers in the mid-19th century, China's vigilance shifted to its coastal borders.

Then again, traditional Chinese views of ethnic minorities could, by modern standards, be considered flagrantly racist.

China long considered itself the "central kingdom" ("Middle Kingdom" is a mistranslation) from which civilization radiated toward the culturally inferior barbarians on its periphery.

In his most famous poem, memorized by schoolchildren for centuries, Yue rants about eating the flesh and drinking the blood of his ethnic enemies.

Of the many complaints on the Internet about the ministry's decision, none appear to have been made by ethnic minorities.

Editor - 2/4/2003

CNBC News Transcripts

SHOW: The News with Brian Williams (7:00 PM ET) - CNBC

January 28, 2003 Tuesday

HEADLINE: Presidential historians Doris Kearns Goodwin and Richard Norton Smith discuss past State of Union addresses, other war time presidents

BRIAN WILLIAMS, anchor (Washington, DC):

There's the backdrop, and now we welcome our guests tonight, author and presidential historian and NBC News Analyst Doris Kearns Goodwin with us from up in Boston. And in Kansas City tonight, where he runs the Dole Center out at the University of Kansas, Richard Norton Smith, presidential historian, author of several books himself. He's been the director, by the way, of four presidential libraries.

Doris, one of the gentlemen in that setup piece, the clockmaker said, quote, "He's the president." What an enormous reservoir of goodwill any president has. What a home field advantage going into this evening, but they can also blow it. Ms. DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN (NBC News Analyst): There's no question that speaking to the American public in that extraordinary congressional setting with all those Supreme Court justices in their robes and the Congress, the whole government is there. It's an amazing, majestic moment, but he has to use it well. And I think his huge challenge tonight is not only to explain better to us why a war in Iraq will make us more secure at home, why even a post-Hussein world will not be more explosive in the Middle East but rather how can we afford at this time to have this immense tax cut for the--tilted, everyone agrees, to the wealthy, when we could use the same resources toward the war on terror, strengthen the public health system, figure out how to get lots more people in the public--into the public service or into the Peace Corps, figure out how to help cities and towns to respond to emergency attacks. You know, Lincoln once said the role of government is to do for the people what they cannot do so well for themselves. We can't do those things to protect ourselves, and he needs every resource he can. The home front and war front are one, so he's got to not just say it's the economy and war and they're separate, they're absolutely together.

WILLIAMS: And, Richard, what a plate--a plate-balancing act it is for this president, preoccupied overseas, so mindful of his father's, at least perceived, domestic failure.

Mr. RICHARD NORTON SMITH (Presidential Historian): Yeah, he doesn't want to be a prisoner of history. He wants to extract what lessons he can from history. But I think it's a mistake, it's an understandable mistake, but it's a mistake to--to frame this as what does the president have to do tonight to persuade the American people, for example, of the wisdom of going to war with Iraq. It is a process of persuasion, it is not going to happen with one speech. It is--in many ways what happened tonight, in some ways grew--growed--grew out of what Hans Blix had to say to the United Nations yesterday. We are being told, at least by Colin Powell, that we're going to be seeing some intelligence reports in the next few days. What happens tonight in many ways is the beginning of a process. Harry Truman famously said 50 years ago that the chief function, the defining mission of a president in the 20th century was the art of persuasion. And that's what tonight is all about.

WILLIAMS: Doris, when Ike was at his height in the polls in this country, your old boss Lyndon Johnson came forward from the Senate, became his good friend, said, 'There's things we can do together, let me help you here,' and made a virtue out of being in the opposition party. Those circumstances could exist today, but we don't really see people stepping forward.

Ms. KEARNS GOODWIN: No, I think it's much harder in today's world. In part because campaigns are so vicious personally, they don't have the same camaraderie that they once had during Johnson's time, during Eisenhower's time. They didn't run home to their electorates all the time, they could play poker together, they could drink together, so they created an ambiance that allowed cooperation both in foreign policy and in domestic policy. There's much more divisiveness in Washington, as we know. We have seen it in the last 10 years.

WILLIAMS: And, Richard, you mentioned this process. The president tonight will talk about the war on terrorism both seen and unseen. And there's really no questioning that latter part, because we really don't know that dynamic of, 'If you people only knew what we deal with on a day-to-day basis.' That does give him a certain reservoir to draw from.

Mr. SMITH: It's a reservoir, but it's always real restraint. I mean, I think one of the things that a lot of people who are very sympathetic to the administration, and indeed sympathetic to the notion that we have to take some kind of military action, are scratching their heads and have wondered really for the last six weeks, the administration in some ways has almost seemed to go into winter hibernation, and we haven't heard a lot of justification, we haven't seen a lot of intelligence. And the other thing, you know, I've been wondering, thinking, you know, I was curious, this is a president who unlike his predecessor, for example, is one of the least self-dramatizing of men. And stop and think, how many times during this relatively young presidency have--have we sat around and said, 'Tonight the president has got to give the speech of his life,' because of the inherent drama and the challenge that he confronts.

WILLIAMS: And, Doris, Richard mentions one area of difference with his predecessor, you couldn't pick any two more striking comparisons to put back-to-back in front of the American people.

Ms. KEARNS GOODWIN: No, when you think about that moment when Clinton had to appear before the country in the State of the Union, when he was in the middle of the impeachment scandal and he was simply given credit for standing up there. Or think about Nixon in 1974, in his State of the Union in the middle of the Watergate scandal where he had that incredible gaff where he meant to say, 'We have to replace the discredited welfare system,' and instead he said 'We have to displace--replace the discredited presidency.' But still, he stood up there, you know, so those were moments when unfor--luckily for us tonight, there's not that kind of scandal backdrop.

WILLIAMS: And, Richard, having watched what has gone on to this White House, in this White House since 9/11, what lesson, as a president watcher, has it reinforced in you as to what the times can do to a leader?

Mr. SMITH: Well, it gives an opportunity to be great. The presidents we remember, the presidents that we talk about, the presidents that we point to generations or centuries later are the presidents who defined the challenge of their times. Lincoln famously said in 1862 in his annual message to Congress, 'The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with the occasion.' The fact of the matter is, the nature of the American democracy, particularly in the television age, is to personalize these challenges. All eyes are on the president, we expect the president to lead, and what those polls that we talked about earlier suggest is that millions of people are still willing to be persuaded and to be led.

Editor - 2/4/2003

CBS News Transcripts SHOW: The Early Show (7:00 AM ET) - CBS

January 29, 2003 Wednesday

HEADLINE: Douglas Brinkley discusses what elements of a State of the Union address make it a great and memorable speech


Last night, President Bush used his State of the Union address to explain to the American people why another war with Iraq may be imminent. He's just the latest US president to use the bully pulpit to rally the nation during tough times.

President FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT: (From file footage) That the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

SMITH: FDR was one of the first presidents to use the airwaves. He reached the nation when he made his address to Congress about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Pres. ROOSEVELT: (From file footage) December 7th, 1941, a date which will live in infamy.

SMITH: Harry Truman addressed the nation and put them at ease about the impending Korean War.

President HARRY TRUMAN: (From file footage) To put down an aggression that threatens not only the whole fabric of the United Nations, but all human hopes of peace and justice.

President JOHN F. KENNEDY: (From file footage) ...missile sites...

SMITH: John F. Kennedy explained to the nation his position on the Cuban missile crisis...

Pres. KENNEDY: (From file footage) ...constitutes an explicit threat to the peace and security of all the Americas.

SMITH: ...while Ronald Reagan showed his leadership strengths, speaking in front of the Berlin Wall.

President RONALD REAGAN: (From file footage): Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.

SMITH: He also had the words to heal after the tragic deaths of the Challenger astronauts.

Pres. REAGAN: (From file footage) The future doesn't belong to the faint hearted. It belongs to the brave. The Challenger crew was pulling us into the future, and we'll continue to follow them.

SMITH: Many say President Bush's finest moment came after the September 11th attacks.

President GEORGE W. BUSH: I will not yield. I will not rest. I will not relent in waging the struggle for freedom and security for the American people.

SMITH: For a little historical perspective, let me welcome Douglas Brinkley, a presidential scholar and history professor at the University of New Orleans. Good morning, sir.

Professor DOUGLAS BRINKLEY (Presidential Historian): Good morning.

SMITH: Let's talk a little history this morning. From your standpoint as an historian, what was the most interesting of all State of the Union addresses?

Prof. BRINKLEY: Well, the most interesting in recent times, meaning the 20th century, I think would be Franklin Roosevelt's famous Four Freedoms speech, which is talked about time and again, because he was able to get a galvanizing principle about what World War II--the gathering war clouds of World War II, was going to be about. That was to fight for freedoms all over the world, freedom from want, freedom from fear, freedom for religion, freedom from hunger. And it was very grandiose. But that Four Freedoms speech sort of gave a general guiding principle for the Anglo-American alliance in the Second World War, and it eventually led to the Atlantic Charter Agreement between Britain and the United States, and it is considered the cornerstone speech of today's United Nations.

SMITH: In your personal opinion, what was the most memorable of all State of the Union addresses?

Prof. BRINKLEY: Well, I'll tell you, you know, after watching last night, that one to me was very memorable, because we really have what could be a--a serious, serious crisis in the Middle East at hand here, and I know from--you know, I've watched them every year, I comment on them every year, and I was a little taken aback that the normal tone of last night's speech on the economy seemed something that one was expecting, and then when President Bush got into talking about Iraq, you--you felt that he--he felt that Baghdad was the vortex of evil, and you could see the kind of passion building in him. And it suddenly dawned on me that--that this country is really going to war, that there's--really doesn't look like too much of an alternative to--to turning back.

So in recent times, I think this is--last evening's may go down as being one of the most historic State of the Unions because it was the--it's--it's--I--I feel like we're heading a new chapter now. The UN inspections are over, and we're moving into a new direction.

SMITH: Yeah. There were moments in that last several pages of the speech, so often during a State of the Union, it's often interrupted by applause. I'm going to say pages went by with--in absolute silence And toward the end there was a moment that I thought had a kind of an eloquence to it that might even live in history. I want to take a look at the tape. Let's take a listen and we'll come back.

President GEORGE W. BUSH: Americans are a free people who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world. It is God's gift to humanity.

SMITH: You can see that being quoted in the future, can't you?

Prof. BRINKLEY: Absolutely. You can open up the books of--Bartlett's Books of Quotations under Bush and there it'll be, you know, just a decade from now. So there--there--the speech had a number of, I thought, very interesting phrases in it; nothing probably quite as dramatic or as controversial as axis of evil, but I thought that he is already putting the notion that we are the liberators of--of Iraq into our language now, and--and I thought that was--that term is--is an interesting one to use... as if we're liberating then from tyranny.

SMITH: All right. Douglas Brinkley, great to see you this morning. Thank you so much for your help.

Editor of HNN - 2/4/2003

National Public Radio (NPR)
SHOW: Tavis Smiley (9:00 AM ET) - NPR
January 27, 2003 Monday
HEADLINE: Professor Manning Marable discusses his new book, which offers a new analysis of racial politics in the 21st century
TAVIS SMILEY, host: From NPR in Los Angeles, I'm Tavis Smiley.
One of America's most influential historians of the African-American experience, Professor Manning Marable has written a provocative new book which has sparked some public debate. "The Great Wells of Democracy: The Meaning of Race In American Life" offers a new analysis of racial politics in the 21st century, including a new way to think about such subjects as re-enfranchisement of felons, state support for faith-based institutions and slavery reparations and the impact of the hip-hop revolution. Our correspondent, Allison Keyes, recently had a chance to speak with Professor Marable about the book.

KEYES: You say in your book that the new civil rights movement will be led by the poor and by prisoners and by the hip-hop generation, not by the traditional black middle-class. Why is that?

Prof. MARABLE: That's right.

KEYES: What will be different this time?

Prof. MARABLE: Well, there's a chapter called "The Death of the Talented Tenth." Many listeners will immediately know that Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois, the founder of the NAACP, our greatest academician within black history, believed at the beginning of his career that the elite within the black community would lift up the masses. But as Dr. Du Bois acquired a deeper and greater wisdom, he began to see that, actually, history's change occurs rarely from the top down but from the bottom up. The 'We shall overcome' generation had a notion of political organizing that emanated from the middle class. I think the hip-hop generation has a very different point of view on this. There are one million African-American women and men in prison as I speak today. You've got massive incarceration that has devastated our urban communities.

Now I teach in Sing Sing prison on a regular basis. I work with brilliant young Hispanic and black men who are incarcerated in these institutions and, in effect, the punishment continues after they leave the prison for decades to come. We have to reintegrate and find a way to re-empower and refranchise those African-Americans that have been marginalized through the processes of mass incarceration. And my book tries to spell out concrete ways to do that.

KEYES: Where will the resources come from to lead that movement without the financial backing of the black middle class, and doesn't the middle class still have to be a part of that equation?

Prof. MARABLE: Absolutely, they do, and I think that Frantz Fanon, who was the key intellectual in the Algerian revolution, believed that it was the wretched of the Earth who would lead the way. I argue that it's the hip-hop nation. I argue that it's black women and men in communities devastated by mass incarceration. I argue that if you go to Cincinnati, as I have done and I describe in my book, looking at the Over-the-Rhine neighborhood and see the devastation of unemployment and police brutality, that community-based organizations and especially faith-based institutions are constructing new models of leadership and advocacy and are leading the way, and the role of the black middle class is to support a process that is already unfolding.

KEYES: All right. In your chapter in the book, "9/11: Racism In A Time of Terror," you say that the rise of terrorism comes from global apartheid. What does that mean?

Prof. MARABLE: Well, Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois in his prophetic book, the "Souls of Black Folk," said that the problem of the 20th century is the problem of the color line. And by that, he meant colonialism and racial segregation, Jim Crow in the American South. Well, today, the problem of the 21st century is the problem of global apartheid; as Malcolm X put it, the racialized division between the haves and the have-nots on this planet. And I argue that terrorism assumes many different forms. The lynchings that occurred and the mass burnings of black people in Rosewood and in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in the 1920s were state-sponsored terrorism. The United States, carrying out the coup, eliminating Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973 was US state-sponsored terrorism.

KEYES: One of the premises of your book is the absolute difference between the way white Americans and Americans of color feel differently about race. Do you ever see that difference changing appreciably?

Prof. MARABLE: I live in New York City, so I see the parallel racial universes, where every day, where we speak the same language, are theoretically governed by the same set of laws, but encounter reality in fundamentally different ways. And it's not just about trying to catch a cab in Midtown Manhattan going to Harlem. It's also about the fact that the typical black man--almost one-half of all black males die before they collect Social Security. It's also about the fact that the typical black household has only one-eighth of the net wealth of the typical white American household. How do we renegotiate a new racial peace?

I think the last chapter of "The Great Wells of Democracy" is entitled "The Souls of White Folk." So much of the problem of race in American life is not a black problem at all. It's white Americans coming to terms with the reality of the vast historical crimes committed by the American state against the African-American people. And here, we're not pointing fingers. We're talking about historically constructed accumulated disadvantage that the American government and American corporations are responsible for. And until--and this is where I think the issue of reparations come in. Reparations is not fundamentally about the money. It is a recognition of the historic human rights violations that occurred in this country and that we collectively, as citizens, are all responsible for redressing the crimes of history.

KEYES: Manning Marable is a professor of the history of political science at Columbia University, where he also serves as the founding director of the Institute for Research in African-American Studies. His new book is called "The Great Wells of Democracy: The Meaning of Race In American Life."

Editor - 2/4/2003

January 27, 2003 Monday
TRANSCRIPT: # 012700cb.463
HEADLINE: BUCHANAN & PRESS For January 27, 2003

PAT BUCHANAN: Doris, you worked with President Johnson on his State of the Union addresses, I'm sure, as I worked with Mr. Nixon and President Reagan. Lyndon Johnson used to have sort of sometimes laundry-list approach, all the programs he was announcing. And he would lay out his agenda.

But the other two presidents, it seemed to me, would go for a large thematic speech, with some sort of major issue. How do you see the president's State of the Union shaping up tomorrow night?

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: Well, the thing that should be said, in respect to Lyndon Johnson, I wish I had worked with him on the State of the Unions. That was my husband, who actually was deeply involved in the '65 State of the Union.

And that was one of the great State of the Unions, I think, of the 20th century, because he outlined voting rights, Medicare, aid to Appalachia, aid to education. And then, the next morning, he was on the phone getting those things done. And that was the great Congress that passed all those things.

There's a funny story with that, which is that Jack Valenti presumably said to him after the speech, Mr. President, they applauded you 69 times. And he said, no, it was 70 times.

GOODWIN: But I think the idea of a State of the Union message is not simply the rhetoric and the thematic structure. It's to move action, to move Congress, to move the country, to move the world. And that's what it needs to be judged on. Clinton had a lot of good rhetorical State of the Unions. But the question was, did anything happen from those words that were said?

BILL PRESS: Doris, I think of -- I have been thinking a lot lately about the job that President Bush has to sell this war in Iraq, compared to what you described so beautifully in your book "No Ordinary Time," when Franklin Roosevelt and Eleanor Roosevelt had to sell this country on World War II.

Do you see the same parallel and is it as tough for George Bush as it was for Franklin Roosevelt?

GOODWIN: I think you're absolutely right.

I think the 1941 State of the Union that President Roosevelt had to deliver, when Europe was in the midst of war, but the American people were still incredibly hesitant about getting involved in Europe's wars, especially isolationist. And he outlined in that speech not only the four freedoms, which we still stand by today, but also the need to help Europe and England, particularly, with the lend-lease program, which meant everything short of war.

And after that speech, opinion in the country shifted. And the Lend Lease Act passed, which Churchill said was the most unsordid act in the history of mankind. And opinion started changing so that, even before Pearl Harbor, a majority of the country had come to understand that our security depended upon what was happening in Europe. So, I think that's very similar, because he's speaking to a world today, not just to our nation.

