Belgium Books

I didn't have the taste to finish this book, but I did read parts and I plan to keep it around as a nice reference. That is because while it is interesting and pretty well researched it is biased to the point of distortion. Facts become selective, motivations imagined, omissions crucial.

On the other hand, the pro-Cuba bias in this book, while often heard on the internet and among certain pseudo-intellectual circles, is rarely presented in such a readable scholarly fashion. Also, the rare access that the author had makes the book valuable for just that point.

In short, the book is very well made, but restrained by its status as a pro-Cuba polemic. Still even those without the pro-Cuba view (such as myself) can find it very interesting and useful, even if not worth reading end to end.

In conflicting Mission, Gleijeses explain the real role of Cuba and the USA in the 1970s Angolan conflict.

The work is well researched, using rare documents obtained from both sides of the cruel Cold-Warriors embargo(wall)--imposed upon Cuba by Washington. Gleijeses research is as thorough as it is deep, thus he has produced an excellent book.

Notwithstanding, I wish to draw attention to one issue his conclusion, which I believe will continue to compromise, for sometime, otherwise sound research about cold war era conflicts such as this one.

Cold War propaganda and the false "Truths" that they have created can lead to wrong conclusions, even when unbiased facts are presented. Brilliant researchers such as Gleijeses are not immunized against this sickness.

In the work, he suggested that Angola had only marginal strategic significance to the US. He argues that intervention in Angola served only to protect the prestige and credibility of America's global foreign policy. Therefore, a small, but rational, purpose of the Angolan mission would be to demonstrate that Vietnam had not reduced America's resolve to protect its foreign interest everywhere--even in backward third world countries. Another small, but equally rational purpose of the mission, he thought, was Kissinger's fear that the Marxist-lite MPLA could subvert détente in Southern Africa.

In contrast, he concluded that the Cuban mission--less rational--was motivated by Castro's revolutionary zeal. So the author reasons, the Cubans felt that they needed to fulfill some kind of messianic mission in the Third World.

Another explanation offered by Gleijeses, for the Cubans decision to take on such a great risk (David vs. Goliath),was based upon their desire to strike back at the United States... Where it was less risky--In less significant Africa, and at the same time build Cuban solidarity abroad. Here David decides to only politically tickle Goliath's feet, not to inflict upon him a military, political and economic head-blow. Africa, accordingly was a good place for the expression of this strange Cuban enthusiasm

Gleijeses did not remind his readers that the Stalinist Soviet Union had long ago decided to build their brand of Socialism in one country only! No wonder Maoist China and Stalinist Russia could not see eye to eye!

In addition, Professor Gleijeses did not draw our attention to the fact that all the so called "Cold War" wars (military, economic and psychological), were carried out against former colonies of Europe--in Africa, Asia, Latin America and in parts of Europe itself. People in the former colonies had launched a more vigorous struggle for independence after their European masters ability to subjugate them was wrecked by the war with Germany.

The USA and the USSR, important beneficiaries of World War II, seeking to claim their spoils from that war, simply met resistance from antsy colonial peoples fighting, individually and in alliance, to claim their freedom. Angola and Cuba, and Cuba in Angola represented a part of that process and was just one outcome of people in society trying to claim their natural rights. I don't recall that the author mentioned that issue in his great book.

What was the "non-aligned movement" and the "Group of 77" about in global relations during that period? Economic unity and liberation from white supremacy, colonialism and imperialism.

In this context, it is not useful to imply or to suggest that Cuba's mission in Angola was less rational than that of the US or that it was based on a counterproductive desire for revenge. Hopefully, as we put more distance between the Cold War and ourselves, more research like Gleijeses' will be produced, but with less prejudiced conclusions drawn.

Towards the middle of 1988, Castro, who had taken personal control of the war, wanted to withdraw from Angola and discussions began on how this could be accomplished without losing face. One of Castro's top generals in Angola had already tried to defect and Moscow was pressing Castro to reach a settlement. The Cuban leader adopted an aggressive stance and threw more Cuban troops into the front line in order to lend weight to his negotiating position in the peace talks. General Del Pino, who also defected to the West, pointed out that it was pure bluff on Castro's part and that he feared defeat was imminent.
Cuban forces, integrated with SWAPO units, nevertheless pressed on to within 12 kilometres of the Namibian border. Facing 11,000 Cubans and perhaps 2,000 SWAPO was a force of 500 battle-hardened men from 32 "Buffalo" Battalion, the only available troops at the border until reinforcements could arrive. They held the line until tanks and artillery could be moved up. Cuban MiG-23s joined the fray and one was shot down. As the South African forces prepared to move North to engage the Cubans in what promised to be a Cuban nemesis, the Cubans signed the New York peace accords and avoided disaster.
The Cubans immediately claimed victory, which Bridgland points out was 'nonsense', but that:
the Cuban story was taken at face value by Castro's sympathisers in the Western press and repeated so many times that it became received truth. The Cubans were helped by the South Africans' own clumsy efforts at propaganda, which amounted to saying as little as possible about the full-scale war they fought in Angola.
The SADF at no stage had wanted an all-out war that would take them to Luanda as conquerors. Their objectives had been to fight a limited war in support of UNITA and prevent the Cubans from capturing UNITA's strongholds. The SADF had succeeded in this and was content to let the Cubans take the limelight. As Bridgland points out in his final summary of the war:
The War for Africa and the New York accords provided Cuba with pretexts for slipping out of a commitment that had become too hot and too expensive to handle. In 1975, when the Cuban adventure in Angola began, the 'scientific socialist' and 'internationalist' tide running from Moscow looked unstoppable. By 1988 it was a faded dream. Despite 13 years of Cuban support, the Angolan economy was ruined. The Marxist MPLA was in utter disarray and was trying desperately to shed its 'scientific-socialist' past... Castro's dreams of a Marxist revolution spreading from Angola to encompass the whole of Southern Africa had become a poor music hall joke...

