Anna Reid A Nasty Little War - Review

 

There are people who reckon that war brings out the best in human beings; no one claims that for civil wars which unfailingly bring out the worst. Wars are orderly, conducted with etiquettes which often hold up, and historically they have usually been conducted intermittently as set-piece combats.  Civil war is unremittingly present and at its heart is always the fear and insecurity created by not being able to readily identify who around you can still be trusted and how close is the danger.

Anna Reid’s A Nasty Little War is a thoroughly researched, unsettling account of failed Western (Allied) intervention on the side of White forces in the Russian Civil War between 1917 and 1920 which ended in victory for the Red forces of the Bolshevik regime. A cover comment from Anne Applebaum that the book is “Witty and Elegant” seems misplaced; Reid quotes frequently from diaries and memoirs – usually American or British - which try to make light of things or are comically inept but they only add to the reader’s (or this reader’s) unease. The war was unspeakably cruel and merciless;  criminals and psychopaths, fanatics and sadists, had more or less unrestricted opportunity to loot, torture, rape (always including child rape) and murder – the victims casually and often mistakenly identified as enemies but sometimes systematically chosen, most obviously the Jews whose separate residential areas made it easy to conduct a pogrom.

The Romanovs who ruled Russia for three centuries were constantly enlarging their Empire by expanding the contiguous land mass they controlled; only Sakhalin and Alaska (plus some scattered islands) were sea crossings away unless you add northern California. To the west they expanded into what are now Finland, the three Baltic states, and half of Poland. To the east they not only went in a straight line to Vladivostok but occupied what are now the -stans (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikstan, Turkmenistan Uzbekistan). In addition, they pushed into Mongolia and northern China whenever possible and on the Pacific coast down to the border with Korea at Port Arthur (later Dairen, now Dalian). To the south there was all of what are now Ukraine and Moldova together with the Caucasus (Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia) reaching the border with Persia. As territorial gain from the First World War, Nicholas the Second’s governments had their hopes set on Austrian Galicia, the northern coast of Turkey, and Constantinople. The Greek isthmus of Mont Athos also featured in their thoughts as did Afghanistan and the North West Frontier of British India. At the same time, and hardly surprisingly, the government in far-away St Petersburg felt permanently insecure about its borderlands but seems to have believed that by constantly expanding the extraordinary length of its borders they would gain security not lose it.

The relationship of St Petersburg to most of its Empire was essentially colonial ; ethnically and linguistically hugely diverse, the empire was ruled over by Russians who spoke Russian and would not contemplate any other language. In contrast, both the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires accepted linguistic diversity; the early Soviet Union took the same approach. The Romanovs were intolerant of all religions other than the compliant Russian Orthodox and discrimination against Jews was legally enshrined long after it had been removed in other European countries. And, of course, serfdom was not abolished until 1861. As is usual with empires, the relation of centre to periphery was extractive; wealth was piled up at the centre.

The fabulously wealthy Tsarist regime was harsh, incompetent and unfeeling; the lives of this Leviathan’s oppressed native and colonial peoples  nasty, brutish and short. But in the end the awful Nicholas II was brought down not by the Bolsheviks but by a coalition of his own army officers and powerful commercial and industrial interests with a liberalising agenda. By the time of their downfall, the Romanovs inspired no love or loyalty; even the White armies which fought against the Bolsheviks did not propose the restoration of the Romanovs. They had to wait for  Tsar Putin and his puppet Rolex-wearing Orthodox church to rehabilitate them and their ambitions.

No sooner had the Allies achieved victory in the First World War and divided the territorial spoils, which their populations were supposed to regard as compensation for all the dead young men, than they embarked on - albeit modest – adventurous interventions in support of those forces seeking to bring down the Bolsheviks. Only Finland did not deserve support: the victorious side in its own civil war sided with Germany as it did its government in World War Two.  But those who got support hardly had their credentials checked, something which still happens whenever the West decides to “intervene” and finds itself tied to some crook, psychopath or simple incompetent who has no popular support. The dishonesty about who they were dealing with (the reality of  anti-Jewish pogroms routinely denied by all the intervention commanders) and why is recounted in disturbing detail by Anna Reid. I shan’t try to summarise it; it’s worth reading in its own right.

Reading the book, it occurred to me that in civil wars everyday life does go on in the background of fighting and atrocities. Reid has something to say about this. In Russia from 1917 to 1920 various local and regional governments did function though only partially and never disinterestedly. If they received aid from well-meaning foreign relief organisations you could be sure that very little of it would reach the intended recipients; later, Herbert Hoover’s American Relief Administration which operated in early Soviet Russia insisted on control over distribution by its own representatives.

One indicator of “everyday life” a hundred years ago is provided by the post: could you send a letter and would it be received? This index produces a startling result which indicates the weakness of the Bolshevik regime at the height of the civil war.  From 1 January 1919 to early June 1920, it was not possible to send a letter abroad from any part of Bolshevik-controlled Russia. The Bolsheviks had no access to ports or only to blockaded ports, had no official relations established with immediate or distant neighbours, and probably  had no foreign currency to pay third-party costs. Going round the clock, they did not control Archangel, Vladivostok, the Black Sea ports or any of the Baltic ports; Petrograd was at least partially blockaded. In addition, since a lot of mail going abroad would probably be written by hostile elements mail censorship would need to be in place and for the Bolsheviks that meant a centralised organisation in Moscow or Petrograd. When postal services were restored in June 1920, foreign mail was always routed via the centre except in the Far East where there was still a notionally independent government in Vladivostok (the Far Eastern Republic). A large censorship office was created, its activity readily identified by special cancellations with three triangles at the base. At the height of the civil war period, it was in any case unrealistic to route mail through to Moscow or Petrograd since the constantly shifting front line would mean that mail would be endlessly delayed and subject to capture by White forces who might be able to glean significant information from reading it.