He has got to persuade us why it is that we may need to go into this war, on a very emotional basis, not just on a generalized basis.

BUCHANAN: Doris, though, there is a difference, of course.

Look, with all due respect, Saddam Hussein is a thug and killer, but he's not the Japanese empire and he's certainly not Hitler's empire...

GOODWIN: Not Hitler.

BUCHANAN: ... which then controlled all of Europe, from the Atlantic to Moscow.

But the president faces, it seems to me, a somewhat different problem. He had more support for a war on Iraq six months ago and three months ago than he does today. And support seems to be dissipating. And yet we hear that he may focus more on the economy and on dealing with Medicaid and with domestic issues than he will with Iraq, because of the Tony Blair visit Saturday.

And what is your feeling about how much he should focus? Because it looks clear, from today's events, that we are going to war.

GOODWIN: Well, it seems to me that the most important task that the president has not achieved so far is to argue that what happens on the home front is absolutely critical to the war front.

I have always thought that, right from the beginning, he should have said, we have to preserve every resource we have to make sure that this war against terror, which is going to be long, take a lot of money, is actually met, that we have another resources at home and abroad. But, if tonight, he focuses on the economy, and tries to talk about his tax relief plan, and offers some sort of prescription drugs that some people are saying may not be, in reality, going to get through or going to help, then he's split off again the economy and the war.

And the best thing for him to do is to keep those two things together and show how they're essential at the same time. That's what Roosevelt was brilliant at.

Editor - 2/4/2003

Wall Street Journal: REVIEW & OUTLOOK (Feb. 4, 2003)

In Historical Battle

Hungary has seen many battles in its long history but one that is raging now is bloodless but fierce. It has to do with a museum.

Ever since former communists retook power last spring, Hungarians have been divided over the fate of the House of Terror, which was opened last February by the previous, anti-communist, government. Housed in a building used by pro-Nazi forces and later the headquarters of the communist secret police, the museum chronicles the misdeeds of both regimes that ruled Hungary from 1944 to 1989.

Hungary's new rulers aren't too happy to see a link drawn so clearly between the dictatorial systems; after all, east European communists derived much of their popularity by opposing the Nazis in World War II. They're even less happy that the museum was the pet project of Viktor Orban, the former prime minister. Parliament has tried to slash funding and the government is attempting to stack the museum's board.

The divisive, politically-charged battle over the House of Terror is a shame. The museum marks a unique attempt to come to terms with the horrors of the 20th century in Central Europe. As in South Africa or Germany, recent events need to be remembered as clearly as possible in order, as Freud might have said, for these countries to forget. The exhibit is modern and effective and, to our eyes, fair. No wonder the House of Terror has quickly become the most popular museum in Hungary. Other countries are studying it as a model.

To his credit, Prime Minister Peter Medgyessy restored most of the museum's funding last month after his coalition partners pushed through the budget cuts. Unlike leading opponents, he bothered to visit the place, too. But the ongoing disputes over money and the exhibits -- and the museum's very survival -- show that this will be an emotive issue for some time to come.

The House of Terror needs to survive and prosper. Above all, it needs to be credible. Its supporters in Mr. Orban's party, who often come across as self-righteous, must let go of control and put the institution well above politics. The other side should stay out, too.

A first step could be to call together respected historians to certify that the exhibits are accurate. The board needs to be seen as firmly independent. Contemporary history is invariably open to controversy, in Hungary or anywhere else. But the House of Terror and other attempts to document the crimes of fascism and communism are essential to the future not only of Hungary but all of Europe.

Updated February 4, 2003

Sam - 2/4/2003


Editor - 2/3/2003

(Note: This is a corrected edition of the newsletter.)


THE BUSH BUDGET FOR FY 2004 -- FOR HISTORY IT'S AWESOME! On 3 February 2003 President Bush delivered to Congress a $2.2 trillion federal budget for 2004. It includes both a record deficit of $307 billion and a record funding level for history-related programs -- $100 million for the Department of Education's (DOE) "Teaching of Traditional American History" initiative and a $25 million increase in the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) budget line to fund the "We the People" initiative. The President's budget also allocates $289 million for the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), including level-funding of $5 million for the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC).

Both the $100 million for the DOE history initiative and the $25 million increase for the NEH are in sharp contrast to what otherwise promises to be stark funding levels for most other domestic agencies. The President's budget squeezes most domestic programs in favor of funding homeland defense, the military, and a handful of showcase priorities including education, which would see a 6% rise.

Here are some agency and program highlights: The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) budget is pegged at $152 million which includes level-funding for the NEH traditional programs ($128 million) and a massive influx of $25 million in new funds for the "We the People" initiative. The initiative is designed "to promote a broad understanding of the ideas and events that have shaped our nation." To spearhead the implementation of the initiative, a "We the People" office will be established to coordinate diverse activities that cut across virtually every program activity within the NEH.

In an unexpected development, the Bush administration doubled last year's (FY 2003) budget request of $50 million for the DOE "Teaching of Traditional American History" initiative to $100 million. That is the budget figure that the initiative's champion Senator Robert C Byrd (D-WV) has advocated over the last three years. The program makes competitive grants to school districts to promote the teaching of "traditional" American history at the elementary and secondary school levels. The increase would double the number of available grants to 360 and "recognizes the need to create and expand efforts to raise the level of student knowledge in this core academic area in order to prepare future generations of students to become responsible citizens who vote and fully participate in our democratic institutions."

The National Archives is pegged at $304.563 million, of which "new obligations" are set at $289 million. Obligations by program activity include: $215 for Records Services; $12 million for Archives Related Services; $38 million for Electronic Records Archives; $21 million for the Archives II facility; and $3 million for various reimbursable programs. The NHPRC will receive $5 million.

For the National Park Service, the President's budget recommends a funding level of $2.4 billion. The budget includes full funding -- $900.7 million -- for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and continues the President's commitment to eliminate the maintenance and construction backlog. There is $1.517 billion for park operations; $477 million for construction; $7 million for the Urban Parks and Recreation Fund; $30 million for the "Save America's Treasures" Program; and $67 million for the Historic Preservation Fund.

Other budget lines of interest to the historical and archival community include the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars -- $8.604 million; the Institute of Museum and Library Services -- $242.024 million ($201 million for assistance to libraries and $30 million for museums with $11 million for general administration); Advisory Council on Historic Preservation -- $5 million; and for the Smithsonian Institution in discretionary funding -- $478 million.

In comparison, most other domestic programs did not do so well. The President's budget freezes most social programs at last year's (FY 2003) levels. Noticeably absent from the hand the President dealt Congress is one spending wildcard -- funding for a possible invasion of Iraq.

Hill insiders believe that with both the House and the Senate under the control of the Republicans the pressure will be on the GOP leadership to stay within the White House's budget numbers. The real haggling will probably take place in the Senate where the Republicans have only a paper-thin majority and where liberal Democrats and moderate Republicans share misgivings about the budget -- especially with the proposed tax cuts. Nevertheless, some Hill insiders predict that because of his control over Congress, Bush's plan stands a fair to good chance of surviving relatively intact.

For a more detailed analysis of the President's budget, see the next regular issue of this publication that will be posted later this week.

*********************************************************** The National Coalition for History invites you to subscribe to this FREE weekly newsletter! You are also encouraged to redistribute the NCH Washington Updates to colleagues, friends, teachers, students and others who are interested in history and archives issues. A complete backfile of these reports is maintained by H-Net on the NCH's web page (currently under revision) at <>.

To subscribe to the "NCH Washington Update," send an e-mail message to according to the following model: SUBSCRIBE H-NCH firstname lastname, institution. To unsubscribe send an e-mail message to according to the following model: SIGNOFF H-NCH. You can accomplish the same tasks by tapping into the web interface at and at the "network" prompt, scroll down and select H-NCH; enter your name and affiliation and "submit". **************************************************************

Gus Moner - 2/3/2003

One never knows what a wily man like the author is really up to. No one doubts he was a brilliant man in his heyday. I know not to what extent he remains lucid, pragmatic or sane at 84. So, whether he is pro or anti Jewish is not my issue.

I do think that the use of a person's religion to characterise a period, movement or socio-political issue is generally reckless and in the end, not relevant. It fans the flames of hatred and bigotry, leading to violence, terror, war and incalculable human suffering. We are headed down that path now with our obsession with Islam and their extremist cults, instead of dealing with the socio-political and economic issues that breed their resentment. So, identifying a small religious sect as the perpetrators of this darkest of Russian holocausts is equally misguided.

How many Orthodox Christians were there in the Soviet government and NKVD? Did not Stalin study to be a monk? Why does no one write a book about Christian involvement in the Communist take over and revolution? No, it’s better and more popular to blame the Jews.

How many Christians were involved in the massacres of Jews? Nearly all the participants and perpetrators were Christians!!!Why is it never characterised that way? No one wants to admit this travesty and blot on Christendom. It’s always been Germans. Well, of course, it was Germans who organised it, the ring leaders, if you will. And, primarily, they were the most involved nationality, yes. However, they merely gave the other non-German but good Christians the green light and freedom to express their bigotry. It was, really, Christians against the Jews.

It was not a nationality that trussed these assorted murdering people, nor a political philosophy, as most were not really Nazis, but opportunists and tag-along types, in many cases to make the best of a ghastly war situation. Yet Poles, Hungarians, Frenchmen, Dutch, Latvians, Slovaks, Rumanians, Italian, Ukrainians et al participated in many or all the stages of the organised killing of Jews; rounding them up, transporting them, mistreating them, stealing their property, guarding their camps, shooting them or opening the gas valves.

No, the glue that bound all these sundry murderers together and allowed Hitler’s gangsters to organise themselves was not nationality nor was it political beliefs. It was Christianity, base human hatred and religious bigotry that allowed them to perform these unbelievable and atrocious deeds. It seems inexplicable today, but it happened. Nearly all the betrayers, accomplices, transporters, murderers, death camp guards, SS members, etc. were practicing Christians, of Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Lutheran, Catholic and many other Christian sects.

Why not admit it? It was the tacit approval of the Vatican, their murdering silence, that helped the Catholics feel safe in doing so, creating a great moral vacuum of silence and complicity through inaction. Other Churches’ leaders also kept quiet. Their one, common bond, was Christianity.

Dean Michael Smith - 1/31/2003

Wow! I am shocked. I wonder what the Bush evil empire is trying to hide now. Criminals belong in jail, the Bush Administration must go. Impeach! Impeach! Impeach!

Editor - 1/31/2003

The Guardian (London)
January 28, 2003
HEADLINE: The war within: Israelis are not only in conflict with the Palestinians. They are also bitterly divided among themselves over race, religion and politics. As the country goes to the polls, Jonathan Freedland reports on how deep - and hateful - those divisions really are
Everyone here knows that he will lose. Even he, the leader of Israel's Labour party on a last campaign swing before today's general election, knows it. To cheer up this basement room crammed with activists and, who knows, perhaps to lift his own spirits, Amram Mitzna promises that he will win one day - "if not tomorrow, then the day after tomorrow".

The audience take the message well. They understand that Israelis have united in their despair at two years of Palestinian terror, rallying behind Ariel Sharon and making it impossible for a challenger like Mitzna to break through. But they are also used to defeat. Here, in the down-at-heel, southern town of Bet Shemesh, it has long been a lonely business working for Labour. This is Likud country. Bet Shemesh may be scarred by decades-old poverty and unemployment, but it's still hostile terrain for Labour. That sounds like a paradox - surely the poor should rally to the party of the left? - but it is explained by one of the countless social faultlines that marks Israel. They are part of an Israeli landscape that can be hard to see under the cloud-cover of national unity produced by the all-consuming conflict with the Palestinians. But look beneath and what you glimpse is a society riven along every possible line: secular against religious, religious against religious, European (Ashkenazi) against Middle Eastern (Mizrahi). These are Israel's other wars - and they have been laid bare by this election campaign.

Take another look at Mitzna in that Bet Shemesh basement. He stands tall and impressive, in cobalt blue shirt and neat navy blazer. He has a distinguished, even noble face: modern rimless glasses, and an ancient, prophet's beard. He speaks fluently and well. Yet the key fact about him for many in this town - visible in the way he looks, dresses and speaks - is that he is not one of them. Instead, he looks the archetypal man of the Labour establishment - educated and Ashkenazi - which so many Mizrahi Jews continue to resent.

This has been a Labour problem ever since Likud first toppled them from power in 1977, and they have still not cracked it. Jews who fled Yemen, Morocco, Iraq and the rest of the Arab world in the 1950s stored up decades of anger at their treatment by the embryonic Jewish state. They felt that they were patronised, herded first into tent cities and then makeshift development towns; their centuries-old customs and costume were mocked as primitive. They were urged to shed their traditions and become "Israeli" - and in those days, in a state founded by Russians, Poles and Germans, that meant Ashkenazi. The collective memory is one of humiliation and Labour, the unchallenged masters of that period, bear the blame.

By rights, those feelings should have faded long ago. Ashkenazim and Mizrahim now mix and marry freely; few Israeli families are not intertwined. Yet the pool of hurt remains, ready to be tapped. So the TV commercials aired by Shas, the middle-sized party of religious Mizrahim, include black-and-white pictures of a Yemeni arrival apparently being sprayed with disinfectant by an (Ashkenazi) immigration official. It is a deliberate bid to stir bitter collective memories and spur Israelis, even third-generation Israelis, to vote on ethnic lines.

That's when the legacy manifests itself crudely. More subtle is the strange case of Ariel Sharon's escape from what looked like a lethal corruption scandal. A fortnight or so ago, the PM was haemorrhaging in the polls amid allegations of undeclared, million-dollar foreign donations. He was under police investigation. To stop the slide, he gave a televised address. By common consent, it was a disaster, with Sharon rambling and aggressive. Halfway through, he was pulled off the air by order of a high court judge, for violating the election law which bars on-air politicking outside the official campaign broadcasts.

Instantly, and curiously, the slide was halted. It turns out that the judge's decision had helped Sharon, by confirming what many Likud voters have long believed: that the country's institutions, including the judiciary, are still run by the same condescending, leftwing Ashkenazi elite of old. The snobs had gagged the Likud leader; he was once again the underdog, leader of a party which has cast itself since the 1970s as the champion of the outsider.

That used to mean Mizrahim, but now Likud's coalition of the excluded has stretched to include Ethiopian Jews and the million Russians who have come to Israel in the past decade. Ashkenazi they might be, but Likud's hold on these immigrants is now so firm that Labour is expected to poll just 4.5% of the "Russian" vote. (It helps that Sharon speaks fluent Russian.) Never mind that Likud has been in government for 20 of the past 26 years; it still runs as the plucky voice of the downtrodden.

Of course, there are larger reasons as to why Labour is about to lose, with the battle against the Palestinians chief among them. The animating "flame" of Labour and the left has for years been the promise of peace, says former leadership candidate and outgoing Knesset speaker, Avraham Burg: "And along came Yasser Arafat and extinguished that flame." His rejection of the peace offer at Camp David in July 2000 - which Israelis still regard as extremely "generous" - shattered their faith in the possibility of peace.

For at least two decades the left had argued that if only Israel ended the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and ushered in a Palestinian state, their conflict would be over. The way Israelis see it, former Labour prime minister Ehud Barak offered precisely that and it was thrown back in his face. And not just rejected, but accompanied by two years of the most murderous violence in the country's history, with Israeli civilians facing the regular threat of bloody death on buses, in restaurants or shopping malls.

"Most people are frightened, psychologically they are in shock," Mitzna tells me after he has given his Bet Shemesh pep-talk, and as he sets off for a tour of similarly beleaguered towns in the south. "And when people are in shock, they stick with what they know."

And that's Sharon: if peace is impossible, Israelis figure, then better to have a man of war in charge. Polls suggest 70% feel that way, but underneath that blanket of consensus on the Palestinian issue churn a thousand other hostilities. They are not directed against Israel's Arab neighbours - but against each other. And thanks to Israel's strict system of proportional representation, which promises even the tiniest interest group a place in parliament, an election gives all these enmities a chance to rise to the surface.

Enter Tommy Lapid, a former journalist and TV pundit who has been the star of the 2003 campaign. His Shinui, or Change, party is set at least to double its current six-seat presence in the Knesset today: some polls forecast an even stronger performance, perhaps edging Labour into third place. Lapid says little about the central issue, merely promising to be to the left of Sharon and the right of Mitzna on the Palestinians, preferring to deal with the battle within.

He has managed to stir two civil wars at once, running against both Mizrahim and ultra-orthodox, or "haredi", Israelis. He wants to speak for the forgotten, secular "middle class" he says, but most believe that's code. "It's the revenge of the Ashkenazim," says a senior strategist for the leftwing Meretz party.

Addressing a Jerusalem hall packed with the young and non-religious - all torn jeans, goatee beards and body piercings - the white-haired Lapid is tired and hoarse after a furious campaign. But he soon cranks himself up to full throttle, railing against the haredim "who don't serve in the army, don't work and don't pay taxes". Under him, all those exemptions will go: they will no longer be able "to live off the fat of the land". He promises not to sit in any coalition that includes haredi parties (though critics say he reserves his strongest bile for Shas, the Mizrahi religious party - proof, they say, that he is little more than an ethnic bigot), to seek the abolition of the ministry of religious affairs and to end the subsidy for students at theological seminaries, or yeshivot. This Jerusalem crowd, used to living in a heavily religious city, lap it up.

"It has no social basis, it has no agenda, it's just a mood," says Tom Segev, one of Israel's most acclaimed historians, of Shinui. "They show a hatred for the religious which borders on anti-semitism," he adds over tea in his Jerusalem apartment, gazing at a heartstopping view of the Old City. He's thinking of Shinui's claim that the haredim are parasites - an age-old attack on Jews. "It's quite ugly, actually."