"The War for Africa" by Fred Bridgland....the most accurate account of Cuba's involvement in the Angolan conflict.

From page 271,

"U.S. intelligence reports shed some light on the issue. In January 1976 Kissinger told Congress that "In August [1975], intelligence reports indicated the presence of Soviet and Cuban military adviser, trainers and troops, including the first Cuban combat troops." He was rewriting history: in the summer of 1975 U.S. intelligence told a different story. (d) An August 20 CIA report concluded, "What seems ....likely is that the Soviets have asked Cuba to help out with advisers and technicians....[sanitized] Officials of the Ministry of Information, which is controlled by the MPLA, have tried to pass them off as tourist." On September 22, an INR report claimed that "the Soviet and other allied countries, notably Cuba, have provided technicians and advisor to assist in military planning and logistics. While most are based in the Congo, there is increasing evidence that some foreign advisers are present with MPLA units inside Angola." On October 11 the CIA National Intelligence Daily specified that "a few Cuban technical advisers have been operating with Popular Movement [MPLA] inside Angola for time." There was no mention Cuban troops, or even of large numbers of instructors, until early October, when a significant number of Cuban advisers did indeed arrive."

(d) Kissinger, Jan. 29, 1976, U.S. Senate, Committee on Foreign Ralations, Subcommittee on African Affairs, Angola, p. 10. In his memoirs, Kissinger cites one of my articles to support his claim that the Cuban intervention "began in May, accelerated in July, and turned massive in September and October," which is precisely the opposite of what my article said. (Kissinger, Renewal, p.820)

As to the likelihood that Cubans were following Soviet orders, we hear on page 307 from "Arkady Shevchenko, who was an adviser of Soviet foreign minister Andrei Gromyko in 1970-73 and then undersecretary-general of the United Nations until 1978, when he defected to the United States, [and who] writes that in 1976 Vasily Kznetsov, acting foreign minister, asked him to join a group reviewing Soviet policy in Africa.. Shevchenko asked Kuznetsov, ""How did we persuade the Cubans to provide their contingent?'...Kuznetsov laughed ...and told me that the idea for large-scale military operation had originated in Havana, not Moscow.""

Evidently, the Cubans were acting in Africa at great cost to themselves at least in part from a humanitarian concern for the dignity of Angolans. The historical record shows no such concern on the part of the United States of America.

well-documented, well-reasoned, and suspenseful. Great scholarship.

CONFLICTING MISSIONS is a brilliant, impressive, and important book. It not only teaches us about the dramatic differences between US and Cuban policies in Africa during the Cold War (until 1976), but it also stretches our minds to see the Cold War "from below." Virtually all Cold War history has been written from the US (or Western)perspective, based on US archives. Gleijeses is the only scholar to have gained access to the Cuban archives; the result is that CONFLICTING MISSIONS contains not only new information but also a new perspective. Gleijeses challenges the reader to reconsider established truths. In his narrative -- which is voluminously supported by research not only in Cuba but also in US, Belgian, West German, East German, and British archives, as well as almost 200 interviews -- Fidel Castro, not the Americans, is shown to be the leader pursuing an idealistic foreign policy.

This map would be great if it were about twice as large, but so much is crowded into this tiny folding map that you need a BIG magnifying glass just to see it. A much better map is in the back of the Eyewitness "Pocket Map and Guide Amsterdam"

This map seems nice, but it doesn't have all of Amsterdam on it! If you're going anywhere outside of the city center, try a different map.

Yes, I want it all. And this map did not give it. First, this map is huge. It's too big for a small purse or pocket. Second, this map lacks a lot of detail. I opened this once during our trip and it didn't help. Thankfully, I bought two other maps, which were not only smaller, but had every street and alley name on them (check out the pocket maps).

I set out from central station with this map to check out Amsterdam. I found myself lost before long, and was able to use the map to interpolate between landmarks and get back over to Dam Square. However, the small streets are not on this map, so it's generally useless for figuring out exactly where you are and how to get where you are going.

i bought this product on a whim and was it a life saver. the map was easy to read and navigate. because it was laminated it held up great, was drunk proof and survived numerous visits to the amsterdam night-life and pub scene. we literally never felt like we were lost with this thing. it fit easily in my back pocket and was a good companion to 'get lost:the cool guide to amsterdam' guide book that we purchased as well. i highly recommend this map...smartest thing i did to preopare for my trip.

This is a great book as all the other books from lonely planet.

I just got back from a week travelling around Holland. I had used this book to plan much of the trip and thought it was a great help before hand. Using it during the trip was a mistake. The maps are small, hard to read, and labelled poorly. The hours listed, descriptions and prices are out of date.

I have been a fan of Lonely Planet guidebooks for years. However, I must admit being hugely disappointed by this guide of the Netherlands. It seems that the American and Australian authors have very little knowledge of European culture and history, and wrote this book based on very rushed up research. Let me give a few examples.
1) In the History section :

- p23 : "Between the 7th and 8th centuries, the Franks finished their conquest of the Low Countries and began converting the local populace to Christianity, using force whenever necessary."
=> This is false. Most of the Low Countries were already Christian many centuries before the Franks arrived, as part of the Roman Empire. In fact, the Franks first converted to Christianity with Clovis in the early 6th century., while the first Christian church in the Low Countries dates back to the 4th century (in Tongeren, Belgium).

