None can ever be realistic, if for no other reason than you typically have seconds to portray what takes hours, if not days. And verisimilitude always has to be subordinated to dramatic interest. Probably the greatest courtroom scene ever written is the trial in <The Merchant of Venice>, but I'm sure that nothing like it ever happened in any real courtroom, and there are many absurd elements, starting with the lovely ladies, Portia and Jessica, successfully passing themselves off as learned gentlemen of the law before an audience that includes their own husbands. Shakespeare didn't care about impressing lawyers; he just wanted to write a great scene.

It's <THE INCREDIBLE FIDE 4th ROUND PREDICTION CONTEST>.

Entrants submit a binary string of 16 1s or 0s.

The right of the people to get abortions in the cases of rape, incest and danger to the life of the mother shall not be infringed.

This right shall be limited to the first two months of pregnancy.

A very happy new year to you and your loved ones. Always enjoy your posts including on the politics thread, where unfortunately there's a lot to discuss/argue about since January 20.

Re. your answer on my page, I did read the four parts thoroughly, amongst others, and was impressed (1) You read the whole 350 pages of the judge's opinion (2) Were able to summarise them so well (3) Have such a knowledge about the Shoah and WWII (I prefer to use the term "Shoah" because "Holocaust" has different meanings but have no issue of course if other persons use the latter. Hope there's no implications, it's a minor point anyhow).

I noted Browning and Matthaus’ reference, will read it when I have time and am in a decent mood. So far just read a book in French (by Bédarida et al.). BTW if you're also interested in WWII, I strongly recommend 'Fateful Choices' by Kershaw.

I was hesitating to jump into the conversation because the fact some users are negationists is unacceptable, as opposed to other opinions on the politics thread, notably the one whose initials are TI (won't write it in full since he might spot it with a search and pollute your page, you know who it is). But you countered the pro-Irving arguments much better and more politely than I could have done. Well done.

Kershaw’s book on 1940-41 sounds good. But I went on a terrible tear on the Battle of France a few years ago. Marois’ Tragedy in France (published in NYC before 1940 was even over), Bloch’s Strange Defeat, Alistair Horne’s To Lose a Battle (which opens with a magnificent account of the victory parade in Paris in 1919), William Shirer’s Inquiry into the Collapse of the Third Republic (which ties literally every major event in French history from the Franco-Prussian War onward to defeat in 1940), Ernest May’s Strange Victory (arguing that Nazi Germany was also a mess), Robert Doughty’s books about French army doctrine 1910-1939 and the battle of Sedan, Frieser’s Blitzkrieg Legend, Julian Jackson, Philip Nord, Louis Spears. (Looks like this by Bedarida would fit right in. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/b...)

Looking at Kershaw's TOC, I’ve read, though less intensively, about the other topics he covers; I even wrote an intemperate attack on Sean McMeekin’s treatment of Lend-Lease in Stalin’s War (a terrible book). I should probably learn about something else.

Re <negationism>, it isn't good, but I have come to think that many people's opinions about historical subjects in particular, are more or less accidents of their present circumstances, and really tell you very little about them. I'm not thinking of TI when I say this, but I am thinking of augalv.

Your knowledge on the topic, as well as others, is impressive. Of all the books you mention I only read Bloch's. Interested in William Shirer’s now. "I even wrote (...)": does it mean you publish articles on the subject? That makes it even more interesting.

Yes augalv is pretty bad too but at least he's not as prolific as TI who blabbers on and on like a complete con (excuse my French), although I'm not on the Politics thread enough to assess properly.

If you wanted to read something else on the 1940 campaign, I would say that Horne's book is beautifully written, and Frieser's book is probably the best military account (it also tells the story from the German side, which few books do). If you wanted to go beyond those, Ernest May's book pays due attention to the effect of public opinion on French and British policy in the years before the war, as again few books do. I would not read Shirer, who was a great, great reporter, but as a historian his industry outstripped his judgment. (Gorgeous maps in <Inquiry>, though!) (Also, I imagine there are any number of good French books about the battle.) Below is a review of Maurois' book, which also glances at other books I read about the campaign.

https://www.goodreads.com/review/sh...