Not that the religious parties don't give as good as they get. Some have branded Lapid a Nazi, an extra-hurtful slur given that the 71- year-old is a Holocaust survivor. But they have more enemies than just Shinui. Shas, for example, has pitted itself against Russian Israelis in a singularly vicious example of intra-ethnic warfare. In a breathtaking commercial, Shas's spiritual leader, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, denounces the wave of immigration from the former Soviet Union for its inclusion of so many goyim , or non-Jews. Over pictures of pigs in a sty and of new immigrants heading into churches, Yosef complains that the country is losing its Jewish character. It's all part of a wicked plan by the secular establishment, he claims, to bring in a million more goyim , who will then drown out the Mizrahi community Shas seeks to represent.

In this clash of Mizrahim v Russians, both sides are fighting not only the other but themselves. Four different Russian parties are competing against each other, while Shas is at war with a breakaway faction, led by a centenarian rabbi, Yitzhak Kaduri. Supporters of the two sides brawled in the street on Saturday night - but only after the Sabbath was over.

Watching an election, with its built-in tendency to fragment, may not be the most reliable guide to any society. The Balkanisation on show in the Israeli campaign of 2003 is so intense as to be almost comic: one party's election broadcast consists solely of a specially recorded monologue by the notorious Russian anti-semite Vladimir Zhirinovsky. The tiny party responsible provides no Hebrew subtitles, leaving most Israelis unable to imagine even what narrow segment of the population this is meant to reach.

Still, this campaign does suggest that the national unity created by the intifada, though wide, is not all that deep. Under the surface all the old tensions remain; if there was a let-up in the war with the Palestinians, they would soon break open. "The orthodox and secular hate each other, the Ashkenazi and Mizrahi hate each other," says 17-year-old Mickey Zakai, one of the crowd at the Shinui rally. "You have so many groups here, it's not really one Israeli nation."

He wasn't even including the Arab-Israelis, who make up one-fifth of the population and will vote with everyone else today. They have been having their own campaign within the campaign, trading posters and ads in Arabic - rendering them as obscure to most Israelis as the message from Zhirinovsky. They will elect perhaps 10 members of the Knesset today, but one thing is certain: not one of them will sit in government.

So does this all add up to a country tearing itself apart at the seams? "Calm down," says Burg. "Moving from a melting pot to a multi-ethnic, multicultural, civil society is a difficult transition." It takes time for people to learn to respect difference, he says: "Everyone has been insulted, but not everybody has yet had the chance to do the insulting." They need to get it out of their system. "You cannot expect that, in a 55-year-old country, everyone should feel the oneness they feel in Britain or France or Germany. Give us some time."

A nation divided . . . a Shinui party supporter argues with Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem this month (main picture); Labour leader Amram Mitzna clashes with an opponent on the campaign trail (above); a man walks past Sharon election posters (right); Tommy Lapid (left); Ovadia Yosef (centre)

william solley - 1/31/2003

hi, I am a first time visitor. I saw gangs of new york on 1/29/03 I think the interview and information gave a much better understanding of the very good film I saw. thank you wms.

Editor - 1/30/2003

The Baltimore Sun
January 28, 2003 Tuesday FINAL Edition
HEADLINE: In Europe, a rising tide of anti-American feeling;
Rift: In the absence of a common enemy, U.S. might and the warlike words of President Bush fuel a growing antipathy.
BYLINE: Todd Richissin

BERLIN - The young man who lays tiles a few blocks from the German parliament building was a West German soldier when his country was still split in two. He knows utopia is a concept and not a place.

And he knows, he says, that ultimately the strength of the United States, the fearsome potential of its military, is what led to Germany's reunification. To him, it was the United States that eased so much suffering on the communist side of the Berlin Wall and won freedom for millions of Eastern Europeans.

Knowing all of this, he says, is why he cannot help but feel bad about hating America. "I just hate it and can't help that," says Manuel Baczynski, 31, who quickly adds: "Make it clear I don't hate Americans. I hate America for what it is doing."

This is something both very old from Europe and very new. Americans are accustomed to encountering resentment here, but what is happening now is in many ways different. European historians, intellectuals and political leaders are in general agreement that no longer are anti-American voices merely a vocal minority mired in the hate portion of a love-hate relationship.

The anti-American sentiments now come from the wealthy and the economically hard-pressed, from the highly educated and the barely so, from young people just opening their eyes to the world and from those who lived through World War II, Vietnam, the rise of communism and its fall.

The primary reasons for the anti-American feelings: They start with President Bush himself. There is a widespread belief that he is belligerent and lacks an adequate comprehension of the wars of Europe's past, demonstrated not only by his stance on Iraq but by his attitude toward those who oppose military action.

When Bush sought an international coalition to move into Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks, the United States scored high marks among Europeans, who saw the response as tempered as any move toward war could be. That approval has dissipated, replaced by negative feelings largely centered on the president and U.S. policy toward Iraq.

"After 9/11, the United States had an outburst of sympathy from all of Europe," says Karsten D. Voigt, coordinator for German-American cooperation in Germany's Foreign Ministry. "The pictures of the towers revived the collective memories of the bombing of Germany. In a psychological way, those New Yorkers were us."

But in recent weeks, the demonstrators who came to Berlin's Brandenburg Gate to shed tears for Americans after the terrorist attacks have been replaced by protestors marching against a war in Iraq, and decidedly against the United States.

"There is a clear distinction in Germany and Europe between the campaign against international terrorism and war," Voigt says. "We've said Germany gives its unlimited solidarity in the stand against terrorism. The United States government says war with Iraq is an extension of the war on terrorism. We don't see the evidence of it. We don't buy it."

On Wenceslas Square in Prague - where Czechs faced Soviet tanks in 1968, and where tens of thousands of Czechs gathered in 1989 during their "Velvet Revolution" that ended communist rule, and where anti-war protests now take place - Dana Osuska feels much the same as the tile man in Berlin.

"I can't say I hate Americans," says Osuska, a 21-year-old psychology student at Prague's Charles University, "but if you ask if I hate America pushing everyone around to get its own way, then I say, 'Yes, I'm very sorry, but I hate America in that way.' I don't think one country should rule the world."

The president does have backing from some foreign leaders, and there are voices speaking in support of his policies. British Prime Minister Tony Blair is from a left-of-center political party that could be expected to oppose American policies, but he has attached himself solidly to the position that force may be necessary. Australia is sending troops to the Persian Gulf region, and the leaders of Poland, Italy and Spain have embraced Bush's policies even as their constituents express a strong dislike for the president and his aims.

"The price of influence is that we do not leave the U.S. to face the tricky issues alone," Blair said in a recent speech. "By tricky, I mean the ones which people wish weren't there, don't want to deal with, and, if I can put it a little pejoratively, know the U.S. should confront, but want the luxury of criticizing them for it."

In Germany, Reinhold Butifoker, a spokesman for the Green Party, part of the country's governing coalition, says Europe is partly to blame for war becoming an option in Iraq, because Europe fails to press its own agenda.

"It's not about acting or not acting but how to act" on the world stage, he says. "Europe needs to be much more aggressive about pushing its own agenda for international security."
No common bond

The negative feelings matter in tangible ways. Foreign leaders representing constituencies that resent the United States are less likely to follow its lead diplomatically, economically and, especially, militarily.

That was demonstrated last week when Germany, about to take over the presidency of the United Nations Security Council, said it will not endorse a resolution calling for war against Iraq. France went a step further, mobilizing opposition against such a resolution and hinting that it might use its veto power in the council. Not coincidentally, opinion surveys show that more than 80 percent of people in both countries oppose using force to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

The government of NATO member Turkey - a Muslim country that shares borders with Iraq, Iran and Syria, and where less than 15 percent of the population favors any military action against Iraq - has resisted the Pentagon's request to allow large numbers of U.S. troops there.

"People are afraid of what a war means to Turkey," Deniz Ulke Aribogan, a political science professor, says from her office at Bilgi University in Istanbul. "America keeps the view that what's good for America is good for the world. It would be much better if that view were, 'What's good for the world is good for America.'"

Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in Washington, which has documented the growing anti-Americanism over the past two years, says Europeans dislike and distrust President Bush. Indeed, anti-Americanism has widened to a breadth not approached since the Reagan administration.

"I've been doing this for a couple of decades, and I've never heard such all-out dislike for an American president," Kohut says of attitudes in Europe. "It seems to be this self-righteousness, this 'We are America, we are the best,' which Bush never misses an opportunity to promote. That's fine to a point, but there's a reaction when people also get the message, 'You and your feelings are insignificant.'"

In the 1950s, the European left gained a large, respectful audience by arguing that the United States, because of its economic might, was a threat to peace. French President Charles de Gaulle, in the 1960s, resented the shadow that Washington's cultural and military power cast over the status of France. Later, there would be bitter differences over Vietnam.

President Reagan, during the 1980s, was viewed by many Europeans as a reckless hawk, whose rhetoric and weapons programs put Europe at risk, not the United States, which raised anti-Americans among the allies. But, says Kohut, the Cold War alliances kept anti-Americanism from intensifying to the point now reached in those countries.

A Pew study released at the end of 2002 found that people throughout Europe, except for Britain, wanted their country's foreign policies to be independent of the United States. Compared to a year earlier, the number of people with a favorable view of the United States had declined 17 percent in Germany, 8 percent in Britain and 6 percent in Italy. In Turkey, the decline was 22 percent.

"What's different now is, we don't have the common bond with the Europeans we once had that served to keep us together," Kohut says, referring to the fall of the Soviet Union. "Terrorism has not served that role."

There are also complaints from many Europeans that the Bush administration seems to underestimate the seriousness of war. Americans might find Donald H. Rumsfeld, Bush's secretary of defense, engaging and even witty, but Voigt and others say they find his televised news conferences deeply unsettling, as they watch him chuckling when talking about a war that inevitably would lead to the deaths of civilians.

When Germans or Frenchmen or Italians awake in the morning, they know that what happens in Washington that day could affect their lives.

That is partly by choice and partly due to circumstance, to Europe's relative military weakness and its failure, despite the emergence of the European Union, to become a cohesive economic force.

Because of that, and a deep-seated reluctance to shape the world, Europeans have long found it convenient to allow the United States to keep order while they have carped on the sidelines about American policy.

Americans do not worry much about what German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder might do on a given day, but Bush and members of his administration are watched carefully on newscasts and in the newspapers in Europe, which pay close attention to political developments in the United States.
The Bush tone

If anti-Americanism is already in bloom in Europe, its seeds were sown almost immediately after Bush took office.

The president's dismissal of the Kyoto Treaty, designed to slow global warming, was deeply resented in Europe. Resented, too, was Bush's refusal to accede to an international criminal court, which would have tried individuals accused of crimes against humanity, and his decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

President Clinton, too, had expressed misgivings about the Kyoto accord when he was in the White House. He also stated clearly that the United States would not take part in the international court as designed.

"But he didn't just dismiss those," says Christoph Bertram, director of the German Research Institute for International Affairs and Security, a think tank supported in part by the German government. "Bush just dismissed them out of hand.

"He didn't say, 'These have problems, let's try to fix them,' which was Clinton's approach - even if he never intended to go along with them. With Bush, he just said, 'No. We're not taking part.' How could Europeans not feel put down? How could resentment not grow?

"Look, what we hear is, 'Don't worry about what Europeans think, because they'll follow.' That may be true. In fact, it is true on so many issues and we know that. But Europeans don't want to hear that. We don't need our noses rubbed into it. Eventually, that works against the United States."

The perception in Europe that the Bush administration does not take Europe seriously and that the United States does not appreciate the seriousness of war, is shaped by the president's language and by pictures that convey American nationalism.

The president's speeches, and the backdrops designed with American audiences in mind, are heard and seen very differently abroad. If history is any guide, Bush's State of the Union address tonight will probably receive its loudest cheers from Congress after mentions of the United States military. Most European countries will carry the speech live and, because of time differences, show excerpts repeatedly tomorrow.

"The pictures that are presented show this joy for war," says Bertram. "That may be fair or not fair, but that is the perception people get, that this administration has a cavalier attitude toward war that doesn't match reality."

Those feelings have been exacerbated by Bush's tendency to draw a linguistic picture of the world that Europeans see as unnecessarily provocative. The president's remarks about an "axis of evil" do not play well abroad. His language is interpreted as relegating honest disagreements about the necessity for war to wrongheadedness and moral blindness.

The president, says Yalim Eralp, a former Turkish diplomat and now a commentator on Turkish television, needs to take more care explaining his policies. "He relies on slogans, and that's not good enough when you're trying to convince people about serious issues, and especially about going to war."

Anti-Americanism in Europe goes beyond the president. It is born of a contradictory desire for American culture and resentment of its ubiquity. Cultural differences about the role of religion in governing plays a part, with many Europeans believing that the religious right in the United States is driving American policy. Religion in most European countries, by contrast, rarely intrudes in political discussions.

Some Europeans believe the damage in relations can be easily repaired, that the antipathy toward the United States is always subject to rises and falls based on factors that include the world economy, political ambitions and, especially, war or the threat of it.

"It's the responsibility of political leaders to change the minds of people," says Wolfgang Schauble, head of the opposition Christian Democrats in Germany's parliament. "The danger for peace is not due to the United States and President Bush. It's due to Saddam Hussein."

Schauble dismisses anti-Americans as an example of Europeans' historical reluctance to take care of themselves. It's up to leaders in Europe and the United States, he says, to make a better case about the dangers posed by Iraq. But he adds that the Bush administration has not seen the value of geopolitical friendships.

"I like the term 'compassionate conservatism,' but Bush has to think of that on a global scale," Schauble says. "The role of a superpower means truth and values and to make clear that the richer parts of the world, including Germany, that we're looking for a better world not only for ourselves but for the poorer parts of the world."

editor - 1/30/2003

From: "Brian Dirck" <>

This morning on the _Today_ show, University of Michigan president Lee Bollinger and Bill Bennett were interviewed concerning the affirmative action case currently before the Supreme Court. The debate was civil and largely predictable, but one issue really stood out for me: both men asserted (from very different political vantage points, of course) that, in Bollinger's words "all of higher education" and "the higher education community" are in favor of the University of Michigan position in particular, and affirmative action policies in general. Mr. Bennett did not disagree.

Of course, this is not really true. The higher education community is not universally in favor of the Michigan policy or affirmative action. But who can blame Bollinger or Bennett from assuming otherwise? Those of us who question such policies are I imagine in the minority, and we are divided, silent, and--let's be honest--afraid to air our views too publicly. This is true not only for issues related to race and affirmative action, but our conservatism in general.

I count myself among this number. I have subscribed to C-NET for quite a while now, usually as a silent observer of the conversation. I have been circumspect in voicing my political views, out of fear that doing so might damage my career. This is a form of moral cowardice, but I think I have a lot of company here.

This morning, after hearing myself--as a member of the "higher education community"-- lumped with President Bollinger and his perspective was deeply disturbing. I respect Bollinger and his supporters, but I disagree with them profoundly, and I applaud every word of Mr. Bush's speech.

And I think it is high time those of us who are academics and conservatives find our voices. We should do so calmly, reasonably, and without undue rancor (personally, I think the I'm-mad-as-hell-and-I'm-not-going-to-take-it-anymore approach of some understandably frustrated campus conservatives is counterproductive). So I would like to start a conversation here on C-NET concerning whether it be possible or desirable to organize the conservative academic community in some sort of way around the following general principles:

1. Articulating a generally agreed-upon set of principles and ideas that, taken together, would constitute a conservative intellectual movement in the nation's universities. In other words, what does an academic conservatism look like? Would academic conservatives be better served defining themselves in alliance with or, in some cases opposition to, conservatives from the political realm?

2. The need for a truly open and diverse American academe that respects and values--not just barely tolerates--perspectives from conservative thinkers and scholars. In this I mean not just the desire to study conservative thought like it was some sort of interesting disease, but rather studying conservative thought as if the thinkers might actually be correct.

3. The need for a campus environment that respects and cultivates conservative as well as liberal political groups and organizations.

4. The genuine need for _all_ types of diversity on America's campuses, and likewise the need to find new alternatives to affirmative action as a way of achieving that diversity.

5. A serious commitment to _universal_ ideals of free speech on campus, for all perspectives, left, right and center. This includes a right to be heard rather than shouted down, a right to publish words that are not summarily destroyed by campus activists, and the idea that cutting edge conservative thinkers are welcome on an American campus.

These ideas are of course merely a starting point for conversation. But I think we need to have that conversation. At least, I think I do. So let's talk.

Brian Dirck Asst. Professor of History Anderson University



editor - 1/30/2003

NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE, Vol. 9, #4, 30 January 2003 by Bruce Craig <> National Coalition for History (NCH) *****************

1. Budget News -- FY 2003 and FY 2004 2. NPS and Interior Agency "Professionals" Subjected to A-76 Outsourcing Assessments 3. Inaugural Listings Announced for National Recording Registry 4. Legislation Introduced: Lewis and Clark Interpretive Center; Cesar Estrada Chavez Study 5. Bits and Bytes: NARA Digital Archives Meetings Set; Gilder Lehrman Summer Seminars; NEH Confirmations 6. Articles of Interest: "Bush's Alter Ego With a Sense of History" (Christian Science Monitor; 24 January 2003)

1. BUDGET NEWS -- FY 2003 AND FY 2004 In an effort to wrap-up unfinished business from the 107th Congress, late last week the Senate passed a $390 billion omnibus spending bill to fund various agencies of the federal government. The bill for FY 2003, now four months late, covers operational expenses for virtually every federal department, bureau, and agency except the Pentagon which was funded last year. Most Hill insiders believe that the stage is now set for a round of prolonged negotiations with the House before a bill shows up on the President's desk for signature. Anticipating gridlock, earlier this week the House passed yet another continuing resolution (CR) designed to keep the federal government operating on a temporary basis through 7 February.