- p23 : "Charlemagne, the Holy Roman emperor, built a palace in Nijmegen but the empire fell apart after his death in 814."
=> This is rather inaccurate. His son Louis the Pious suceeded him until 840, and only after that was the Carolingian empire divided between Charlemagne's 3 grandsons. What's more the Holy Roman Empire continued to exist until Napoleon dissolved it in 1806. That's only 1000 year later !

- p24 : "Even Spain's Philip II had no love for the Low Countries."
=> This comes after explanations about Charles V's rule. However, Charles V (Philip II's father) was born and raised in the Low Countries, and had French as his mother-tongue, as opposed to Spanish for Philip II. Charles V did "love" the Low Countries much more than his son. So the "Even" in this sentence seems very weird.

- p24 : "Philip was a staunch Catholic so confict was inevitable as the protestant reformation spread through his colony."
=> The Low Countries were not a "colony" of Philip II. It was his father's homeland, while Spain was his mother's. Although smaller in size, the Low Countries' population and economy were almost as considerable as Spain's. In any case, the word "colony" is highly inappropriate.

- p 25 : "The southern regions of the Low Countries had always remained Catholic and were much more open to compromise with Spain. They eventually became Belgium."
=> Again highly inaccurate. The southern Low Countries also had their fair share of Protestants. The thing is that most of them moved to the North after the North declared its independence from Philip II. There were numerous battles (Ostend, Antwerp...) and tens of thousands of Protestants killed in the South as well. In fact, all the Protestant intelectuals and merchants from the South moved North, which is partly why cities like Bruges, Ghent and Antwerp went into economic decline, while those of Holland experienced a Golden Age. Then, not all of what remained Catholic became Belgium ! All the South of the Netherlands (Zeeland, North Brabant, Limburg) also remained Catholic.

- p 28 : "...the Netherlands in th north and Belgium in the south were joined into the Untied Kingdom of the Netherlands, with Willem as king. The marriage was doomed from the start. The partners had little in common, including their dominant religions (Calvinist and Catholic), languages (Dutch and French) and favoured way of making money (trade and manufacturing).
=> 3 mistakes here, including a huge one. First, as mentioned above, the Netherlands also have a substantial Catholic community. On p.40 of the same guidebook, the author recognise that in today's population, 21% are Protestant and 31% Catholic. This doesn't sound like a predominanty Protestant country... Secondly, a completely unadmissible mistake from travel authors, Belgium is not only or even dominantly French speaking. Over 60% of the population if Dutch-speaking ! Finally, manufacturing was not yet what differentiated the Dutch and Belgian ways of making money in the early 19th century. This came after the 2 countries split !

Now the Transport section :

- p 319 : "The high-speed Thalys only stops at Amsterdam, Schiphol, Den Haag and Rotterdam, before going to Antwerp, Brussels and Paris (or Luxembourg)."
=> The Thalys never passes anywhere near Luxembourg ! However, it does also go to Liege in Belgium and Cologne in Germany, among others.

- p 319 : "Many stations now rely on ticketing machines to cut personnel costs and queues at the counters. The machines are firly complicated with instructions in Dutch only." ... "The machines will indicate how much it wants to be fed - coins only, though change is given."
=> I guess this only should have been updated a while ago, but new machines have menus in English and French as well, and do take debit cards. Neither old nor new machines are complicated.

There are other mistakes, inaccuracies or confusing statements in the book, usually about Dutch or European history and culture. I believe it is not a good idea to choose non Europeans to write about Europe, especially when so many Lonely Planet authors are from Britain or Ireland. Furthermore, the information in this book often concentrates on the most touristic destinations, given little details about other places. I had already noticed the same in the Lonely Planet Belgium (even worse actually).

I am also fairly surprised that Lonely Planet had not published any guidebook about the Netherlands until October 2003 and Belgium & Luxembourg until February 2004, when they had published one about Antarctica in 1996 (already 3rd edition now) and are already at their 5th edition of Rarotonga & the Cook Islands, 6th edition of Chile, 7th edition of Papua New Guinea, which are all by far less popular tourist destinations than the Benelux.

This book is helpful for its good background information and for a general overview to the country and its highlights. For such a small and organized country, I expected more complete coverage of the areas outside Amsterdam and was disappointed to find some information outdated, hotels and smaller towns missing entirely, and a poorly organized index. This is a good book to start with, but should be followed up with a more detailed guide if you plan to explore much outside of Amsterdam.

First of all, I was surprised to find out that this was the thinnest travel guide on Netherlands in the market. Granted it is printed in small fonts (albeit not much smaller than many others in the market), but the contents obviously show that this book is below Lonely Planet standard. I had read about half a dozen guide books on Netherlands and been trying to find information on a town named Tilburg, which is in fact the largest in terms of population in Netherlands. However, Lonely Planet contains essentially no information on this town, while both Fodor's and Rough Guide introduce quite a few worth-visiting places in the town and its neighboring towns. Out of curiosity, I also searched for some key words in the index of all these guide books and found Lonely Planet lacks the contents which seemingly should be included in a travel guide intended to be thorough.