Thanks for the links, I learned a lot. Indeed there is an ideological objective about promoting McMeekin’s book: WW2 revisionism favours isolationism by pretending to learn about History that the US shouldn't have intervened (or not so much) in the past so they shouldn't do it now. It's very efficient because it seems one cannot argue with History, as opposed to ideology. Yet of course one can, and you did brilliantly. Just wondering how you manage to gather all that information. You must have a immense and highly structured memory.

Now, there are arguments in favour of isolationism but they shouldn't rely on false premises else it's impossible to debate. As a side note, "the Fredo Corleone of politics" is spot on. Not Michael, certainly not Vito, not even Sonny, but the witless, weak and traitorous Fredo.

Your account of André Maurois' book is also very interesting. It's amazing that 80 years afterwards we're still arguing about the defeat, the collaboration, the resistance, etc. History is definitely not an exact science.

That's what is so frustrating! The details re the belligerents' military production and the operation of Lend-Lease are on Wikipedia and other readily available sources. All I brought was a knowledge of the basic timeline (I knew that destroyers-for-bases came before Lend-Lease was enacted and Barbarossa came after) and some knowledge of the L-L program, World War II weaponry, and military history. Millions of WWII geeks know more. McMeekin's book was easy to check, on Lend-Lease at least.

The book was nevertheless warmly received on the right because it told people what they wanted to believe (as you have already noted). I think there is a further point that treating everything that conservatives don't like about today's world as a sort of accidental by-product of an alleged post-WW2-consensus is a way of sidestepping, not just the moral claims of blacks and women and immigrants, but all the complexities and sheer overwhelming detail of postwar American history as well. If I was a real historian, I'd write a book about that. (Along with, to maintain my right-wing bona fides, integration, post-'65 immigration, white flight, and redlining from the perspective of the whites who experienced them. I don't think Christopher Caldwell's <Age of Entitlement> does the job.)

Almost missed your reply because if you don't put my username in the post I cannot catch it with a search (hint). BTW I address you as Scott because it's specified in your profile but if you prefer your username please advise.

Wikipedia, that liberal-woke propaganda site... 😉 Granted, it's easily accessible but you need focus, structure and other references to organise the information as you did. If you have time or when you retire, you should definitely write this book. Don't worry about not being a historian, it will be much better than many publications.

Years ago I read Simon Schama's <Citizens> and of course I barely remember it. I spend too much time reading and not enough time thinking. You've probably heard the joke about the man who took a speed-reading course and finished War and Peace in a day. He was asked about it, and said "it was about Russia." And I really know nothing about the Algerian war, except that it scuppered the Fourth Republic.

Most of what I've read more recently has been more distinctly right-wing -- Houellebecq (who I think is a great novelist, whatever his politics) and even Renaud Camus. I know he's controversial, but honestly my impression is he has more brains in his little finger than most of the right-wingers considered intellectuals over here. Seems a more decent man as well. I understand he was horrified by Curtis Yarvin/Mencius Moldbug. And if you don't know who I am talking about, so much the better for you. I don't follow contemporary French politics well, beyond knowing that pensions and immigration are problems. If I were French, I'm sure I'd hate Macron, but at a distance he looks better.

Thanks for the username, it helps. To make you feel better, 'Madame Bovary' probably doesn't lose that much in translation because it's more about the themes and structure than other novels where style is essential. Glad you like it BTW.

Houellebecq is famous and generally appreciated even by left-wingers. Renaud Camus is highly controversial here: in comparison Trump seems like a socialist hippie (pushing it a bit but you get the point). Now he might still be a brilliant author, I didn't read anything from him, maybe I should. A case example was Céline, don't know if you know him, nazi collaborator and one of the best French authors ever (Camus is not as extreme as he was, it's for the distinction between man and artist).

“He had so often heard these things said that they did not strike him as original. Emma was like all his mistresses; and the charm of novelty, gradually falling away like a garment, laid bare the eternal monotony of passion, that has always the same forms and the same language. He did not distinguish, this man of so much experience, the difference of sentiment beneath the sameness of expression. Because lips libertine and venal had murmured such words to him, he believed but little in the candour of hers; exaggerated speeches hiding mediocre affections must be discounted; as if the fullness of the soul did not sometimes overflow in the emptiest metaphors, since no one can ever give the exact measure of his needs, nor of his conceptions, nor of his sorrows; and since human speech is like a cracked tin kettle, on which we hammer out tunes to make bears dance when we long to move the stars.”