Details of the Senate measure are sparse as the bill has yet to be finalized. Hill sources report that the delay is because "numbers are still being juggled" by committee staff to meet the Senate approved budget figure. At this writing it appears that the NEH is slotted to get approximately what the President asked for in his budget proposal with NARA also getting the amount requested, plus additional funding for the new regional records center in Alaska. The number $7 million (which includes a $500,000 directed grant) is rumored for the NHPRC. It also appears that the Department of Education's "Teaching American History" grant level remains unchanged at $100 million.

Recently, the House asked federal departments for assessments of what the net impact of an across-the-board reduction of one, two, and three percent would be for their respective departments. Apparently, the lower house is considering these type of cuts to reduce the deficit. Hill sources also report that House and Senate conferees may not meet to resolve differences in the House and Senate versions until as late as mid-February.

In the meantime, the White House has released some preliminary figures from the $2.2 trillion FY 2004 federal budget that will be officially released next week. According to Hill sources, the budget will include big increases for homeland defense and the military, but most agencies can expect dramatic reductions, except for special education spending in the department of Education. Nevertheless, the Bush budget proposal will be awash in red ink.

Even Republican analysts expect the deficit will be of unprecedented magnitude -- 3% of the economy, or $300 billion, surpassing the 1992 record deficit of $290 billion. This figure does not factor in the cost of a possible war with Iraq. Mitch Daniels Jr., Director of the Office of Management and Budget, optimistically stated that the deficit is "manageable," a view questioned by Senator John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) who bluntly stated, "We're about the disappear into the deepest of red ink." The administration has blamed the weak economy and terror attacks for the problem, while leading Democrats have charged the administration's proposed tax cut has done little to help reduce the deficit.

Despite the proposed cuts, word on Capitol Hill is that some history-related programs may see positive numbers in the President's budget. The "Teaching American History" initiative, for example, may be pegged by the White House at $50 million and the NEH "We the People" initiative may see a modest increase. All speculation will end next week when the President's budget is formally announced.

2. NPS AND INTERIOR AGENCY "PROFESSIONALS" SUBJECTED TO A-76 OUTSOURCING ASSESSMENTS In an effort to identify as many as 850,000 federal jobs that could eventually be performed by private-sector employees, the Bush administration is examining about 1,700 full-time jobs in the National Park Service, including archeologists and others, as potential candidates for replacement by private-sector employees. NPS director Fran Mainella has expressed a long-term goal to maintain a uniformed presence in the parks as a "public face" for visitors, and as a consequence park ranger and positions declared "inherently governmental" are spared, at least for now. But many other employees -- maintenance workers, architects/engineers, administrative workers such as secretaries, fee collectors, and some scientists (this year only archeologists are singled out) may ultimately find their positions privatized. According to some NPS sources, up to 50% of the bureau's positions may eventually be studied.

Interior officials anticipate that no more than 4 percent of the current workforce may lose their jobs through outsourcing. Officials also claim that decisions to let employees go would be based "on performance objectives, not strictly on cost." Interior sources also maintain that downsizing goals of the federal workforce may be achieved through retirement and attrition. By some estimates about 20% of the NPS workforce will reach retirement age in the next five years.

There is nothing new about the present administration's efforts to downsize and out-source federal jobs. Past administrations have also attempted to reduce the federal workforce through the "A-76 process" -- a procedure where a cost-benefit analysis is performed comparing the costs to deliver services by federal employees to costs of doing the same tasks through private sector sources. The operative theory behind A-76 staffing assessments is that any position that is not considered "inherently governmental" can be performed equally as well by private-sector contract workers. The efforts have produced mixed results. At times, A-76 assessments conclude that market-style competition is not cost-effective and that the federal employees provide better cost-effective service than the private sector can.

In the past, however, previous administrations have not targeted the professional ranks of architects, engineers, and archeologists such as those based in archeology centers found in Santa Fe New Mexico, Estes Park Colorado, and Lincoln Nebraska. But according to a NPS spokesperson, archeologists were selected this year because "there are a lot of them" and their positions are not "inherently governmental."

Some NPS officials note that the cost of performing the assessments is "strangling" the parks. Costs to perform the studies are coming from across-the-board-cuts from central and regional offices and parks. An assessment typically costs about $90,000 in direct expenses, not including the indirect costs of lost work time for employees at the centers under study. One NPS source estimated the total cost to perform this year's assessments alone is probably several hundred thousand dollars to a million or more -- money the parks desperately could use for more pressing concerns.

Critics fear that outsourcing of the Park Service's entire corps of scientists, archeologists, and historians to private companies that are not steeped in the Park Service culture of resource protection would undermine protection and preservation of the nation's archeological, paleontological, and historical treasures. Moral is already impacted in professional ranks. According to Roger Kennedy, a former Director of the NPS as well as the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History, "The public understands that parks are not parking lots -- they are places that require a high degree of professional skill to manage. Not just anyone can do it."

Individuals and organizations wishing to express their views on outsourcing "professional" positions should write: the Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton and NPS Director Fran Mainella both at Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, Washington D.C. 20240; For Secretary Norton -- fax: 202.208-6956; e-mail:; for Director Mainella -- fax 202. 208-7889; e-mail . Members of Congress should be contacted not by letter but via e-mail or fax (for a listing for members of Congress via zip code, tap into: and <>;.

3. INAUGURAL LISTINGS ANNOUNCED FOR NATIONAL RECORDING REGISTRY On 27 January 2003, Librarian of Congress James H. Billington announced the first annual selection of 50 recordings to be placed on the National Recording Registry. According to the legislation establishing the register -- the National Recording Preservation Act of 2000 -- each year the Librarian is to select recordings that are "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant." The list is similar to the National Film Registry that was created for movies in 1989.

Nominations for the registry were garnered from members of the public (mostly through the Library's web site) and from the National Recording Preservation Board, an advisory group composed of leaders in the fields of music, recorded sound, and preservation. To be eligible for the listing, a recording had to have been at least 10 years old. Other recordings will be added to the list later.

According to Billington, "The challenge of reviewing more than 100 years of the history of recorded sound in America and selecting only 50 significant recordings for the inaugural recording registry was formidable." The Librarian stated that the registry is not to be another Grammy Awards or 'best of' list. It seeks to "to celebrate the richness and variety of our audio legacy and to underscore our responsibility to assure the long-term preservation of that legacy so that it may be appreciated and studied by generations to come."

Included on the list are some of Thomas Edison's early sound recordings, President Franklin Roosevelt's fireside chats, Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream" speech, a speech by Booker T. Washington, a vivid description of the crash of the Hindenburg, and Orson Welles's infamous "War of the Worlds" broadcast that terrified the nation in 1938. Also included are poetry readings by T.S. Eliot and W.H. Auden. Musical selections include a recording of John Philip Sousa's march "The Stars and Stripes Forever," Kate Smith singing "God Bless America," as well as works and/or performances by Enrico Caruso, Bing Crosby, Scott Joplin, George Gershwin, Aretha Franklin, Ray Charles, Frank Sinatra, and "The Message," a 1982 hit by Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five, a pivotal group in the early days of rap.

The Library of Congress's collections includes some 2.6 million sound recordings. The collection includes more than 500,000 LPs; 450,000 78-rpm discs; more than 500,000 unpublished discs, 200,000 compact discs; 175,000 tape reels; 150,000 45-rpm discs; and 100,000 cassettes. The collection includes most musical genres with particular strengths in opera, chamber music, folk, jazz, musical theater, popular, and classical music. More information on using this collection, as well as access to an electronic catalog of recordings and digitized selections, is available at>;. For additional information about the National Recording Preservation Board, tap into: <>;.

4. LEGISLATION INTRODUCED Two bills of interest this week: Lewis and Clark Interpretive Center: On 8 January 2003, Rep. Doug Bereuter (R-NE) introduced legislation (H.R. 255) designed to grant an easement to Otoe County, Nebraska to facilitate the construction of a Lewis and Clark Interpretive Center in Nebraska City, Nebraska. The bill was referred to the House Resources Committee for action.

Cesar Estrada Chavez Study -- On 15 January 2003, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) introduced a bill (S. 164) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of sites associated with the life of Cesar Estrada Chavez and the farm labor movement. McCain introduced the measure during the 107th Congress but the measure never came to hearing. The bill was referred to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

5. BITS AND BYTES Item #1 -- NARA Digital Archives Meetings Set: The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is in the planning stages of building a digital archives for government records of continuing value. To that end, NARA is scheduling a series of Electronic Records Archives (ERA) User Dialogue Sessions to help define the needs and expectations of ERA users. Meetings are scheduled for various locations (Carter, Reagan presidential libraries and NARA facilities in New York and Chicago in February). The registration form and additional information are available online at: <>;.

Item #2 -- Gilder Lehrman Summer Seminars: The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History is accepting applications for thirteen history seminars in the summer of 2003 targeted to public parochial, and independent school teachers. Each week-long session focuses on a broad historical topic (i.e. The Era of George Washington, The Cold War). The courses are limited to thirty participants selected through competitive application, and each is led by outstanding faculty which includes: David Kennedy, Eric Foner, James M. McPherson, Gordon Wood, Alan Brinkley, and Ira Berlin to name but a few. Room and Board and stipends of $500 are provided to each participant. In-service and new teacher credit is available. The deadline for applications is 3 March 2003. For applications and additional information, tap into: or call (646) 366-9556.

Item #3 -- NEH Confirmations: On 23 January 2003, the Senate confirmed the following nominated individuals to serve on the National Council on the Humanities, an advisory board of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH): Jewel Spears Brooker of Florida, Celeste Colgan of Texas, Elizabeth Fox-Genovese of Georgia, David Hertz of Indiana, Stephen McKnight of Florida, Sidney McPhee of Tennessee, Lawrence Okamura of Missouri, Stephan Thernstrom of Massachusetts, and Marguerite Sullivan of the District of Columbia. The appointment terms vary in length, from three to five years.

6. ARTICLES OF INTEREST: Ever since President Bush became President, his alter ego Carl Rove has been characterized as the President's chief historical advisor. To learn more about the "Bush's Alter Ego With a Sense of History" tap into this interview by Liz Marlantes that appeared in the 24 January issue of The Christian Science Monitor:<>;. Also, you may want to read the editorial "Eminence Rove" that appeared the same day on the Monitor's editorial page: <>;.

*********************************************************** The National Coalition for History invites you to subscribe to this FREE weekly newsletter! You are also encouraged to redistribute the NCH Washington Updates to colleagues, friends, teachers, students and others who are interested in history and archives issues. A complete backfile of these reports is maintained by H-Net on the NCH's web page (currently under revision) at <>;.

To subscribe to the "NCH Washington Update," send an e-mail message to according to the following model: SUBSCRIBE H-NCH firstname lastname, institution. To unsubscribe send an e-mail message to according to the following model: SIGNOFF H-NCH. You can accomplish the same tasks by tapping into the web interface at and at the "network" prompt, scroll down and select H-NCH; enter your name and affiliation and "submit". **************************************************************

ScottAdler - 1/30/2003

The subject line proves it: "6 Day War"

The story is in fact, about the Yom Kippur war of 1973. The Six Day war was in 1967.

There are other absurd statements, for one, the claim that the arabs lost 8,500 men and the Israelis 6,000. The actual figures of arab losses will never be known, but they are certainly twice that, at the very least -- three massive arab armies were utterly destroyed, two in the Sinai, one on the Golan.

Similarly, the Israeli losses were under 3,000 dead -- since the Israelis actually publish their figures, this can be verified.

Remeber, at the beginning of the war, the arabs attacked largely unmanned positions. At the end of the war, the Israelis were smashing everything in sight ahead of a Soviet-Arab mandated cease-fire.

Editor - 1/29/2003

The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

January 20, 2003, Monday Transcript #7546

HEADLINE: The Exile Oprtion; Protesting War; Conversation; King Day


JIM LEHRER: JIM LEHRER: The United States stepped up the pressure on the U.N.

MARGARET WARNER: And we get that longer view now from presidential historian Michael Beschloss. Lucy Barber, an historian for the California State Archives. She's the author of "Marching on Washington: The forging of an American political tradition." And Philip Zelikow, director of the Miller Center for Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. He is also a professor of history, and worked on the National Security Council during the first Bush administration.

Mr. Zelikow, take the protests we saw this week. How do they fit into the larger tradition of anti-war protests in this country?

PHILIP ZELIKOW: It's a rich tradition in American history that maybe has six great landmarks. The first is humanity war protests during the War of 1812 when many New England, several New England states even threatened to secede from the union if the war persisted. There was an enormous anti-war movement especially in the North during the American Civil War, some of which was dramatically portrayed in the recent movie, "Gangs of New York," has a pacifist side of it. There was also a strong anti-war and anti-imperialist movement in America during the Spanish American War and the prolonged war to subdue the Philippines about 100, a little more than 100 years ago. And then there was a big anti-war movement in the 1930s, as a reaction to World War I to try to keep America out of World War II. And then there's the Vietnam War of the 60s and 70s, the Vietnam War protest movement and the anti-nuclear movement of the 80s, so a strong tradition. And in some ways what's striking about what we're seeing now is this is very much the heritage of the Vietnam War and anti-nuclear protest movements of the 60s, 70s and 80s, and has, those movements have a good reputation. But it's interesting that a generation ago people's memories were the anti-war movements of the 1930s. And anti-war movements were not quite as well thought of after that experience. In fact, LBJ's secretary of state, Dean Rusk, had been a palsy fist anti-war movement supporter in the 1930s, and forever regretted that he had taken that stand and maybe even overcompensated.

MARGARET WARNER: Michael, pick up on that. Were the anti-war protests of the 30s or movement, would that be the only other time that, as this time, protesters were trying to stop a war before it started, before the U.S. got engaged?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: No, that has happened really pretty much through American history, although the biggest example as you say, and as Philip has said, was just before World War II. A lot of people in the America First movement and others said as much as we may be worried about Germany and Japan and their threat to the United States, this is not our war, we shouldn't get involved. World War I let to grief. Let's be protected by those two big ocean meets. Then at the time of Pearl Harbor, we were almost all internationalists, we all were on the side of this war. You saw very little protest during the war, as you saw with Vietnam. I should probably bring in my own credential. When I was 14, I actually protested against the Vietnam War myself. I was in a very strict boarding school in Massachusetts, and we wanted to protest the invasion of Cambodia by Pres. Nixon, and our headmaster said we could go but only if we wore the school blazer and tie. We were deeply humiliated, but we felt at least part of that time. Big point on Vietnam is this. And that is these movements are a critique that can help to educate a president, and one of the tragedies is that LBJ from the beginning never took it seriously from the very beginning, instead of saying these are people who were making critique of this war, maybe I should listen to some of the reservations that they're raising about the war in Vietnam, he immediately said let me deal with this politically, they're communists, they must be people who wish us ill. From the very beginning he tried to discredit them. And in the end didn't get the benefit from it that he really could have.

MARGARET WARNER: Lucy Barber, how effective have anti-war protests been through history?

LUCY BARBER: I think it depends on how you judge the effectiveness. Have any anti-war protests stopped a war? I don't think so. But on the other hand, there's no question that the anti-war movement of the Vietnam era changed our way of thinking about whether or not we the country should go to war -- so, for example, I think of the fact that these protests now are getting organized and being put on the agenda so much before we've actually committed to any military action, shows that legacy -- that people know that protests can change foreign policy.

MARGARET WARNER: You mean, do you mean that the feeling is that you have to start before the war starts or you don't have a chance of ending it?

LUCY BARBER: I think that's part of the lesson -- that you've got to start earlier, and to put yourself out there. In a sense I think back to what happened during the Operation Desert Storm and how disorganized those who opposed that military action were. So that by the time it actually came around that the Persian Gulf War started, even the anti-war groups had already broken apart from their coalition. So you had two weekends of marches on Washington, because they couldn't even agree to march in the same way. So you see, -- this time a coalition actually holding together, and I think that's going to be one of the most important things for the anti-war movement right now is whether or not they can keep that coalition together.

MARGARET WARNER: Of course the Gulf War ended so quickly that there probably wasn't much time for anything to gather steam. Phil Zelikow, what is your view on how effective or what effect anti-war movements have had?

PHILIP ZELIKOW: Well, the anti-war movement of the 1930s was enormously effective. It was extremely powerful. It effectively paralyzed American diplomacy really at least up until the middle of 1940 and the fall of France, and significantly inhibited American moves right up to Pearl Harbor. So it was very powerful. And then people then looked back on that and wondered whether or not that influence had been beneficial. In the Vietnam War, its influence is much more controversial there's actually a fairly strong argument among some historians that the anti-war movement actually prolonged the war, because it polarized American opinion, helped elect Richard Nixon and gave Nixon additional backing because of the backlash against the way the protesters were conducting themselves. But the cultural momentum from that era of protests was huge. And carried beyond the Vietnam War, and as you can see in the film, lingers today.

MARGARET WARNER: Your view about the effectiveness?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: I see it as more positive actually. I think it's a part of the system, because when a president is making a decision to go to war, the most serious decision he can make, you have to hear both arguments and this is one way of doing it. During the Civil War, Lincoln was opposed by a lot of the copperheads of the North, as Phil mentioned a moment ago, they helped Lincoln to focus his arguments and fight this war in a way that had broader support. Even after 39, 40 and had he not had that opposition, he probably would not have been as good both in terms of devising a strategy to fight World War II and also making the case. And I think Vietnam as well. Vietnam, the reason it is more of a tragedy than I think almost anything else is that that movement began in 1965 and had very little effect until we finally ended our active involvement in 1973. That was an absolute rebuke to the way that our system is supposed to operate. When support for a war drops and when there's a huge movement against it, the government is supposed to respond and it did not under Johnson and Nixon. That was the reason I think for that enormous rage. Nixon gave a press conference at the height of the protest in late '69 and said, I know about the protests, he said, under no circumstances will I be affected what so ever by it. That led to the kind of polarization that Philip mentioned.

PHILIP ZELIKOW: But, this can be constructive. A president doesn't necessarily have to agree where the anti-war protesters to hear them.