On the other hand, if one is only looking for a 'rough guide' to one or two of the most touristy places in Netherlands and does not plan to explore for long, this book may suffice.

this book was a quick read interesting ang sort of like a carwreck you just couldnt look away. i really liked the part about the foreign legion. those are some tough SOBs. the story did have a lot of sex mentioned which i think the book could have left out, but the fights were great and the style drew you into the story its a good read and is being passed around my dojo

Ok,Ok yeah, he's a bad a---. So what? What is the point of all this? You got me. The guy is either SuperMan or is adept at fiction. You be the judge.

If half of this were true, and without the 3rd grade level writing, this might make a good story. Really, this is such a pathetic attempt on the part of Mr. Vandenberg to inflate his own ego and create a myth of himself and why, why didn't he get someone who could write? He sounds like he is desperate and needs years of therapy. Pick up any comic book and you will do better.

Hey, for utter and complete mind candification, this book is a fun read. Unfortunately that's it. This guy is another Steven Seagal...a man prone to believing his own exagerations, who seeks the company of media-types to spread his lies, and who actually expects folks to believe him. Unfortunately, just like Seagal's movies, folks will go see his movies just for the fun of it...not to see some half-wit's (Vandenberg) version of the truth. Enjoy the book and lose respect for Leonardo DiCaprio and Martin Scorsese along the way!

Oh, one more thing...there is no such thing as "Kunto" Karate.

When I started reading this book, I liked it. That I admit. But as I read more, and as I found contradictions and impossibilities, my initial view of this work turned from enjoyment to disappointment to downright skepticism and anger.

This book contains a lot of adventure, mayhem and martial arts, all right. And therein lies the problem: This book has too much of these things to be believable. Perhaps instead of being titled "The Iron Circle: The True Life Story of Dominiquie Vandenberg", the book should be titled "The Obtuse Square: The Life Story of Dominiquie Vandenberg, a Legend in His Own Mind".

Like Frank Dux, who fails to provide tangible evidence of his alleged activities as a U.S. Marine (he served just six months, if that and if at all), as a CIA operative (Dux claims to have worked personally with the late CIA Director William J. Casey, but the key piece of evidence linking the two somehow falls into a large body of water because of Dux's clumsiness, which seems to contradict the finesse needed/required by someone who claims to be an advanced martial artist) and as a ninja (Dux claims to have studied under a Japanese master of whom no record exists), Dominiquie Vandenberg fails to provide tangible evidence about his adventures and background.

In other words, I have problems with Dominiquie Vandenberg's self-aggrandizing/hagiographic autobiography for a number of reasons:

*Dominiquie Vandenberg claims to have studied an Okinawan art called kunto; there is a martial art called kuntao, but this is an Indonesian-Malaysian-Chinese martial art, not an Okinawan art; I have not been able to find anything about Okinawan kunto and any requisite six-month training program in Okinawa.
*In regards to the above point, Dominiquie Vandenberg claims to have undergone a six-month period of brutal training in Okinawa, an assertion I call pure BS because no human body can sustain the level of brutality and sleep deprivation (among other things) that Dominiquie Vandenberg claims he endured; take Navy SEAL BUD/s training, for instance; men a lot tougher than Dominiquie Vandenberg have dropped out of BUD/s training, which certainly doesn't last six months; and if these men, who are a lot tougher than Dominiquie Vandenberg, couldn't hack BUD/s training, I don't see how Dominiquie Vandenberg could survive, for six months, the level of brutality he claims he endured in Okinawa; I'm repeating the point here, and I'm doing so because "The Iron Circle" is full of implausible claims like this one.
*Dominiquie Vandenberg claims to have been a paratrooper in the French Foreign Legion (FFL); well and good, but please provide documentation (a photocopy of the discharge certificate the FFL gives to each legionnaire who honorably departs the FFL, etc.) about this, among other things regarding his alleged service in the FFL. (He has a photograph or two of himself in FFL uniform, but aren't uniforms easy to obtain? I could pose as a FFL paratrooper and claimed I served in Corsica and Djibouti, as Vandenberg seems to have done here.)
*Dominiquie Vandenberg claims that while serving the FFL in a five-year tour, he got a two-week leave and went to Thailand to fight; pardon me for my disbelief here, but I definitely do not believe this at all; the FFL DOES NOT allow soldiers doing a first tour to take extended leave. (Cf. the work of Evan McGorman, a Canadian who did serve in the FFL, and who has written a book about his experiences in the FFL. McGorman portrays life in the FFL as it truly is: laborious in a janitorial sort of way, primitive and highly uninspiring.) The life of a FFL soldier is highly regimented, in other words, and does not allow for the leeway Dominiquie Vandenberg describes in this book.
*Another point regarding Dominiquie Vandenberg's claim that he served in the FFL: Dominiquie Vandenberg claims that he suffered severe leg/hip damage in an accident; if so, and if he had the surgery he claims he had, then there is simply no way that Dominiquie Vandenberg would be able to do the physical training required of a legionnaire; imagine a young man, perhaps once athletic, having a hip replacement; and then imagine that young man attempting to do the physical work required of a U.S. Marine; it just ain't happenin'.
*Dominiquie Vandenberg claims that while fighting in Southeast Asia, he killed a mercenary who stepped into the ring after he, Vandenberg, vanquished a kickboxing opponent; the mercenary had three companions in the audience; my question: Can we honestly believe that three sociopathic men (probably all armed to the T with guns, knives and who knows what else) wouldn't have done something to avenge their fallen friend?
*Dominiquie Vandenberg claims that while in Southeast Asia, he met a former U.S. Special Forces soldier who had become a Buddhist monk. (Presumably, this monk was a Theravadic Buddhist; the Thais, the Burmese and Buddhists in southern India and Sri Lanka practice this form of Buddhism.) Dominiquie Vandenberg claims to have undergone a sort of spiritual conversion because of this man (or at least hints at it). Again, what is the monk's name? What form of Buddhism did this monk teach and practice? And the parable that the monk uses to "enlighten" Dominiquie Vandenberg (a parable about a Samurai who encounters a wise Buddhist monk) is a parable that one can find in several martial arts books and magazines; this parable is so clichéd in the Japanese Zen Buddhist community (from which it originates) that I won't even repeat it here. (I find it odd that a Buddhist monk in Thailand or wherever would even quote this parable, which isn't part of the Buddhist traditional canon in Southeast Asia, but as aforementioned, comes from the Japanese Zen Buddhist tradition).
*Regarding the above point about Dominiquie Vandenberg's "spiritual training": If one claims to have undergone a spiritual conversion, or to have trained in the spiritual-meditative ways in which Dominiquie Vandenberg claims he has been trained, one doesn't go around bragging about the number of people one has maimed or killed, as Vandenberg does in this book, and one certainly doesn't go back to Hollywood and partake in films like "Death Row Tournament", "Pit Fighter" and other films that glorify violence; at least that's what Buddhism teaches as part of its eightfold path. (Besides right livelihood -- there's nothing wrong with acting, but Buddhism would argue that acting in films that glorify violence is wrong -- another Buddhist tenet in the eightfold path is right speech, or telling the truth; I wonder if Dominiquie Vandenberg learned that from his friend the monk.)
*Dominiquie Vandenberg speaks of a Thai opponent -- a god-like Muay Thai master -- he vanquishes, without providing the name of this fighter; Vandenberg also says that this Muay Thai fighter fought once a month for several years; excuse me, but as someone who has trained in Muay Thai, I can tell you, the ring life of a Muay Thai fighter lasts three to four years at the most; imagine a heavyweight boxer fighting a full-out, 15-round match a month, month-in, month-out, for several years; the fighter would be so punch-drunk and loopy (if not dead), it wouldn't be funny. Yet Vandenberg claims that this particular Muay Thai fighter did this kind of fighting for years on end. (Cf. the writings of Bill "Superfoot" Wallace for further information on the realities of Muay Thai and life in the ring.)