The Whites could get mail abroad thanks principally to the good offices of the warships of Britain, France,  USA and other intervention countries which did not charge for carrying it though they might require that it be franked with whatever stamps were locally in use. At the time the most popular indoor hobby in Western Europe and the USA was stamp collecting and stamp dealers did a good trade in the ports of Archangel, Odessa, Riga, Tallinn, and Vladivostok exporting whatever stamps were being locally produced to replace Imperial Russian ones. In some cases, the dealers were involved in the production of the stamps themselves and their names remain associated with those stamps. In contrast, the Bolsheviks issued no stamps of their own until 1921; they used up old Imperial ones and reprinted them as necessary on inferior paper and generally without perforations - the machines were out of use.

*

A few picky points: The town of Valk /Walk  which straddles the Estonian/Latvian border is quite wrongly located on the Baltics map as inside Russia; page 228 “Bermondt-Avalov” was at the time, I think, more often referred to as “Avalov-Bermondt” though Wikipedia opts for the B-A order; transliteration rules change – at the time it was “General Wrangel” in both the UK and USA not the anachronistic “Vrangel” used by Reid; in the literature “Grigoriy Semyonov” is usually referred to  as “Ataman Semenov” though Wikipedia uses Reid’s version. The “Ataman” is a Cossack title he awarded himself.

Rebecca F Kuang Yellowface - Review

 

It’s nearly impossible to buy a new novel in a bookshop; unless it’s a Fitzcarraldo edition you have to buy a more-or-less lurid and ludicrous package. The packaging around Yellowface starts as it means to go on: “Addictive” is the first word you see (top left), predictable because lazy critics are addicted to the word. Turn to the back cover and a graduate of Instincts of the Herd 101 at Glamour magazine gives us “The book that everyone is talking about”, not quite A-grade because “that” is redundant. It does the job of making you feel you could be the one sitting out the dance.

But step inside the back cover and a standard-issue glamorous author pic is paired with an unusual set of credentials: a Master’s degree from Cambridge, ditto from Oxford, and a Ph D in progress at Yale. Rebecca F. Kuang is more than clever; she’s serious.

In the novel, she creates as first-person narrator a white woman in her twenties who has some talent but not quite enough to bring her major success in the world of modern fiction. This does create one problem which I don’t think is fully resolved: her narrator, June Hayward aka (at her publisher’s urging) Juniper Song, will undermine the identity Kuang needs for her character if this fictional narrator writes too well or is too funny in her own right. The tricky task is then to engage the reader and make them laugh or think by exploiting the gap which we know exists between the very talented author-creator Kuang and the novel’s lesser ranked narrator Hayward/Song. In other words, the task is to create ironic distance because no one really wants to read flat prose created to make a narrator credible. It does not always come off: there are some flat passages (bottom p 181, too many “I”’s) and there are a couple of occasions when a tone-deaf DumbDown App takes over (perhaps at the publisher’s instigation):

“I get my first Royalties statement … I’ve earned out. This means that I’ve sold enough copies to cover my already sizeable advance and that from here on out I get to keep a percentage of all future sales” (p 93) In this passage DumbDown directly addresses the ignorant reader and does so again here:

“The paperback edition just came out, which generates a nice sales bump – paperbacks are cheaper, so they sell a bit better” (p 193). Well, I never would have guessed.

And at page 63 the narrator offers a Wikipedia paragraph on what “sensitivity readers” do. I find it simpler to characterise them as Sunday School teachers who have missed their vocation of telling cross-legged children that Jesus doesn’t like it if you fart.

The plot is simple enough: White American June’s Korean friend Athena Liu – a much more successful writer - chokes to death while they are getting drunk together leaving behind the typescript of a nearly-completed novel which June steals and plagiarises to create her own best-seller. The thoroughly-researched story-line of that novel concerns the many thousands of Chinese workers who were shipped to act as (more-or-less indentured) labourers on the Western Front in World War One. So weighty stuff.  June does have to fill in some missing bits and mug up the history to make herself credible as the supposed author. Jointly with her editor they delete or soften passages which might not go down well in Disapprove-of-Everything-America-Online. It is here that Kuang has a lot of fun and makes us laugh though there is sufficient (and clever) ambiguity to allow opposing sides to laugh at the same gags.  I began to think reading these passages that Kuang has a fully-fledged essayist inside her just waiting for opportunities.

I would still advise her to adopt my own lifestyle. I have a Nokia dumbphone never upgraded to a smartphone though the handset has had to be replaced a few times since 2000; I don’t always carry it. I use a desk computer for writing Blog posts like this and a laser printer so that I can do manual proofing sitting in an armchair.  Smartphones ruin lives; when their users are about to cross the street they feel a sudden compulsive urge to consult the screen.

One named reviewer whose take on Kuang’s gags is probably different to mine reads Yellowface as a “take on white privilege” which rather misses the irony that “Yellowface” white American narrator June is the creation of a Chinese-born author doing what I suppose for symmetry should be called a “Whiteface” job. But how can Ivy League-Kuang know what it’s like to be a less talented white woman?

Warning: The next paragraph reveals a further twist to the plot.

I enjoyed the book – and especially the earlier part -  though I did guess the first of the final two twists to the story as early as page 194 of the 319. June/Juniper is stuck for what to write next after both The Last Front and her subsequent Mother Witch are outed for thorough-going plagiarism of the late Athena Liu’s work. She gets anxious and depressed but then realises that the way out of the room is through the door of a full-on confession which turns into - you guessed it - Yellowface.