MARGARET WARNER: Lucy Barber, what would you add particularly on the Vietnam War, and then whatever other point you planned to make, but in terms of your sense of the effect it had at the time.

LUCY BARBER: Well, I think Michael is very right to say that the styles of protest did cause a lot of concern for on servers and for people who were not willing to take such radical means. And that's part of the whole question of the coalition. And I think that's what's so crucial if this anti-war movement is going to be effective. You need to be able to figure out how to keep a movement that contains people from, who are making arguments just about what is a good reason for a protest, to pacifists who oppose all war for all reasons. Since I'm actually someone who was raised in the religious society of Friends as a pacifist, as a Quaker I've always opposed war, I can appreciate how it's hard to keep those two sides together. You could see it during the anti-war movement in the Vietnam era that Quaker pacifists would often want a certain style of protest, but would back away from the more disruptive move towards the violent side, because that was opposed to their religious principles. So I think that's going to be one of the real tests here is this issue of what tactics are different groups going to take. I heard you said in the intro that some people chose to use civil disobedience yesterday, as part of their protest, where as the marchers on Saturday were all peaceful and no arrests were made. So how people are going to choose between those two different types of tactics, is going to have a big effect.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me get a brief final comment from Phil and Michael. We haven't talked about the government's reaction. These people were permitted to demonstrate peacefully. That has not always been the case, has it?

PHILIP ZELIKOW: Not always, but in general, really from the earliest days of the nation, there has always been tolerance for a fair scope of peaceful protest. During the Civil War, the country was at such grips that that tolerance went down. But it was always still there. Horace Greeley, one of the leading newspaper men of the country, was vocally anti-war. And I think just about all presidents recognize that they have to at least act like it's healthy.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: I guess I disagree on that one. Wilson passed espionage and sedition acts, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon thought the anti-war protesters were literally treasonists, and to some extent that led to Watergate Nixon's reaction against this. The most droll thing that LBJ did, when there were anti-protesters attending a speech he gave, he would tell the Secret Service agents to sprinkle itching powder on the protesters so they would have to put down their signs. So I hope that's the worst reaction we see; Pres. Bush is giving no sign of doing something like that.

Editor - 1/29/2003

January 22, 2003 Wednesday 10:00 PM Eastern Time
Transcript # 012200CN.V84
SECTION: News; Domestic
HEADLINE: France, Germany Agree That Going to War With Iraq is Sign of Failure; Roe v. Wade Turns 30
GUESTS: Joe Klein, Scott Ritter, Douglas Brinkley
BYLINE: Aaron Brown, Dana Bash, Jim Bitterman, Mike Boettcher

BROWN: Richard Nixon, as you no doubt know, wasn't the first president to tape his office conversations. LBJ did it. FDR did it, I believe.

So did JFK. On the one hand, this taping is offensive. And, on the other hand, it provides not the broad strokes of history, but the fine lines in some exquisite detail. Today, 15 hours of JFK's tapes were released, talk of Vietnam, Cuba and more.

(voice-over): The Cuban Missile Crisis was still visible in JFK's rearview mirror. And the newly released audiotapes show that the president knew exactly what he was doing when he promised Fidel Castro that the United States would never invade Cuba.

JOHN F. KENNEDY, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I mean, we are giving them a hell of a lot, the way it's going to be interpreted. As a practical matter, we are not giving him anything, because we can always debate if we have to. But, psychologically, it would so important to all of Latin America.

BROWN: And only months into the new year of 1962, the president's attention was jolted to another international crisis: Vietnam, a country then that few Americans had ever heard of. He was already receiving stark advice from the Pentagon, in this case from an Army general named Earle Wheeler.

GEN. EARLE WHEELER, U.S. ARMY: One of the difficulties out there is that the communists, the Viet Cong, are not bleeding in this war. The South Vietnamese are bleeding. In other words, they are suffering sizable losses. But the losses suffered by the Viet Cong are negligible."

BROWN: And later still, more words of warning that, with the benefit of hindsight, sound eerily similar to what must have been said or at least thought in the White Houses of Presidents Johnson and Nixon.

WHEELER: The people that are killed, except for perhaps a half- a-dozen battalion or regimental commanders or maybe a team of political leaders are fellows with the Vietnamese equivalent of the name Joe. And he can get plenty more of them and does. It's not going to let the blood that we feel needs to be let in order to make Ho Chi Minh recognize that he can't fight this war for free.

BROWN: It was always something, on this day, relations with Europe. Then, as now, there was France, always the French.

KENNEDY: There is some pretty vicious stuff out of Paris every day. They either attack us for trying to dominate Europe or they attack us for withdrawing from Europe or that we won't use our nuclear force or that we'll get them into a war and they're not consulted.

BROWN: Well, we love these presidential tapes. I know you haven't had a chance to listen to all 15 hours. And I know you're probably dying to, to be honest. Anything jump out as you, first as a sort of headline? And then we'll work our way through some of it.

BRINKLEY: I think the headlines are -- you had a little clip of it there --it's General Wheeler. It's the notion of the leading Kennedy general -- Kennedy had two of them, Maxwell Taylor and Earle Wheeler.

And here's Wheeler coming to the president with the report saying the problem with the Viet Cong is, you can kill as many of them as you want. You've got more and more and more coming. And if you read further into the transcripts, he's saying, we have got continue doing what we're doing, which is staying committed there in Vietnam, not letting the Viet Cong getting the upper hand.

And by 1963, staying committed meant that the United States had 18,000 military advisers, starting to use napalm and deployments over there. Wheeler, after Kennedy's assassination, becomes the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Johnson, continues into Nixon as one of leading people pushing a so-called American victory in Vietnam.

BROWN: What's interesting to me in the Wheeler piece is that, if you don't know what his thinking is and sort of where he goes, you can interpret that to mean, look, they value life differently or there's so many of them, we can't kill enough of them to really make it hurt, or, in order to kill enough of them to really make it hurt, we need to build way up.

BRINKLEY: Exactly. That's exactly what's...

BROWN: Do we know enough, whether from these tapes or others and other documents, about any qualms JFK had about Vietnam as this was going on?

BRINKLEY: Well, what's interesting in these 15 hours is, it seems to be that he's taking a pulse of the world through the tapes and he's looking at Cuba. He talks about Berlin, looking at what's happening in France.

And Vietnam is just one of the issues. But what's interesting is Wheeler. You start seeing, if you like, the military establishment, the leader generals, making it clear to Kennedy, whatever it is, we're not going to give up there. We're not going to concede that. If we lose Vietnam, it's a domino. And in the tapes, you hear the domino theory going into effect.

BROWN: And did Kennedy accept the theory?

BRINKLEY: It's unclear, because of the assassination.

But, yes, it was a major part of his belief, as a staunch anti- communist, was somebody that -- we had to protect the United States. And, of course, part of this is the Cuba aspect of this also and the deal-making he had to make over the Cuban Missile Crisis.

BROWN: I want to talk about that, too, before I run out of time.

Again, whether it's on the tapes or other stuff that's out there, did JFK believe that they had turned an almost perfect deal out of the missile crisis, that they'd really won on all counts?

BRINKLEY: He eventually came to see it that way. And, of course, Bobby Kennedy wrote "13 Days" claiming just that.

Dean Acheson, the secretary of state, who -- ex-secretary of state -- wanted to bomb Cuba, called Kennedy's legacy a homage to plain dumb luck. But whether it was luck or shrewd strategy, they did enough things, the Kennedy administration, when you listen to these tapes. And, incidentally, the Bush administration and Condoleezza Rice has been listening and getting tutored on some of this, so the connection between and Iraq...

BROWN: Is there any revisionism on that point about the deal that was struck to end the Cuban Missile Crisis?

BRINKLEY: Constantly, new bits of information come up there.

The main thing is that it all cost Kennedy, as you heard there -- which is fascinating -- saying, we're not going to -- we're telling Castro America will never do another Bay of Pigs. But he's saying, well, we'll tell him that. That will him help psychologically. Down the line, who knows.

That's the good thing about that kind of handshake deal, a deal done in dark offices without media spotlight. We can change our mind later.

Editor - 1/29/2003

National Public Radio (NPR)

SHOW: Talk of the Nation (3:00 PM ET) - NPR

January 16, 2003 Thursday

HEADLINE: Leonardo da Vinci's life and work



This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan in Washington.

Five hundred years ago the Duke of Milan received a long letter from a man applying for a job as a military engineer. At the end he tacked on a postscript. 'In peace,' he wrote, 'I believe I could give you as complete satisfaction as anyone on the construction of buildings, both public and private. I can further execute sculpture in marble, bronze or clay. And in painting, I can do as much as anyone, whoever he may be.'

Well, like they say, it ain't bragging if you can do it. And Leonardo da Vinci could do all that and more: scientist, inventor, theorist, teacher and an artist who changed the way we see the world. Not, however, a master of the deadline. Leonardo was notorious for jilting his patrons and abandoning projects in midstream. He is universally acknowledged as a great painter--the "Mona Lisa," "The Last Supper," two of the most famous images in the world--but there are only 13 other of his paintings. There are, though, thousands of doodles, drawings and sketches. A new exhibit of his drawings opens next week at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. It's called Leonardo da Vinci, Master Draftsman, and contains about 120 rarely seen drawings and 30 works by Leonardo's teacher and his pupils. It will be the largest exhibition of Leonardo's work ever presented in the US, one of the biggest of all time, and it promises to give us fresh insight into the creative process of a genius.

And joining us now is Carmen Bambach, curator of drawings and prints at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. She's responsible for the exhibition Leonardo da Vinci, and she now joins us by phone from the Met in New York.

Thanks for joining us. It must be a very hectic time for you.

Ms. CARMEN BAMBACH (Metropolitan Museum of Art): It's a wonderful, exciting moment. It's probably a once-in-a-lifetime moment for us opening the crates and seeing masterpiece after masterpiece come out of the crates, installing them, seeing so many of the works together, accompany things that have never been seen before, others that have not been exhibited in the same way since 1939, say, at the great Milan exhibition. It's really a transforming moment for us. Thank you.

CONAN: Well, I know that some of these drawings are owned by the Met, but many others you had to go beg or borrow from museums around the world. How did you convince them to part with their Leonardos?

Ms. BAMBACH: We have wonderful collaborative relationships with museums. The Met has been doing exhibitions for a very long time. We also have wonderful professional relationships at the curatorial level, and so it was really--well, one pounds the pavement a great deal. And asking for a Leonardo drawing is like asking for the firstborn of each aristocratic family in the 19th century. It's a process of persuasion.

CONAN: Now do you use leverage? I mean, you go to someplace--and I'm just making this up--in Rome and say, 'Well, the Milanese are giving us three. You might as well give us four'?

Ms. BAMBACH: If we revealed all our secrets--we should not.

CONAN: Now you, I'm sure, handled many, many, many drawings in your life. What's it like to hold a da Vinci?

Ms. BAMBACH: Electrifying. It's also--I think there is a sense of serenity. It's a very humbling experience most of all. The drawings are arresting. The feeling of hanging one drawing after another in this exhibition has been sort of putting up one masterpiece after another. You stop and look at each one of them, and each one of them is a masterpiece of extraordinary, extraordinary power.

CONAN: Yet a lot of them are, you know--we don't necessarily think of drawings or sketches in preparation for a painting, things like that, as masterpieces in their own right.

Ms. BAMBACH: Well, there is this extraordinary sense of discovery. When you look at a drawing by Leonardo is to really see him thinking on the paper. He is trying out ideas. He is correcting ideas. He is reinforcing ideas. He jumps from one thought to another. This is this incredible sense of immediacy. It's like, I don't know, taking a glimpse over the artist's shoulder. It's a profoundly intimate experience. To see the drawings is to understand so much about the creative process of Leonardo. If we look at, say, the "Mona Lisa," "The Last Supper"--those are masterpieces of extraordinary expression, arresting power. But we're looking at the finished product.

There's something so deeply moving to see such a creative genius at work and to be surprised by it. Every time that I look at one of his drawings--drawings that I have seen for so many times before, there's more new things to discover. It really is a process of discovery for the viewer. What's extraordinary is to look at the drawings attentively for a long period of time. And there's just--each moment seems to unfold or reveal new things for us. And there is this great sense of discovery in confronting such an intimate work.

CONAN: His drawings, I've read, are often displayed in what you might think of as logical groupings. I mean, he did a lot of horses. He did a lot of soldiers. He did a lot of studies of anatomy. And all of those things are presented separately. You're taking a different tack.

Ms. BAMBACH: Yes. If we look at the drawings by Leonardo in an integrated way, we also can see what he's doing at the same time as, say, "The Last Supper." One of the drawings of "The Last Supper" in the exhibition has the figural sketches and it's got study of geometry. Then you turn that sheet over and you look at the other side and then you see that there are studies for weights, for presses. We can look at yet another sheet that has a horse for the Battle of Anghiari, his most incredible unexecuted project; was supposed to compete with Michelangelo. Then slightly lower on the sheet, you see studies for the Leda and the Swan. You go to the other side of the sheet and you see the study of mortars shooting off a rain of stones over fortification. So you see the artistic genius at the same time, on the same sheet, as the military genius. It's really a very extraordinary moment. It's what communicates best the multifaceted aspects of his career.

CONAN: There's also one painting in the exhibit.

Ms. BAMBACH: Yes, it's the unfinished painting of St. Jerome from the Vatican Museum. It's a painting that has an extraordinary history. It was owned by Napoleon's uncle and it was re-identified in the 19th century. It's an amazing painting because since Leonardo left it unfinished, we can see all the steps of his design process on the panel itself. And so it's an extraordinary glimpse into his creative process right before he started putting the paint. In one part of the painting, on the upper left, there are even impressions from his fingerprints and the palms of his hands. That gives you goose bumps. We unpacked that painting yesterday, and to see it come out of the crate, it's like seeing this extraordinary masterpiece slowly emerging from the box, going to the wall. We see his fingerprints as something so amazingly immediate and arresting.

CONAN: Was there a moment as they started to lift it out you said, 'Please don't drop it'?

Ms. BAMBACH: Yeah.

CONAN: Have you ever been concerned by that, that they, you know, in the passage from the crate to the wall it might fall?

Ms. BAMBACH: No. We have an extraordinary team here at the Met. There must have been at least 15 people looking and also helping to hang it. It weighs about 200 pounds. But it's really just such an extraordinary contribution to the exhibition, a very rare loan from the Vatican Museum.

CONAN: Well, Carmen Bambach, congratulations, and thanks very much for taking time out to speak with us.

Ms. BAMBACH: Thank you very much. It's my pleasure.

CONAN: Ms. Bambach, curator of drawings and prints at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, curator of the exhibition Leonardo da Vinci, Master Draftsman. It opens on January 22nd. It will stay open there until March the 30th. And she spoke with us by phone from the museum in New York.

Well, everybody knows Leonardo could draw. You've probably seen his fanciful and futuristic sketches. You may know he's among the most famous left-handers in history. Many don't know that he was born a bastard and most likely homosexual. Joining us now to talk about Leonardo the man is Dr. Sherwin Nuland, a clinical professor of surgery at Yale School of Medicine and author of a biography of Leonardo called "Leonardo da Vinci."

Dr. SHERWIN NULAND (Yale School of Medicine): Thank you.

CONAN: Logically your fascination of--well, first of all, are you going to go down to New York and see the show?

Dr. NULAND: Oh, you bet. I'll hie myself thither as soon as I can.

CONAN: Now your fascination with Leonardo--did it begin with your common interest in anatomy?

Dr. NULAND: Well, yes. It's his uncommon interest in anatomy, as a matter of fact, that got me hooked in the first place. In 1977 we were visited in our Department of the History of Medicine by an Englishman named Kenneth Keele, who is one of the two leading authorities on the anatomy of Leonardo da Vinci, and Keele and I got to be very good friends. And his fascination metastasized to me, and I've been tracing Leonardo's life, primarily through his anatomical work, ever since that time.

CONAN: Now I've read that he came pretty close to actually discovering the human circulatory system.

Dr. NULAND: Well, he might have done it; it was very difficult to say. What he did do is make some amazing insights into the way the heart itself functioned. He was the first person, for example, to realize that the heartbeat and the pulse were synchronous. This is something clearly everybody thinks is automatically understood, but it wasn't at that time. And the way he did it was simply to watch farmers who were slaughtering pigs. They would put a large tube right through the chest wall into the pig's heart to let the blood go out. And, of course, there would be 20, 30 beats before all of the blood was gone. And he would watch the heartbeat. He would feel the animal's pulse at the same time, and he would synchronize the two of them, plus the sound of the heart thumping against the chest wall. So he was able to identify the fact that the heart functioned like a muscle, that it leaped forward each time it beat, and that it, in fact, caused the pulse.

CONAN: Hmm. Now was it his interest in anatomy that led on to his fascination with science?

Dr. NULAND: Well, his fascination with science, of course, preceded all of that. It was nature that fascinated him. Anything that grew on the Earth, anything that had to do with the origins of the Earth, anything that represented life, movement or emotion he took within the area of his fascination. The real masterpiece was Leonardo himself, as a matter of fact.

JENNY: OK. I just recently taught a class in our school district called Art Heritage. We have a wonderful organization that does it. We taught--well, I did a kindergarten, first- and second-grade class, and we were teaching about Leonardo da Vinci. Our most commonly asked question that the kids just couldn't figure out and we didn't have a good answer for them was: Exactly why did he write backwards? And the other one was: Why did he, when he was towards the end of his life, feel like he really hadn't accomplished much? We had read that about him. And I can take the answer off the air.

Dr. NULAND: Well, of course, of there are several theories about why he wrote backwards. Many people think it was some sort of a special way of keeping his work secret. The fact is that being left-handed, it was easier for him to write backwards. Turns out that writing backwards is not difficult for lefties. As you may know, he had his own particular form of script. He wrote numbers in a particular way that was his alone. He wrote certain letters that were a particular sort of shorthand of his. I think it was simply a matter for Leonardo of inventing, as I call it, his own shorthand, as we all do. And so there was no real attempt to keep anything hidden. It was simply his way of writing as fast as he could.