I find this work disturbing because of its glorification of violence; like his countryman Jean-Claude Van Damme, Dominiquie Vandenberg seems to be another phony Hollywood tough attempting to impress one and all with a mostly imagined past.

My rating of four stars reflects the fact that I give five stars to the first part and three to the last part. The first third of the book is a beautiful, heartbreaking story of one schoolboy's love for his male friend. However many schoolboy romances there are, we can always use more of them. On the other hand, the last two-thirds of the book gives us an overlong mishmash of interactions between largely uninteresting characters (with some notable exceptions, such as the boy who earns a little money by sharing his body with a man in the neighborhood). I do recommend the book overall, but understand that you may find it a real slog getting to the end.

I never understood why 'The Sorrow of Belgium/Het verdriet van België' created such a fuzz in the Dutch language community (Flanders + The Netherlands). Possibly, the fact that it was a 'must reed' in school, makes that I'm not that overwhelmed by it.
Mind you, it certainly isn't a bad novel, but (from my point of view) it isn't the highlight of twentieth-century Dutch literature that some people say it is. It does help to understand the Flemish feelings towards 'higher authorities' (like Belgium, like the (catholic) church), and maybe (given the correct interpretation of the whole background regarding the German occupation of Belgium during WWII) it can give this novell an universal angle.

I would like to point out that Hugo Claus is a much better poet than he is a novellist. If he'll ever get the Nobel Prize (for the last ten years his name is mentionned), it should be for his poetry, which is (without any exeption) extraordinary and amazing. Obvious problem: it's easier to translate a novell than a poem...

I review this book reluctantly because I read it over 11 years ago. Frankly there is little that I remember about except two things. The first is that there is an hilarious part on pre-pubescent boys sharing their misconceptions about girls. The second thing I remember about it is my disappointment that the book lacked what I was looking for. I had fairly close relatives in The Netherlands during WWII and some of the stories I heard from them (and others) gave me a totally different picture from what I found in Claus's book. From them I got a sense of being occupied by a sinister enemy. Clandestine meetings, people being hauled off to forced labor, and a sense of fear were among the impressions that I was left with. From "The Sorrow of Belgium" I got a sense of life somewhat altered but still pretty much like normal. Perhaps that was the point. Perhaps the residents of Belgium experienced a different life than my relatives. Perhaps my relatives embellished their tales of woe. Perhaps I only heard what was interesting to me when my great aunts and uncles shared their experiences with me. All I can say is, this comfortable life style caught me by surprise and left me disappointed. I have read a number of books by European authors trying to get a sense of life in Hitler's Europe. Maybe I have already found it in "The Sorrow of Belgium" but just don't realize it. If so, I'm disappointed in Belgium.

Just before the Big War, Louis Seynaeve is still a boy of eleven years. He grows up in the nunnery in Haarbeke, also known as the Reformatory. Together with his friends Dondeyne, Byttebier and Vlieghe he forms the secret society The Four Apostles. Later their club is reinforced by the new guy Goosens. Their main vocation is to get a hold of 'forbidden books'. One day father and grandfather Seynaeve visit Louis to bring him bad news: Louis' mother fell from the stairs and is taken to the hospital. The truth is that she is pregnant and that any moment now she can give birth to a brother that will upset the easy life Louis was living.