Celine, yes, I thought Journey to the End of the Night was extraordinary. But I know little about him and I haven’t read anything else. I just looked him up on Wikipedia. I am impressed with the stash of gold coins in Denmark. Junger recorded in his diary that during the occupation Celine had told him he was astonished that the Nazis had not exterminated the French Jews; after the war, when the diary was published, Junger explained that it was a printer’s error: he meant Meline, not Celine. And people believed that! Or maybe they just pretended to.

IMHO Flaubert is more about rhythm than pure style as opposed to other authors like Stendhal and Proust, which would make it easier to translate. Indeed, the passage you give is beautiful and transcribes very well the rhythm and the mix of elaboration & simplicity typical of his style.

Agree on 'Journey to the End of the Night', a milestone in French literature (although you have to take a Prozac before and after reading).

<you are French, you can judge him better than I> Not always, sometimes being too close makes one's view subjective. The issue with Camus is his ideas have been taken over by extremists here who added some conspiracy theories as you say and a few layers of racism.

Thanks, that is very interesting re Flaubert being more about rhythm and this being particularly translatable. It makes a lot of sense. There is a curious analogy, the Psalms. Their chief poetic device is parallelism, saying the same thing in twice in different words ("He shall make thy righteousness as clear as the light; and thy just dealing as the noon-day" (Ps. 37:6).) And that works equally well in any language.

As for the current situation, it is difficult to know what to say. It feels like there must be something profoundly wrong here for things to have reached this state. As we discussed, the French defeat in 1940 led many to think that there was something profoundly wrong with France, yet there were many extraneous factors (unfavorable demographics, unfavorable geography, poor commanders, bad luck, an unusually (militarily) gifted opponent, etc.). Here it all seems more self-inflicted. Though there has been bad luck.

When the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, France refused to participate, and warned against it. The French government said, <a friend warns a friend when he is making a mistake>. But the Europeans cannot consider the United States a friend anymore. French wines are to be tariffed because Macron will not pay a $1 billion bribe to be a flunky on the "Board of Peace." De Gaulle looks very farsighted now. France can be thankful for its reactors and its independent nuclear deterrent.

Agree with you on all the France parts. Retrospectively France was right in 2003, even though they put too much panache in their opposition (ah, these Frenchies and especially Villepin), which irritated our American friends and gave focus to form rather than content.

Anyhow, more rejoicing and important subject: food. I have to confess your wife is right: at the lower end, Italian food is better. In Italy, even in remote places and/or average joints, the ingredients are good, there is decent olive oil for the salad and the cooking is acceptable. In France, the ingredients can be below average, the salad smeared with industrial white sauce (I sent a few back after the waiter guaranteed there wouldn't be) and dishes frequently overcooked. Regarding variety, apart from steak-frites you will find the usual in France: hem, steak tartare, er, pizza and, well, pasta.

In the medium and upper range the countries are relatively on par. Italian ingredients are a bit better but France has better bread and more varied deserts.

<Are we missing something? Are there different kinds of food we should be looking for?> If you don't want to go too fancy, look for traditional restaurants, not the touristy ones, with local dishes (many varieties depending where you go. Basically if you don't understand the menu it's a good sign). This requires a bit of searching, for instance on the website Gault & Millau which is better than Michelin to spot these.

That's a nice programme. We've been to Italy frequently so here are a few tips for Sicily (Tuscany & Umbria you don't need if you already know).

Villa Romana del Casale: it's packed with tourists (like everything in Sicily but here the site is quite small so it is an issue), hence try to go at the opening or 1h to 1h30 before closing, or during lunch time. Magnificent nonetheless.

Syracuse and some of the neighboring baroque towns: yes, don't miss Ragusa and Noto. These three towns are very different in landscape (sea, mountain, plain) and atmosphere.

Taormina: the key monument is the Roman theatre; if you can, early morning is best so that from the top of the seats you see the sunlight on the stage wall and the Etna.

Speaking of, going up the Etna is easy with organised 4x4 but only worth it if you're interested in volcanoes because there's not much on top.

There's also sites on the West part, that will be for another time.

<The Integrity March-22- 25 Libs don't want to hear it, and they don't have to listen or read it, but Trump is, I'm sure, the most beloved president of all times in this country>

Of all times, i.e. as in history. You were right Scott. You have a good memory.

And the Integri-liar is ranting your name over and over in the politics page about how you are "lurking and seething!"

Real comedy. gold.