CONAN: And left-handedness was not necessarily looked favorably upon at the time that he lived. There were many other people who were left-handed who just switched over to the right hand.

Dr. NULAND: Well, exactly. And you know that in this country that was being done as late as the 1930s and '40s. Little kids who were lefties in school were taught how to write right-handed.

CONAN: Now not only born with the, you know, I guess in those days at least, the disadvantage of being left-handed--if they'd invented baseball, he would have bat at great advantage. But anyway, nevertheless he had some difficulties growing up. He was not--well, he was illegitimate. He had a lot of disadvantages.

Dr. NULAND: Well, perhaps not. He was much beloved by his mother, whose name was Catarina. We don't know how long he stayed with his mother; it may have been as long as five years. And then he was brought to the main house where his father lived and taken care of by his father's wife at that time, who loved him as much as his own natural mother did. So this was a child adored by these two women who were with him for the first 15 years of his life.

And then, of course, when he got to be 15, his father saw to it that he was apprentice to one of the master artists of Florence, Verrocchio.

CONAN: Yet he was never formally educated and never did master the lingua franca of the time, Latin.

Dr. NULAND: Well, that's particularly interesting because he was actually rather proud of that. He used to call himself an unlettered man, and he pointed out that the only way to really learn things was to learn them on one's own and not from the work of the ancients. He was fond of writing, for example, in his notebooks that certainly one can drink from bottles where water has been stored, but isn't it better to drink directly from the spring, which is what he did. And he felt always that his very poor Latin and even worse Greek was a great advantage to him because it essentially forced him to do experimentations on his own, make observations on his own, make correlations on his own.

CONAN: What do we know about his emotional life, if you will? What kind of a guy was he?

Dr. NULAND: Well, there were--so many things to say about this. One of the examples of his emotional life I really believe is that his notion of how to paint, how to show movement was by attempting to show thought. Every one of his paintings that is left to us, and, of course, the small drawings that we have, makes this recognizable. He was trying to imagine what his subjects were thinking and he was trying to show that emotion on their faces, which makes him a little different than Michelangelo, who was primarily interested in movement from the point of view of the way the muscles were working, whereas Leonardo was thinking about how the mind was working.

CONAN: But I've also read that he personally, if you met him, that he would always make you smile.

Dr. NULAND: Yes.

CONAN: On the other hand, I've read that he was a bit of a misanthrope and referred to people as fillers of privies and that sort of thing.

Dr. NULAND: Well, I like to think of him in that first category. Some of the people who lived during his time and left recollections of him wrote specifically about his sweet nature. It was Michelangelo who was the nasty fellow and, of course, Michelangelo resented the older Leonardo. They got into several significant spats. And those who were nearby and who left those descriptions make it sound much more as if Michelangelo was the awful boy and Leonardo was the kind, older gentle fellow.

PETER (Caller): Yes. I was wondering if your guests had heard the theory that the "Mona Lisa" is actually a self-portrait. There is a self-portrait that he did later in life that if you take it, it's exactly one-half the size of the "Mona Lisa." You take it, you reverse it, you put it on top of the "Mona Lisa" and the bone structure of the face identically matches that of the "Mona Lisa." And Verrocchio had written that Leonardo was an extraordinarily beautiful young man, quite feminine looking. And I was wondering since he took 16 years to paint that painting and was not generally known to be in the company of women for such a long time, that he perhaps used himself as a model. And it would be interesting to note that his self-portrait later in life was kind of like an answer to the riddle of the smile of--this is what this is about. This is really a self-portrait.

CONAN: Wasn't that an old song by Little Milton, "Grits Ain't Groceries (and Mona Lisa Was a Man)"?

PETER: I don't know. But there was a woman in New Jersey who fed things into a computer, art information into a computer, and asked for it to spit out oddities, and it spit out the self-portrait of the "Mona Lisa" and that of the older Leonardo and said, 'This is the same person,' based on, like, forensic studies of bone structure.

Dr. NULAND: Well, of course, I'm absolutely convinced that you're right, not on the basis of what we know from computer diagrams or whatever, or even later descriptions. Here's Leonardo, a homosexual male. If we're to accept some of the Freudian notions about homosexuality, a certain proportion of homosexuals are homosexuals because of an identification with their mother. We know from much of Leonardo's anatomical work that he was fascinated by childbirth, he was fascinated by the female internal sexual organs, and he was fascinated by motherhood. And here we have this wonderful picture, "The Virgin of the Rocks," this other wonderful picture, "Saint Anne, Virgin and Child." In the backgrounds of those pictures, we see primordial Earth, our planet as it must have been, as he saw it, at the time of his birth.

So here he comes along, and he does a portrait of a young woman, makes her look older than she really was--'cause she was only 24 when he started doing this. He did it in about half the time that you had mentioned. It was about four years. And it's been my thought that because motherhood fascinated him, he made her look much more motherly than she was in real life. And his identification with his own mother put him into the portrait. So what we're looking at here is biography and autobiography at the same time.

And actually, I discuss this in significant length in this book of mine, "Leonardo da Vinci." And I'm glad you asked the question.

CONAN: Much along the same lines, an e-mail from Daniel Tideman, who's the art director at Tulsa Law Magazine. 'As an art student, I recall sitting in a darkened art history class listening to a lecture about Leonardo da Vinci. Along with the standard discussion of his great works and inventions, my professor read a line from a book about da Vinci in which the author discusses Leonardo's 20-year love affair with a young man who was only 10 when the affair started. I just smiled and sat up in my chair. I hope I can still shock people 500 years after my death.'

Dr. NULAND: Well, of course, Leonardo was surrounded all of his life by attractive young people. There was one in particular who was with him for, oh, perhaps 20 years, and it's one of the reasons that many of those who've studied his life are absolutely convinced that he was homosexual. We have no evidence whatsoever that he actually functioned as a homosexual. In fact, you know, Freud's notion about Leonardo is that he completely repressed all sexuality, and all of his libidinal energy, as the psychoanalysts would put it, was sublimated into his work. And it's that thesis that may explain why he was able to accomplish such an unbelievably enormous amount of work throughout his life. He functioned as though he were completely asexual, which, again, the analysts tell us is repressed sexual energy.

CHRISTINA (Caller): Hi. I'm really excited to be on the phone with this subject, because I have an affinity for Leonardo da Vinci. But my main question was, what are your thoughts about his--the authenticity of the "Mona Lisa"? Because I remember learning that it disappeared from the Louvre and it resurfaced in Italy, but it was cut from the frame. And they also don't know--well, they also can't really tell if it's--others, so there's a lot of speculation about its authenticity.

CONAN: So the one that's in the Louvre now might be a copy, is what you're saying.


Dr. NULAND: One hear--yeah.

CHRISTINA: And because there's no record of--there was no record of it photographically or anything that they can't really compare from what it was and what it is.

Dr. NULAND: I'd love to hear an art historian respond to that. Of course, one hears that from time to time. But my thought--and I hope I'm not wrong about this--is that the great majority of art historians do believe that what we're looking at is authentic.

CONAN: An e-mail we got, this from Eric Ness(ph): 'I've been a lifelong student and admirer of da Vinci. I will never forget the first time I saw his work exhibited in Seattle, the "Hammer Codex," where I was moved to tears.'

Isn't the "Hammer Codex" also known as the "Leicester Codex"?

Dr. NULAND: I've never heard it called the "Hammer Codex." It's the "Leicester Codex." That's what it's called.

CONAN: Didn't Armand Hammer own it for some time? Is that possible?

Dr. NULAND: Oh, that's very possible. He owned just about everything else in the world, didn't he?

CONAN: I think so. What is that, exactly, the co...

Dr. NULAND: Well, I can't tell you precisely what's in it. It's a minor collection of his papers. You know, we have something like 5,000 pages, and it may very well be that there were twice that number or maybe three times that number. And except for something called "A Treatise on Painting," which is created from many of those pages that were taken out of notebooks and put together long after his death, there is no organized study. There's something about flight of birds that's reasonably well organized. But he did not create books. He did not create full manuscripts. He just wrote his notes, made his pictures, and kept counsel with himself.

CONAN: Dr. Nuland, as we've talked about before, he was famous for dropping projects in midstream, not finishing things and for working very slowly, admittedly not 13 years on the "Mona Lisa," but four years is still a long time. Why do you think that was?

Dr. NULAND: Well, I have a theory about that, and I'm not sure whether I'm correct or not. My thought, as I studied his life, is that the older he got, the more fascinated he became by anatomy. He was determined that he would find out the secret of what life is. He used to say--or write--that 'At some point, I'm going to create a study of actually what health is, what the body is, what life is.' And he would take these commissions, get the money for them, and then go off and do other things. And very often, his patrons were so angry with him that they never asked for the money back. And as he got older--I have thought for a long time that his real reason for being was to get away and study his anatomy. So he would take one of these commissions and then leave it, because there was something going on that he wanted to work on, whether it was a dissected leg or whether it was simply to think about the motion of the body.

And it's true that his work gets better and better and better, always with this theme, as he puts it in his words, 'what man is, what life is, what health is.' He became less and less of an artist and more and more of a scientist as he got older.

CONAN: Let's hear from Edward, who's with us from Salem, Massachusetts.

EDWARD (Caller): Good afternoon. I thank you for taking my call. I heard recently and read a little bit about the fact that quite a few artists--all of a sudden around this time, quite a few artists had all of a sudden gotten very real. And I was wondering--and there's a theory about the use of camera obscura, and I was wondering if you thought Leonardo had used such a tool.

Dr. NULAND: Well, of course, we'll never know the answer to that. This is a relatively recent notion, as you know, and I haven't seen any evidence or anyone suggesting that he was one of the artists who did this.

CONAN: Interesting question, Edward.

I realize that we dropped the ball on half of a question a caller came up with before. Did he, at the end of his life, regard himself as a failure?

Dr. NULAND: Well, I'm sure he did. This is a man whose whole function was to learn everything, and he had left no completed book. There was so much he still wanted to learn. Many of us have said we would like to die feeling that we're failures because our work is incomplete. And this is how he thought about himself. Of course, all of these manuscripts were known to only a very few people and had not been seen, so that some of the extraordinary discoveries had to wait decades, centuries; in the case of one particular anatomical discovery, right up until the 1960s before it was found again.

CONAN: Hmm. And he has been described as the first truly modern mind. I guess if you're the first, you might be a little lonely.

Dr. NULAND: Well, you--no, I keep quoting Freud, and maybe that's not fair, but there's this wonderful line that is quoted over and over again. Freud said of him in his book...

CONAN: Support...

Dr. NULAND: ...about Leonardo, "He was like a man who awoke early in the darkness while the others were still asleep." And that's certainly true.

Today we're talking about the life and work of another genius, Leonardo da Vinci. Though he's world famous for his paintings, he considered himself a scientist. Joining us now is Michael Mosley, executive producer of an upcoming BBC documentary series on the life of Leonardo da Vinci called "Leonardo da Vinci." It's scheduled to air this spring. And he's with us by phone from his home in London.

Mr. MICHAEL MOSLEY (Executive Producer, "Leonardo da Vinci"): Hi. Good afternoon to you.

CONAN: Good afternoon. Now a lot of us look at Leonardo's sketches of fanciful devices like helicopters and say, you know, 'How charming.' You took another decision. You decided to see if you could actually build some of those things.

Mr. MOSLEY: Yes. I've been sort of in love with Leonardo for at least 20 years and have always wanted to know whether any of the things he designed, or how many of the things he designed have actually worked. And academics have argued about it, but we thought it'd be interesting to actually have a go and test it out.

CONAN: So which ones did you choose to build?

Mr. MOSLEY: Well, we're, obviously, interested in flight, first of all, because Leonardo was absolutely passionate about flight. He always wanted to be able to fly like a bird. And he had at least three different plans for flight. The first one, which is quite famous, is his ornithopter--you know, flapping wings.

CONAN: Right.

Mr. MOSLEY: And it was very obvious that no human would have the power to do that. I think even Leonardo recognized that toward the end of his life. And then was the helicopter, which was also another insane one. It would never have flown. There would never have been the power to get it round. But he did do two others, which are very interesting. One is a hang glider, which was actually--he designed this thing and he draws it, and nobody has any idea what it is until the hang glider is invented in the 1970s. And then somebody looks at it and goes, 'Blimey, it's a hang glider.' And then people thought about testing it, but there was nobody insane enough to actually fly it until now. His other one was a parachute. He designed the parachute primarily, actually, to jump off cliffs, because he, obviously, had no plane that would take him up there.

CONAN: You all...

Mr. MOSLEY: But those were the two we started with: 'Let's do flight and let's do the parachute and hang glider.'

CONAN: And what happened when you tried them out?

Mr. MOSLEY: Well, the parachute was great because, essentially, it's made of exactly the same canvas that Leonardo painted on, so it brings art and form together. It's a big canvas number with bamboo, and it is made with a square which then has canvas on it. It's big. And what most of the modern experts told us was that 'You need to put a hole at the top to stabilize it.' That's what you do with a modern parachute. But we decided we'd go with Leonardo's designs, and we jumped it from 10,000 feet from a helicopter.

CONAN: And who did you find courageous enough to actually try it?

Mr. MOSLEY: A guy called Adrian Nicholas who, for a living, jumps off cliffs, mountains, anything. And he's been a Leonardo nut for ages, so he absolutely said to be--leapt at the chance.

CONAN: Now you went on to try some other of his devices, again using materials that would have been available in his time.

Mr. MOSLEY: Absolutely. So we did the hang glider and, indeed, used the world champion to fly that. And we also did--because he was a great one for working for warlords, mainly because they would pay him. As I'm sure you've already told your listeners, he fought for some of the greatest tyrants in history.

CONAN: Indeed.

Mr. MOSLEY: And so he designed lots of things which were wildly impractical, but we thought it would be rather neat to test out his tank, so we built it and got the British army to test it. And what is interesting about it is, in many of Leonardo's designs, if you actually do them literally the way that Leonardo suggests you do in his drawings, then they are, frankly, bonkers and dangerous. For example, his hang glider--he suggests you fly it in exactly the opposite way that you would. And with the tank, there are a couple of, in a way, obvious design flaws. Now that leads you to think some very, very interesting things, one of which is: Either this guy is incredibly careless, he's not as big a genius as we think, or he's deliberately building design flaws into it.

We think the latter, because they are the sort of flaws which are fantastically easy to sort out if you happen to know--you understand the principles of mechanics engineering, you know, and things like that. So we think--and we have a number of people who endorse that view--that he's living in an era where there are no copyright laws, and he's deeply paranoid, for understandable reasons, because lots of people are spying on him. And he's also a bit of a pacifist at heart. He hates war, and yet he's fighting for warlords.

And so put those all together, and you can sort of put together an argument that Leonardo deliberately builds design flaws into this things so that people will not be able to rip him

BEN: I had a question. Do you think that Leonardo was frustrated with the fact that the level of mathematics could not keep up with his scientific thinking?

Mr. MOSLEY: I think absolutely, yes, because he got passionate about mathematics, particularly in the sort of 1500s when he largely abandons his painting to pursue mathematics. But he was more of a sort of--in a sense, a sort of practical engineer than he was a theoretical thinker. So that although--he fell really in love with the mathematics of beauty. He was obsessed with trying to find out if there were rules for absolute beauty and whether he could apply them to his painting. But he looked for unity and for mathematics in nature. He was obsessed by nature. And he was convinced he would find universal rules, and is deeply frustrated throughout his life that he fails to do so.

ALEX: First off, I would like to know how true the fact that Leonardo created the foundation or the blueprint of what later was to become the bicycle.

CONAN: Is that one of his inventions?

Mr. MOSLEY: It's another of those great urban myths. What actually happened--because everyone's prepared to ascribe anything to Leonardo, OK? What happens is a monk they find in about the 1930s--and they find a document in a library and it's got a drawing; blimey, it's of a bicycle. So everyone thinks, 'Wow! Isn't that incredible.' But it turns out when you actually do some analysis on the ink, it's clearly been written in about 1910, somebody who's just been doodling and they draw it in. So, no, there's absolutely no foundation for the idea he invented the bicycle.

CONAN: Pity. Seems like a good idea.

Mr. MOSLEY: See, that's part of the great mythology that surrounds Leonardo, and there are all sorts of examples of it. And I think I was hearing earlier this notion that the "Mona Lisa" might be a self-portrait. Now, again, a lot of experts don't think that's true, simply because the painting that is supposed to be that of Leonardo--Leonardo doesn't describe his self-portrait. He just says 'It's a portrait of an old man.' It was only in the 19th century that somebody comes up with the notion that it's a self-portrait. So most people think it was just--that was his style of painting faces at the time. So the fact that there is a relationship between the "Mona Lisa" and this painting is not surprising. Nobody knows what Leonardo looked like.

CONAN: Here's an e-mail we got from Scott Rice(ph), and this may be somewhat along the same lines. 'It's been a while,' he writes, 'but I remember reading something about Leonardo supposedly creating a massive weapon of defense. There seemed to be a matter of debate over whether the weapon was actually made or used. I was wondering if you could shed any light on that.'

Mr. MOSLEY: I think there's almost no evidence that any of Leonardo's great machines were ever built. Well, all I can say is that there is no evidence either way. He seems to have designed these things, but most people--strangely enough, he's employed by warlords, but what they actually want him to do is to do things like make maps, paint portraits of their mistresses and mainly to organize their parties. Because Leonardo built robots; he was a great party giver, one of the greatest of his age. But strangely, having employed him, because he's supposed to be this marvelous engineer, that's not actually what they get him to do. So there's no great evidence that any of the wonderful machines he designed he actually built.