Like so many authors who were adolescent during the Second World War, Hugo Claus is gifted with a relentless urge to get in touch with what happened during his youth. The Sorrow of Belgium is clearly the culmination point of war drama in the works of this Belgian author. Claus does not narrate the heroic deeds of the soldiers, but paints a colorful canvas of life under repression. Simple factory workers and storekeepers are trying to make the best out of things, but more often than not they fall into despair and misery. All this makes great prose as seen through the eyes of the child, Louis Seynaeve.

But then something strange happens. In the middle of the book Hugo Claus decides to changes style completely. Instead of the steady sequential narrative of the first part, the reader gets a mishmash of impressions. The few storylines that are developed die in a pool of chaos. Suddenly the story stops making sense and starts flirting with utter boredom. It is clear that the main theme is collaboration and the blindness of people under repression, but nowhere is this given any reason of existence between the fragmental, pointless descriptions of the adventures of mostly flat characters.

It is incomprehensible why such a potentially great novel was ruined by the desire of Clause to write a novel of more that 700 pages. It would have been great it he had skipped the last 400 pages. A pity.

I don't understand why all these Flemish Belgians review 'The Sorrow of Belgium' here at Amazon, just to say that it is a bad book. Probably they haven't read it. Or they had to read it or some other novel, play, piece of poetry by Claus at school, and disliked it at that time. One thing is for sure : they don't have the slightest insight in this book, or in any of Claus' work. Maybe they disagree with Claus' vision on Belgium, Catholicism, etc. To dislike Claus is only possible when you don't understand him. The Flemish reviewers just want to spit their frustration (call it : their ignorance) on the internet... It's silly.

The book isn't only the story of a childhood, a Bildungsroman, a war novel, a depiction of Belgian society during World War II, a postmodern novel with a procession of intertextual references to the Bible, Classical Mythology, Shakespeare, Jacob van Maerlant, Dante, Hölderlin, Gezelle, etc. It is a stilistic masterwork as well. Full of wit. Fabulous imaginery. Poetic. This is the work of a genuine writer, one out of many.

Too read Claus is to read a piece of art. He can only be compared to the greatest writers of all time : Joyce, Proust, Mann, Tolstoy, Borges, Ibsen, Pasolini... What can you say when you have finished 'The Sorrow of Belgium'? Maybe that you are stunned?

First off, I have to express my opinion that no Osprey title deserves a 5 star rating for the simple reason that they are simply too short to thoroughly cover the topic that any particular book intends to illustrate. That being said, I would contend that this is one of the better Osprey Campaign titles I've read. Most books in the English language that focus on The Battle of Waterloo tend to over-glorify the victorious "British Army" and their wonderful commander the Duke of Wellington, and tend to ignore the important contribution made by the Prussians and other allied forces that played a vital role in the final defeat of the mighty Napoleon. I'm not implying that the British and Wellington didn't play a major role, but to classify the battle as strictly a "British Victory" is unfair and historically inaccurate as the final outome of the battle was completely dependant upon the cooperation of all the allied armies. Wooten does an excellent job of describing the events that transpired over the course of the 100 Days Campaign including the battles of Quarte Bras, Ligny, and Wavre very objectively. As with all Osprey titles, the book is loaded with eye-candy that tends to make the reading experience more enjoyable. The pictures of the various uniforms for the three contending armies are very helpful for miniature enthusiasts, and the maps and orders of battle will definitely be of use to wargamers. But, what makes this title special is that the text is genuinely interesting and the writing style is very smooth. This book was a joy to read as it captured the full drama of the battle. The author gives a very balanced look at the campaign from the varying viewpoints of all of the armies engaged in the battle.

A highly recommended title for those seeking a quick and accurate understanding of the 100 Days Campaign that culminated with the Battle of Waterloo.

I don't know much about the Battle of Waterloo. I bought this book to help me learn a little about it. It really wasn't much help. The pictures were good but that's about it. Osprey has many excellent books but this isn't one of them.

Really nothing new, just repeat of many tall-tales.
By the way, why "Birth of Modern Europe" ? What is so modern about Europe shortly after 1815 ? Kings and emperors divide Euorope in the old way. Russia, England and Prussia again enlarged their territories.

The campaign title that concerns Waterloo is prefunctory in its explanation of the battle and the events leading up to it. It includes a nice section on the battlefield today etc... While the book is heavily illustrated it relies on rather imprecise old paintings rather than what would have been better in my view, namely uniform plates coinciding with the different French and Allied units that faced off on the battlefield.

I enjoyed this book. I dont think it is overly Pro-Brit - the author gives plenty of credit to both French and Prussians where it is due. He also clearly states that without Blucher Wellington could not have won. Its a very good blow-by-blow text of the battle. However, it is also more than that. You get the bonus of the lead up battles prior to Waterloo itself, all done in detail, and an excellent set of battlefield tours at the end. I was really glad I took the book with me when I walked the battlefield some time ago. This must be one of Ospreys biggest offerings in the series, and for the money it really cant get any better than this!! The author goes into a lot of tactical and other precise details that I havent found in other texts, and I thought the 3D terrain map illustrations were superb. You can really see how the battle shaped up. The only thing I would like to have seen was some new uniform plates. The ones here come directly from their men at arms series. That said, there is lots of excellent stuff here, it's very nicely written, and well worthy of inclusion in a collection. I have several titles in the Campaign series, and Waterloo is definitely my favourite so far.

Even if you are not normally an Elton fan, this is worth a read. It is a detective mystery with a (21st century?) twist. Elton's left wing liberalism seeps through in a provoking way - and this is one of hs novels that a teacher might even be able to recommend to a younger student - given that the sexual exploits/foul language are far less than usual!!

This is a murder mystery in which the central character (a London police inspector) is sent to prison for his refusal to participate in what he sees as an immoral war. In order to save his own life he agrees to investigate the murder of a politically connected war hero-poet as a generation British, French and German men is being killed on the battlefields of Europe. The book is not a great mystery novel but, it is a well written, exciting story and a wonderful illustration of why, despite all logic, men will go to war and face almost certain death. Also, it explores the question of what differentiates murder from war or from execution-is it a matter of the scale or or is it just a matter of law and politics?

I knew nothing about Mr. Elton nor his previous books but, having been given this book as a bithday present by my Australian daughter-in-law, I felt obligated to give it a try. Being a slow reader, it took 14 hours to finish (with time out for meals)-a really gripping story. He has hooked me and I am eager to read more of his writing.

If you've read any of Elton's previous works, then you'll have a pretty good idea of what to expect - a quick-moving narrative that includes some snappy dialogue, social commentary, pathos and farce (interviewing a witness during a charge across no-man's land took particular advantage of the suspension of disbelief).

As with "Dead Famous", the murder mystery is only mildly engaging, the characters are similarly one-dimensional - Inspector Kingsley is virtually identical to Chief Inspector Coleridge of the earlier work, while the supporting characters are almost caricatures.

Despite this, "The First Casualty" is a good yarn, but like "High Society" Elton tackles an emotional subject but too rarely provokes strong emotions.

Having read all of Ben Eltons novels I approached this book with concern as to whether it was a political statement or comic approach to the tragedy of war.
It was neither, just Ben Elton trying to put aspects of society into a book and using the war as a vehicle to comment on some moral issues.
We have;
Gay soldiers falling in love with gay officers, a suffragette woman hating policemen then sleeping with one, a perceived traitor to his country becoming reluctant hero, a murder case that could be solved by a seven year old plus many other poor sub plots.
The plot is appallingly weak, the conversations that the soldiers have amongst themselves whilst at the front line are painful to read.
Even with 30 pages to go I was still tempted to put the book down !! Utter rubbish.

I am a huge fan of Ben Elton's television work, but for the most part find his novels difficult - I think they just try too hard to be funny. But considering that this book is not humourous, and that it tackled a tragic time in history, I thought it worth a try.

I was wrong. He tackles the horror of war in the trenches with a gritty detail that is disturbing, but even then it is somewhat clinical, and the many scenarios offered really don't engage the reader. In fact it was tempting to skip over several of the battle scenes in order to move forward with the trials and tribulations of our hero.

On that point the characters are boring, a little harsh perhaps, but there is little in any of them to make us care about their adventures, hopes and desires. Many of them are so sterotyped as to be almost cut out figures.

Finally, this is touted as a mystery, but I have to admit that I figured out whodunnit in a disgracefully short period of time.

Overall, a disappointing story that I frankly found difficult to perservere with. I was tempted to give it 1 star, but decided on 2 becuase there has clearly been considerable research as to the awful inhumane conditions at the front during World War 1. But alas that doesn't save it from being a predictable story filled with bland characters.

Let's have more Blackadder I say!!

Given Amsterdam's seedier side, you would think this Back Door Guide would help you sift through all the shops and scenes to give you some cool spots. But the guide was sorely lacking in this department. While giving diverse offerings for daytime fare, the book skimped on the nighttime activities, only listing a few 'highlights,' which were probably in the front door guide anyway. References to the seedier side were left at that - only references. No recommendations. Perhaps their back door guide to a more sedate town like Brussels helps you find the hidden jewel at nights, but this back door offering might have well just said to wander around and go in what looks appealing. Thanks for the help.

My husband and I bought both the Amsterdam and the London versions as we planned our honeymoon. What a great read! Reading the Irreverent Guide further fueled our excitement about Amsterdam and our trip and we found the city to be true to the book's description.

The style of the books are very easy to read, with useful information and a slightly sarcastic, biting tone. The information is presented in a funny manner and it definitely differs from the dry-as-a-bone descriptives that classify so many travel books. Because the book is written based on information from locals, and even partially by locals themselves, this travel guide has more of a travelogue feel than a travel guide feel, which definitely appeals to me. It offers good information about how to really *see* a city or a place the way its seen by people who live there, even if you are only there for a few days.

We used the Amsterdam guide to find our hotel, look up attractions, learn enough about the culture so that we weren't annoyed with the slow wait service, and many other things. We did not have a single negative experience in Amsterdam from following any of the book's recommendations.

It seems that Frommer's just doesn't get it. The reason alternative guides like Lonely Planet, the Rough Guide, etc. have been so popular in the past decade is that some travelers don't want to pay a lot of money to stay in a bland upscale hotel or eat in snobbish restaurants, let alone visit overpriced tourist traps. They want to go native as much as possible so they can really see what's unique about a place. The focus of this guide, on the other hand, seems to be mainly sneering at attractions and accommodations that aren't quite tasteful enough for the discriminating consumer. What's left over (and there isn't much) is the usual old-school guidebook round of outrageously priced hotels, fussy restaurants, and posh boutiques. Contrary to its title, the guide is far too reverent toward all things expensive. Of course anyone can stay anywhere in comfort and style if they spend enough money. If you can afford to follow the suggestions in this book, you already know where to go and you don't need to buy it.

The bottom line: if you want catty gossip, buy a glossy magazine. If you want a practical guide with an irreverent attitude, get yourself a nice Rough Guide or Let's Go. But whatever you do, don't buy this book.