CONAN: So we'll get to see these machines that he designed and you built in your documentary...

Mr. MOSLEY: Absolutely.

CONAN: the spring, right?

Mr. MOSLEY: Yes, absolutely.

Editor - 1/29/2003

The Trials of Henry Kissinger (2002)

By Ron Briley

The Professor as Diplomat and Legacy of Cold War Diplomacy

Inspired by the oratorical powers of Amy Goodman, host of Pacifica Radio's Democracy Now, speaking before a sold-out audience at Popejoy Hall on the campus of the University of New Mexico, I decided to celebrate the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday by screening the documentary film The Trials of Henry Kissinger (2002). Goodman, at her polemical best, asserted that Osama Ben Laden should be captured and put on trial at The Hague before the International Court of Justice. On the other hand, she continued, it was equally important for Henry Kissinger to be placed in the docket for his war crimes in Cambodia, East Timor, and Chile. Goodman's comments met with a thunderous ovation from the crowd, many of whom marched in antiwar rallies earlier in the day protesting the Bush administration's foreign policy adventures in Iraq.

The Kissinger film, produced by First Run Features and directed by Eugene Jarecki, is loosely based upon journalist Christopher Hitchens's indictment of Kissinger in a series of articles in Harper's Magazine and later produced in book form (Verso, 2001). Like Hitchens's volume, the Jarecki documentary film makes no claim to objectivity, but instead goes about establishing the case against Kissinger. Using declassified documents and talking-head witnesses, the film argues that Kissinger is guilty of crimes against humanity through the illegal bombing of Cambodian civilians in defiance of Congressional directives, giving a "green light" to the Indonesian government to violently suppress the independence of East Timor, and preparing the way for a military coup in Chile against democratically-elected Salvador Allende by arranging for the assassination of Chilean general Rene' Schneider.

The defense for Kissinger consists of film clips from public speeches in which the former National Security Adviser and Secretary of State insists that his critics have distorted the record. Yet when Kissinger argues that after October 15, 1970 he was no longer involved with coup plans in Chile, the filmmakers produce documents and witnesses who declare that Kissinger is lying. And even the witnesses who support Kissinger, such as his former aide Alexander Haig, come off as cold-blooded men who would have no qualms about undermining democracy to stop the spread of communism.

In fact, the witnesses are an interesting lot. Making the brief for the prosecution, we find journalists and writers such as Hitchens, Seymour Hersh, William Shawcross, and Roger Morris providing convincing arguments, while the defense offered by witnesses more sympathetic to Kissinger, such as Haig and Nixon speechwriter William Safire, seem to damn with faint praise. Missing from the testimony gathered by Jarecki are scholarly voices that might be better able to place the Kissinger case in some larger perspective.

For example, screenwriter Alex Gibney struggles to explain the Kissinger lust for power. In a brief biographical sketch, narrator Brian Cox suggests that the murder of family members by the Nazis during the Holocaust may have encouraged Kissinger to perceive strength as a means through which to prevent such tragedies. Of course, the Kissinger desire for the celebrity spotlight and his oft-quoted observation that power is the ultimate aphrodisiac also receive attention from the filmmakers, who speculate that perhaps Kissinger was simply the intellectual schoolboy always picked upon by his less gifted peers. As National Security Adviser and Secretary of State, however, Kisssinger was able to exert authority and get the girl.

But Gibney and Jarecki miss a major point when they gloss over Kissinger's academic career and work. The professor's admiration for such European statesmen as Metternich and Bismarck is mentioned, but the filmmakers fail to develop the clues to Kissinger's foreign policy provided by his seminal work on Metternich and the Congress of Vienna, A World Restored. Kissinger perceived himself in the Nixon/Ford administration as the modern day Metternich. The Austrian diplomat orchestrated the Congress of Europe to control political change after the upheaval of the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars. With Napoleon finally exiled to the island of St. Helena, Metternich employed the Quadruple Alliance to curb the forces of nationalism and liberalism which could destabilize the Austrian empire. In a similar vein, Kissinger perceived wars of national liberation, often led by progressive socialist or communist elements, as threatening to the status quo and a great power such as the United States. Accordingly, Kissinger would be the Metternich of his age thwarting threats to the American empire. This theme is well demonstrated in a Newsweek magazine cover cartoon (briefly shown on screen) featuring Kissinger in superman costume flying over the world and managing conflict in such diverse areas as Cambodia, East Timor, and Chile.

The Trials of Henry Kissinger fails to develop this historical continuity between these nineteenth and twentieth century champions of empire. Nor do the filmmakers do a good job of placing Kissinger within the context of post World War II foreign policy. In their indictment of Kissinger, Jarecki and Gibney tend to treat the diplomat professor's actions in isolation. Historians of American foreign policy in the Cold War era might observe that Kissinger's policies were a continuation of covert operations pursued by various administrations. Beginning with the Truman Doctrine, the United States supported authoritarian or dictatorial anticommunist regimes around the world. The Central Intelligence Agency toppled democratic governments in Iran and Guatemala and paved the way for the murder of Lumumba in the Congo. The United States also supported the brutal suppression carried out by the Suharto regime in Indonesia, resulting in the slaughter of thousands for their alleged communist sympathies. And, of course, Kissinger inherited the Vietnam War from supposedly more liberal Democratic administrations.

Nor has the support for antidemocratic regimes and the ignoring of Congressional authority ceased with Kissinger's retirement from government service. In the Reagan administration, the law was broken when the President's operatives sold weapons to Iran in order to fund the Contra overthrow of the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Today, one of those indicted officials John Poindexter serves as a key adviser to President Bush. And in a classic example of having the fox guard the chicken coop, Bush invited Kissinger back into government service as the chair of a blue ribbon panel to investigate the intelligence failures of 9-11. Conflict of interest with several defense contractors, for whom he serves as a consultant (plus perhaps the unfavorable publicity generated by the Hitchens's accusations) led Kissinger to resign the post.

Thus, those advocating a trail for Henry Kissinger might want to broaden their horizons and question to what extent the case of Kissinger should be used to indict or at least interrogate American foreign policy in the post World War II era. The Trials of Henry Kissinger is an interesting film, although somewhat pedestrian in its style, but the filmmakers, by focusing upon the individual, tend to neglect a more systematic critique of American foreign policy. Placing Kissinger, Augusto Pinochet, or even Ben Laden in the docket may provide some satisfaction, but it is no substitute for dealing with the larger issues of developmental, economic, social, and political inequality which generate international conflict. At the conclusion of the film, journalist Seymour Hersh suggests that whether Kissinger is ever the subject of international justice, the professor turned power broker will always have to struggle with his conscience. On the other hand, we all have to deal every day with the contributions of Kissinger, as well as other Cold War policymakers, to an increasingly polarized and dangerous world.

Editor - 1/29/2003

Sydney Morning Herald

January 27, 2003 Monday

SECTION: News And Features; Pg. 3

HEADLINE: Nativity Scene Paints Different Picture Of Down Syndrome

BYLINE: Julie Robotham,Medical Writer

It was the light in the painting that first drew Andrew Levitas towards it. Radiating from the infant Jesus in a rare, nocturnal nativity scene, it illuminated from below the faces of the dozen figures around the crib.

But as Dr Levitas approached he noticed something even more striking in the Dutch renaissance piece. The small, angelic figure depicted next to Mary was unmistakably a person with Down syndrome. The flat face, folded eyelids, small nose and downturned mouth showed it without any doubt. And the shepherd standing one row back also appeared to have the same distinctive characteristics. At a major exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum in New York City, among some of the most documented paintings in the world, Dr Levitas had made a discovery: it was the earliest clear depiction of Down syndrome painted 3 1/2 centuries before the condition was defined by John Langdon Down in 1866.

What was more, the unknown painter of The Adoration of the Christ Child, circa 1515, did not appear to be making any special point about the condition. The Down syndrome characters were participating in the scene in the same way as everyone else.

Dr Levitas specialises in psychiatric disorders in people with developmental disabilities, including Down syndrome, at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey.

He knew as well as anyone that their status is society could make or break the happiness of someone with the syndrome.

His finding is reviving an old controversy among doctors and historians: might life have been better for such children before the syndrome was recognised?

Discussing the painting in the American Journal of Medical Genetics, Dr Levitas wrote that, in the 16th century, disabilities were often treated harshly in society and portrayed in art as comic or evil. But there was no evidence the Dutch painter even viewed his subject as disabled.

"It is possible that those with milder degrees of mental handicap were not recognised as having what we now call mental retardation; individuals who were perceived as being slightly slow, in contrast to those with severe handicaps, might have been fully integrated into society," he wrote.

Though a Down syndrome child may have looked unusual, with no checklist of features or development, parents would have had no reason to treat the child as disabled.

There are lessons in the painting even today, Dr Levitas argues, because the present trend to bring people with Down syndrome into mainstream work and education involves little acceptance of their limitations.

Jill O'Connor, information officer of the Down Syndrome Association of NSW, said: "We tend to think of people with Down syndrome having been put away before our own enlightened times, but there is evidence that some families always brought their children up at home."

Wm Huggins - 1/29/2003

Historians Against War? HAW. Interesting choice which brings to mind Lord Haw Haw.

Editor - 1/29/2003

Chronicle of Higher Education
January 29, 2003

Delegation of American Academics Returns From Iraq, Criticizing Push Toward War

Nearly 30 American professors and students, just back from a trip to visit academics in Baghdad, have signed a statement calling for scholars to oppose a U.S. war with Iraq and instead to create academic exchanges with the country. The trip, dubbed an "Academic Airlift," is the first of three planned visits to Iraq by American faculty members and was organized by Conscience International, an Atlanta-based humanitarian-aid organization. Subsequent trips are scheduled this spring and fall.

Besides professors and students from 28 universities, members of the group included Bianca Jagger, who is on Amnesty International's executive committee. The group was led by James E. Jennings, president of Conscience International and a former professor of history and Islamic studies.

"In a way," Mr. Jennings said, "we're trying to emulate Aristophanes' hero in his play The Acharnians, when during the Peloponnesian War the protagonist made a separate peace with Sparta, from Athens, and said, 'I don't go along with my government.' We're trying to do the same."

The delegation of Americans met with Iraqi faculty members at the University of Babylon and the University of Baghdad, where an academic symposium was held from January 14 to 16. It focused on ways to bridge the gap in student and faculty exchanges between Iraqi and American institutions.

"Our objective is to do something that I think the academic community has neglected, for the past dozen years anyway, and that is to continue our academic contacts with colleagues in various countries," Mr. Jennings said.

According to Mr. Jennings, at least half of the University of Baghdad's faculty members have doctorates from American universities and neither they nor their students have been able to study in the United States for more than a decade. He and his group say they will actively lobby the American government to allow the granting of visas to Iraqi students and faculty members.

"This trip restored my faith in the academy as a forum for significant exchange of ideas and honest and realistic dialogue," said Mr. Jennings, who taught ancient history at several colleges, including the University of Akron and the University of Illinois at Chicago. "The whole idea of the academy is that you have reasonable dialogue."

The full text of the statement and a list of the signers are available online at Conscience International's Web site.

Editor - 1/29/2003

The Independent (London)

January 25, 2003, Saturday





"THE MOST disturbing thing was a little cabinet displaying baby clothes." The words are those of a British sixth-former who was part of a group visiting Auschwitz. "There were tiny shoes and wee cardigans. Why would anyone ever want to - or even physically be able to - murder a baby?"

Monday is Holocaust Memorial Day, the third since the idea was instituted in 2001. This year's theme, Children and the Holocaust, reminds us that more than a tenth of the 11 million people murdered by the Nazis were children. Yet the words of that sixth-former do something more. They suggest that, when the world remembers, it is often the wrong questions which get asked. Controversy has dogged this new Day from the outset. Complaints have come from all directions. Some said it was too exclusively Jewish - what about the five million non-Jews who perished? And what about the victims of Rwanda, Pol Pot, Stalin, Armenia or the slave trade? Last week the Scottish Travellers Association objected that gypsies, who were among Hitler's victims, have been omitted from the official ceremonies, which this year take place in Edinburgh. Some Jews fear the Day feeds a sense of national victimhood; others protest that the specific fate of the Jews is being played down. The American historian Peter Novick argues that American Jews "discovered" the Holocaust in the Eighties for political purposes that were less about honouring the dead than protecting the interests of the living. There are even complaints that making the Holocaust a compulsory element in the UK school curriculum has been counter-productive and is putting children off history.

There is a sense in which the Holocaust is re-invented for each generation. Among Jews, the Shoah remains alive rather than passing into history; survivors pass down both memories and instincts to their children's children. But even here it changes, as the historian Mark Roseman showed in chronicling what he called slippages of memory. "The way a survivor regards his or her past is not static," he argues. "It is constantly being culturally and historically shaped." There are even some Jewish historians who claim that the dynamics and poetics of memories are more important than their relationship to historical reality.

Among non-Jews there is a tendency for remembering the Holocaust to become either an exercise in trite platitudes about good and evil or an opportunity to use the past to advance particular agendas in the present. We saw a parallel of that in Tony Blair's "apology" for the Irish Famine at a time when a genuflection to Irish nationalism was seen to be helpful in the Belfast peace process. There is a danger in all this. Memorialisation can be used to do anything from justifying Israel's treatment of the Palestinians to whitewashing the UK government's policy on asylum seekers: how can we be accused of treating people as less than human when we're so clearly outraged by the Holocaust?

But there is something deeper. It can be found in the ambivalence of our responses to those over-familiar images of skeletal camp inmates. So many exhibitions unwittingly tell the story from the perspective of the perpetrator, says Bill Williams, who is trying to raise funds for a different kind of Shoah Centre, in Manchester. The numbers of Jews killed, and how, the swastikas, the Nuremberg rallies, the maps of death routes, the neat scale models of Auschwitz - they all tell the big story of what the Nazis did, and the testimony of survivors is just used as aural illustration of that story. "There is something almost pornographic about pictures of dehumanising piles of corpses or the photo of a woman after she has been raped," he says. "What we need instead is an approach which tells the story from below, from what it was like for ordinary people."

"I started crying when I saw the babies' clothes," wrote another sixth-former. "As we wandered round, I was overcome by a desperate desire to go home and see my Mum and tell her I loved her." The historical reality may shock us emotionally. But it is not enough to be touched, as Hannah Holtschneider of the Centre for Jewish-Christian Relations in Cambridge has argued. An effective memorial has to offer people a way to get from that emotional voyeurism to an understanding of the world we live in now.

The key question is not: "How could anyone murder a baby?" It is not even: "What would I have done if I had lived in Germany in the Thirties?" Rather it is: "What am I doing - or omitting to do, or ignoring - in the world I live in today?" The playwright David Edgar once wrote: "The notion that there is a thing called evil which separates the wicked off from the rest of us is a comforting illusion." It diverts us from the task of finding those impulses, resentments and fears within ourselves that could drive us to commit dreadful acts under different circumstances. Unless we begin to understand this, the lessons of the Holocaust will always be about blaming someone else.

Monday, of course, is not just Holocaust Day. It is the day when the UN security council will receive Hans Blix's report and decide whether to go to war with Iraq. If the lessons of the Holocaust have really been learned, they should weigh heavily there. Remembering is about the present as well as the past.

Editor - 1/29/2003

The Guardian (London)

January 25, 2003

SECTION: Guardian Foreign Pages, Pg. 19

HEADLINE: Solzhenitsyn breaks last taboo of the revolution: Nobel laureate under fire for new book on the role of Jews in Soviet-era repression

BYLINE: Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who first exposed the horrors of the Stalinist gulag, is now attempting to tackle one of the most sensitive topics of his writing career - the role of the Jews in the Bolshevik revolution and Soviet purges.

In his latest book Solzhenitsyn, 84, deals with one of the last taboos of the communist revolution: that Jews were as much perpetrators of the repression as its victims. Two Hundred Years Together - a reference to the 1772 partial annexation of Poland and Russia which greatly increased the Russian Jewish population - contains three chapters discussing the Jewish role in the revolutionary genocide and secret police purges of Soviet Russia.

But Jewish leaders and some historians have reacted furiously to the book, and questioned Solzhenitsyn's motives in writing it, accusing him of factual inaccuracies and of fanning the flames of anti-semitism in Russia. Solzhenitsyn argues that in some Jewish satire of the revolutionary period the blame for the genocide "consciously or unconsciously descends on the Russians". But he states that all the nation's ethnic groups must share the blame, and that people shy away from speaking the truth about the Jewish experience.

In one remark which infuriated Russian Jews, he wrote: "If I would care to generalise, and to say that the life of the Jews in the camps was especially hard, I could, and would not face reproach for an unjust national generalisation. But in the camps where I was kept, it was different. The Jews whose experience I saw - their life was softer than that of others."

But he added: "It is impossible to find the answer to the eternal question: who is to be blamed, who led us to our death? To explain the actions of the Kiev cheka (secret police) only by the fact that two thirds were Jews, is certainly incorrect."

Solzhenitsyn, awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1970, spent much of his life in Soviet prison camps, enduring persecution when he wrote about his experi ences. He is currently in frail health, but in an interview given last month he said that Russia must come to terms with the Stalinist and revolutionary genocides - and that its Jewish population should be as offended at their own role in the purges as they are at the Soviet power that also persecuted them.

"My book was . . . directed to empathise with the thoughts, feelings and the psychology of the Jews - their spiritual component," he said. "I have never made general conclusions about a people. I will always differentiate between layers of Jews. One layer rushed headfirst to the revolution. Another, to the contrary, was trying to stand back . . . The Jewish subject for a long time was considered prohibited. Zhabotinsky (a Jewish writer) once said that the best service our Russian friends give to us is never to speak aloud about us."

But Solzhenitsyn's book has caused controversy in Russia, where one Jewish leader said it was "not of any merit".

"This is a mistake, but even geniuses make mistakes," said Yevgeny Satanovsky, president of the Russian Jewish Congress. "Richard Wagner did not like the Jews, but was a great composer. Dostoyevsky was a great Russian writer, but had a very sceptical attitude towards the Jews.

"This is not a book about how the Jews and Russians lived together for 200 years, but one about how they lived apart after finding themselves on the same territory. This book is a weak one professionally. Factually, it is so bad as to be beyond criticism. As literature, it is not of any merit."

But DM Thomas, one of Solzhenitsyn's biographers, said that he did not think the book was fuelled by anti-semitism. "I would not doubt his sincerity. He says that he firmly supports the state of Israel. In his fiction and factual writing there are Jewish characters that he writes about who are bright, decent, anti-Stalinist people."

Professor Robert Service of Oxford University, an expert on 20th century Russian history, said that from what he had read about the book, Solzhenitsyn was "absolutely right".

Researching a book on Lenin, Prof Service came across details of how Trotsky, who was of Jewish origin, asked the polit buro in 1919 to ensure that Jews were enrolled in the Red army. Trotsky said that Jews were disproportionately represented in the Soviet civil bureaucracy, including the cheka.

"Trotsky's idea was that the spread of anti-semitism was (partly down to) objections about their entrance into the civil service. There is something in this; that they were not just passive spectators of the revolution. They were part-victims and part-perpetrators.

"It is not a question that anyone can write about without a huge amount of bravery, and (it) needs doing in Russia because the Jews are quite often written about by fanatics. Mr Solzhenitsyn's book seems much more measured than that."

Yet others failed to see the need for Solzhenitsyn's pursuit of this particular subject at present. Vassili Berezhkov, a retired KGB colonel and historian of the secret services and the NKVD (the precursor of the KGB), said: "The question of ethnicity did not have any importance either in the revolution or the story of the NKVD.

"This was a social revolution and those who served in the NKVD and cheka were serving ideas of social change.

"If Solzhenitsyn writes that there were many Jews in the NKVD, it will increase the passions of anti-semitism, which has deep roots in Russian history. I think it is better not to discuss such a question now."

Editor - 1/29/2003

The Guardian (London)

January 25, 2003

SECTION: Guardian Home Pages, Pg. 8

HEADLINE: Hitler saw Duke of Windsor as 'no enemy' US file reveals: Intelligence report throws new light on former king's ties to Fuhrer

BYLINE: Rob Evans and David Hencke

Nazi foreign officials saw Edward VIII as a friend of Germany in the middle of the second world war, according to a newly released US intelligence report.

The disclosure of the report heightens the controversy over claims that he and the Duchess of Windsor harboured pro-Nazi sympathies and that he was lined up to go back on to the throne if Hitler defeated Britain.

It comes as the British government is about to release on Thursday a tranche of secret files which is likely to shed new light on his abdication from the throne in 1936 and his alleged treachery. The files, to be opened at the public record office, have been kept closed for decades as Whitehall judged that they would cause the Queen Mother substantial distress if they were released while she was still alive.

The document, compiled by US naval intelligence agents, centres on a confidential report of a conference of German foreign officials in October 1941.

According to the American sources, the officials discussed the Duke of Windsor and labelled him "as 'no enemy of Germany' - considered to be only Englishman with whom Hitler would negotiate any peace terms, the logical director of England's destiny after the war".

The report added: "When he was in Germany he had contact with Hitler and he is the only person with whom Hitler would confer in any negotiations of peace or armistice when it becomes necessary.

"Hitler well knows that Edward at present cannot work in a matter that would appear to be against his country, and he does not urge it. But when the proper moment arrives he will be the only person capable of directing the destiny of England."

The report was released to the Guardian under the US freedom of information act. Last June the Guardian disclosed documents which showed that President Roosevelt had ordered covert surveillance on the duke and duchess in 1941.

The FBI had bluntly stated in a secret memo in September 1940 that the duchess had been in constant contact with the German foreign minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop, and was leaking secrets to him.

The royal family and the establishment had deserted the couple after the abdication crisis. Both were suspected of favouring the Nazis after they visited Germany in 1937 as personal guests of Hitler.

It is alleged that during the summer of 1940 the duke, exiled to Spain and Portugal, was in treasonous talks with the Nazis and was prepared to jump ship into the German camp.

In August 1940 the British government dispatched him to be governor of the Bahamas to keep him out of the way.

But historians and royal supporters have dismissed the claims, preferring the official Whitehall line, issued in the 1950s, that the duke "never wavered in his loyalty to the British cause".

The Queen Mother intensely loathed the duke's decision to abdicate and marry Wallis Simpson, an American divorcee.

Since the Queen Mother's death last March the Cabinet Office has been in charge of reviewing files which were kept under wraps during her lifetime.

The files could explain the Queen Mother's role in the abdication and her feud with the duchess.

Editor - 1/29/2003

Courier Mail

January 25, 2003, Saturday


HEADLINE: Aborigine slaughter recorded

BYLINE: Tony Koch

A FORMER Queensland police commissioner slaughtered hundreds of Aborigines, according to his own hand-written files.

The Courier-Mail found the notes in the State Archives while investigating claims by historian Keith Windschuttle who released a book last year denying claims of widespread slaughter of Tasmanian Aborigines. The personal reports of Sub-Inspector Frederick Urquhart who rose to become Queensland Police Commissioner from 1917 to 1921, show Aboriginal men, women and children were slaughtered on his orders after the death of a white pastoralist.

He led native police in what is reputedly Australia's biggest massacre of Aborigines -- the 1884 Battle Mountain attack on Kalkadoon people in northwest Queensland.

Historian Robert Armstrong in his book The Kalkadoons estimated 600 Aborigines assembled on the crags of Battle Mountain and about 200 were killed by the carbines of Urquhart's police.

The number of dead is disputed, but historian Professor Geoffrey Blainey once noted: "A tribe was slaughtered in such numbers that for decades a hill was littered with bleached bones of warriors, gins and piccaninnies."

The Urquhart reports refer to "dispersal" of Aborigines, a term of the era for killing.

He wrote: "I gave the order to fire and 30 of the blacks were shot". In another he described how his group surrounded a "large number" of blacks and opened fire. He noted "none escaped".

Courier Mail

January 25, 2003, Saturday


HEADLINE: Dispersal of the facts

BYLINE: Tony Koch

No matter how delicate the language of the time, it's clear the massacre of Aborigines was common practice in colonial days, writes news editor, Tony Koch

'A dispersal was, in fact, a camouflage for indiscriminate killing, rape and child-braining' The Queenslander

THE Queensland State Archives file has a rather innocuous reference title, in script handwriting: "Murder of Mr E. Watson at Pine Tree Station by Blacks in May 1889. Blacks dispersed by S.I. Urquhart."

It is the personal report of Queensland police sub-inspector Frederick Urquhart to the police commissioner of the time, giving details of his investigation into Watson's violent death.

A periodical of the same decade, The Queenslander, illuminates the jargon of the time. It says: "How many of us understand the euphemistic word 'dispersal'. If it is advisable that, as a colony, we should indulge in wholesale murder of the (Aboriginal) race, let us have the courage of our opinions and murder openly and deliberately, calling it murder, not dispersal. "It was very convenient for native police officers, and for the European colonisers, to refer to a native police action as a 'dispersal' with its overtones of politeness and nebulousness.

"A dispersal was, in fact, a camouflage for indiscriminate killing, rape and child-braining."

Each of Urquhart's reports of the time in this regard used the term "dispersal" which, it becomes increasingly obvious the more one reads, does mean "killing". In other instances he does not bother to be at all obscure, using terms such as "execution" and, when surrounding "savages" in the bush and opening fire, he subsequently writes that "none escaped".

The recent contretemps among Australian academics who refer to themselves as "historians" is centred on a book titled The Fabrication of Aboriginal History by Keith Windschuttle, in which the author "re-appraises the now widely accepted story about conflict between colonists and Aborigines in Australian history".

The dust-jacket of Windschuttle's book declares that in a close re-examination of the primary sources used by historians, the author concluded that much of their case is poorly founded, other parts seriously mistaken and some of it outright fabrication: "The author finds the British colonisation of Australia was the least violent of all Europe's encounters with the New World. It did not meet any organised resistance. Conflict was sporadic rather than systematic. The claim that the colonists committed genocide is unsupported by the historical evidence."

What is perplexing in the debate is that highly educated people, presumably with well-honed skills in research and the time and financial assistance to indulge that passion, get side-tracked on esoteric issues of personal dispute, and argue the actual numbers alleged to have been killed. Is it any less significant or appalling if the number of indigenous human beings slaughtered was 30 instead of 300, or hundreds instead of thousands?

The undeniable fact is that Aboriginal people were shot like animals, poisoned or "dispersed". It was government policy to condone it. It was widely practised in Queensland, and sanctioned by the authorities, because the perpetrators like Urquhart were never questioned. Instead they were lauded and promoted.

There can be little argument that Frederick Urquhart, who rose to become the police commissioner of Queensland and later the administrator (governor) of the Northern Territory, was possibly the greatest mass murderer in Australia's history. And he was proud of it!

What also is obvious is that the "culture" of the time thought it proper that Aborigines should be exterminated. They were not considered to be human beings -- otherwise they would have been afforded the dignity of such niceties as burial after they were killed. Instead they were left to rot or to be shredded by native animals.

IN THE handwritten file on the death of Watson, Urquhart's superior officer, Inspector Murray of Cooktown in Cape York, noted: "Mr Urquhart appears to have done his work completely, and I trust the blacks will be of better behaviour in future."

There was no inquiry into the indiscriminate slaughter of Aboriginal people by Urquhart and his troopers. There was no censure of him -- merely congratulations on having done a good job. Would Windschuttle consider that this falls into his category of "claims that the colonists committed genocide is unsupported by the historical evidence"?

There can be no stronger evidence than the handwritten testimony of the perpetrator, no more damning evidence that that which flowed from his own hand, in the same way he so callously dealt out death to Aborigines -- men, women and children.

Urquhart's report on the Watson murder states: "On the 24th I started upon the tracks of the largest mob taking a gin from York Downs to act as interpreter. I came up with the trail of them on the afternoon of the 25th but they were in an area full of water and timber and so many escaped arrest.

"When they refused to stand they were fired upon. Very little execution was done upon this occasion.

"Again taking up the tracks, I caught up with a large mob on the 26th in a dense fern scrub covering about five acres of ground which I succeeded in completely surrounding.

"I then parleyed with the blacks, trying to induce them to come out and give up the murderers, but without avail. After some time lost in this way the blacks got together in a body and made a rush to break out on one side of the scrub, but it was well defended and they were driven back.

"None of the murderers escaped from this scrub, and their identity was fully established by Messrs L. Watson and W. Nicholls of Pine Tree to whom they were well-known, but there were several others missing.

"Again taking up tracks, I came up with the leading lots on the 28th in three different scrubs in which the work of following them had to be done on foot and was successfully so done.

"On no occasion was it possible to bring the blacks to listen to parleying. They resist at first with spears and when that fails, break and scatter in all directions.

"At one of the last scrubs, three of the troopers were narrowly missed by spears which these blacks throw with uncommon force and precision.

"The punishment that has befallen them has been none too heavy for the tribe of ungrateful savages who planned and carried out this attack upon men who had benefited and fed them as far as their limited resources would allow."

In that report, Urquhart referred to "a large mob" surrounded in the fern scrub -- of whom none escaped.

In another report -- his investigation into the murder of James Powell of Carlton Hills, Cloncurry, by blacks in July 1884 -- Urquhart gives some insight into the euphemisms he adopts.

His handwritten report states: "We dropped into a deep gorge in Gunpowder Creek and there detected the smoke of a campfire curling upwards. An hour before sundown I had my troopers in ambush round the camp which was a very large one -- there being upwards of 150 blacks in it. Trooper Billy, acting on my orders, summoned them to surrender in their own language, but they resisted and as further hesitation would have involved the escape of the offenders and possibly the destruction of my little party, I gave the order to fire.

"Thirty of the blacks were shot. Trooper Larry was knocked down by a black, but beyond this I have no casualties to report.

"Many blacks escaped, but my detachment was not strong enough to admit to my doing more."

There is no mention of stopping any time to bury the bodies of the Aborigines in any dignified way, but Urquhart reported that he immediately rode to Powell's camp where they discovered his body and buried him in a marked grave.

Then for the further revenge. "On the morning of the 30th I started on the tracks of the blacks, and as they had driven the horses and cattle with them it was very easy. Between the scene of the murder and the head of the Wills River I broke up and dispersed four more large mobs of blacks, one of which I was informed by the gins had been watching Mulligan's prospecting camp on the Leichhardt for some days with a view to making an attack upon it.

"The trip was a most arduous one and hard tramping on foot amongst mountains on a short allowance of rations told considerably of myself and my troopers. But I think the blacks have had a caution which will exercise a deterrent effect upon them for some time to come."

THE covering letter to that report, which actually was a confession to mass murder, was sent to the office of the police commissioner. It noted that it included details of the murder of Powell "by the blacks and the punishment meted to the murderers by Sub Inspector Urquhart of the Cloncurry Native Police detachment".

There was no investigation. There was no interrogation of suspects, no court case, no defence allowed to be put. The "suspects", and everybody with them, were summarily and brutally murdered by Urquhart and his cronies -- and that action was explained as the "punishment meted out to the murderers".

Did they even get the murderers? Did they even know who they were? Apparently the attitude was that if you shot everybody with black skin, the chances were the culprit would be among the hundreds killed.

Some of our history is not pleasant, but it achieves nothing for apologists like Windschuttle to deny that unsavoury things did occur, and that the original inhabitants of this country were brutalised and all but wiped out by the colonisers or their agents -- in many cases police, like mass murderer sub-inspector Frederick Urquhart.


Editor - 1/29/2003

Fox News Network


January 23, 2003 Thursday

Transcript # 012303cb.256

SECTION: News; Domestic

HEADLINE: Impact Interview With Allan Lichtman

GUESTS: Allan Lichtman

BYLINE: Bill O'Reilly

O'REILLY: In the "Impact" segment tonight, traditionally in America,
former presidents do not criticize other presidents. During the impeachment, the
elite club was nearly silent about Mr. Clinton's behavior. Only a few general
remarks made by a former president.

But today, today Bill Clinton violated this tradition and said this:

reference to Hillary. You actually should give her a bigger round of applause
because, unlike me, she can still do something for you. We need a strategy to
do more work in organized ways, through international institutions, which is why
it's important to work through the U.N. on this Iraq business, and why we were
right to go to the U.N. to get the resolution, and why it's important to let these
inspectors do their work.

But, we also have to recognize that a big part of America's appeal in the world
comes from the power of example. So we have to keep trying to be better at home.
You can't just say, Oh, well, we got a lot of problems around the world. Therefore,
let's just forget about where we are at home.

And four, five years from now when there are no more problems in the world, we'll
think about where all of the problems in America should be addressed again.

A recent study was done that found their tax proposal not only will blow a long-term
hole in the federal budget, bigger than the first tax cut did, but will cost the
states $4 billion in revenues a year.

You know that old adage is true. First thing you ought to do when you first yourself
in a hole is to quit digging. Instead, they're looking for a bigger shovel.

O'REILLY: All right. So a partisan speech by President Clinton. You know, the
reason I say -- oh, joining us now from Washington is presidential historian Allan
Lichtman. We were talking before, so I feel like I introduced him already. He
teaches at American University.

We did a piece for "Parade" magazine during the Clinton impeachment
and I called all of the former presidents -- of course, Ronald Reagan is ill,
so you can't speak with him. And Carter, Ford, and Bush the elder, all told me
-- they said, Look, we can't comment on the record because protocol dictates that
former presidents do not criticize sitting presidents. And this guy gives a --
not only is he boosting his wife, but he's just shooting down the current administration.

Very unusual, is it not?

truth is, Bill, it's not unusual historically.

Teddy Roosevelt had a nasty public feud with his hand-picked successor, William
Howard Taft and wound up running against him for the Republican nomination. Then
when he lost, running against him as an independent Bull Moose. Herbert Hoover
spent a decade, he spent 10 years, bitterly attacking his successor, Franklin
Roosevelt and the New Deal.

And Jimmy Carter, to whom you spoke, has already criticized the Bush administration
on a number of occasions. Jimmy Carter said that the doctor of preemption could
have catastrophic consequences. He criticized...

O'REILLY: Yes, but he's talking philosophically.

LICHTMAN: Alaska drilling....

O'REILLY: No, no, no, no. I'm disagreeing with you. Carter talks philosophically
about issues and that's fine. I mean, we expect our statesmen to be philosophers.

But this was a partisan speech. This was a -- you know, tax cuts no good, inspectors
should do this. And -- look, since...

LICHTMAN: Bill Clinton is more radioactive than jimmy carter.

O'REILLY: I'm going to give you a minute to wrap. But since Harry Truman, this
hasn't happened before. OK? Eisenhower didn't do it. Kennedy didn't do it to Eisenhower.
Johnson, of course, wouldn't do it to Kennedy, same party. But Nixon, even Nixon,
inheriting that Vietnam mess, didn't do it to Johnson, all right? And then Ford
and Nixon wouldn't do anything to each other.

But even Carter cart when he got in didn't blast -- you know, this is very, very
unusual in modern times.

LICHTMAN: It is unusual in modern times but certainly not at all unusual historically.

You know, in my view, I think you're right. I think it would be better for the
president to make a broad philosophical statement...

O'REILLY: Right.

LICHTMAN: ... and keep it out of the partisan muck as much as possible. In that
sense, the president has a oral obligation-- an ex- president has a moral obligation
to do that.

O'REILLY: Well, then you just canceled it though, when you use the word moral
obligation. I mean, Mr. Clinton not going to respond to that argument, is he?

LICHTMAN: Well, we're talking in general terms here.

O'REILLY: I'm talking very specifically. You can't make a moral argument to Mr.
Clinton, because he didn't respond to those arguments.

What I believe he is doing