This guide is not your typical boring tourist drivel. It gives you the lowdown on A'dam: what's the deal with pot and hash at the coffee houses, about the redlight district, cool places to stay, where to eat and where to avoid, etc. It's a light, fast read that I did in one sitting. I decided on my hotel and mapped out some things I don't want to miss. The weak parts of the book concern the areas that I am going back to A'dam for in the first place. It should give a better picture of the Redlight district. They only mention the girls in the windows, but don't give you any detail like how much and what you get, no recoomendations (except for one brothel). Also, no detail on the coffee shops. If they treated these two areas as well as the hotels and resturants, then it would be the ultimate party guide to the city. Hey, buy the book - it gives good background and advice. But you need to find details about your particular jollies elsewhere. I am buying the Irreverent Guide to Disney World next!

I have to agree with the review below - there is nothing alternative about this guide. And the writer is so sarcastic about some of the places reviewed, that I wonder why they were in the book at all.

This book, dealing with charges of German atrocities in World War I, matters because goes to the heart of an important question about World War II. Were the horrors of the war that followed an aberration, a madness induced by Hitler cleverly exploiting the alleged harshness of Versailles, or were they based on something deeply flawed in the German psyche? If the first is true, then the Allies who imposed Versailles--Britain, France, and the United States--are as much to blame as Germany. If the latter is true, then blame for the horrors of both wars falls almost solely on Germany.

The authors do their best to understand German behavior, noting that, from the generals on down, before the fighting began the nation's soldiers strongly believed that they would face stiff guerilla warfare (by francs-tierurs) in Belgium, so much so that they interpreted everything that happened that way. Belgian and French soldiers firing from a distance and German soldiers firing in panic were seen as Belgian civilians firing from the windows of their homes, a problem compounded by the fact that few in German's large army were professional soldiers and fewer still had seen actual combat.

That, of course, does not excuse what actually happened, as the authors note. The use of human shields in combat, the execution of hostages, the systematic destruction of towns was quite clearly intended to terrorize the Belgian population into accepting a harsh German occupation and was not done by rank-and-file soldiers caught up in a moment of panic. Writing at the time, G. K. Chesterton summarized their behavior in a December 1915 article that sought to explain why, despite cries of outrage from around the world, Germany would execute Edith Cavell, an English nurse in a hospital in occupied Belgium who'd helped British soldiers evade capture.

"The thing was not done to protect the Prussian power. It was done to satisfy a Prussian appetite. The mad disproportion between the possible need of restraining their enemy and the frantic needlessness of killing her, is simply the measure of the distance by which the distorted Prussian psychology has departed from the moral instincts of mankind. The key to the Prussian is in this extraordinary fact: that he does truly and in his heart believe that he is admired whenever he can manage to be dreaded."

During the war, Chesterton himself would note that the evil that Germany had done that had also been done by others, even devoting an entire wartime book to The Crimes of England. But he noted in 1916 that there as an important difference, that "there never was an English wrong without an English protest." England had within itself the ability to correct itself. Germany, caught up in its own sense of its historical greatness, taught by its universities, did not.

The authors do an excellent job of pointing out that German atrocities did happen, that even while the war was raging the formal condemnations did not depend on tabloid reports of children having their hands cut off, and that the Germans themselves were not discovering any credible evidence of more than a few sporadic civilian attacks on German soldiers. They also establish that German behavior was unacceptable by the standards that Europeans set for warfare between themselves at that time. When combined with the fact that Germany began the war with an unprovoked attack on neutral Belgium, they demonstrate German guilt for the war and do suggest that German culture did have deeply engrained moral flaws that Hitler did not create, but merely exploited.

The authors also do us an excellent service by pointing out that both German militarists and English pacifists did the world a great evil when they attempted to discredit charges of German guilt for the war and for the atrocities. At the time, Chesterton explained why this strange ideological alliance existence when he noted that, "Pacifism and Prussianism are always in alliance, by a fatal logic far beyond any conscious conspiracy." Prussian militarism, fiercely nationalistic, wanted to deny that Germany could do wrong. Pacifists wanted to deny that there exists in this world evils that justify war, evils that cannot be done away with with soft words and paper treaties.

Since their influence on English thinking was greater, pacifist must bear a great portion of the blame for Britain's policy of appeasement during the 1930s and the refusal of so many to believe, even as the evidence mounted during WWII, that Germany was committed still more horrible atrocities in their second war. In 1933, for instance, Norman Angell, a leading pacifist and the winner of the 1933 Nobel Peace Prize, would gloat over the success of pacifist propaganda, claiming:

"No one pretends now--as the papers above quoted used to pretend--that war was due to the special wickedness of Germans, the sudden swoop of the satanic wolf in a peaceful world lust to each such harmless lambs as France and Russia."

Next to Nazism, pacifism bears the greatest blame for that most horrible of wars and much of their blame rests in their efforts to discredit the evidence of German atrocities in World War I that this book so effectively documents.

Those who'd like to explore this topic in greater depth should read the newly published collection of Chesterton's wartime articles I edited. During WWI, Chesterton was taking note of German behavior and warning that, if Europe did not come down hard on the nation, "wars more horrible" would follow. In 1932, he went even further, warning the Germany would start the next European war over a border dispute with Poland, precisely what happened seven years later.

--Michael W. Perry, Chesterton on War and Peace: Battling the Ideas and Movements that Led to Nazism and World War II

Excellent research and superb scholarship. The authors have presented an astonishing account of what actually happened and their resources are solid. One of the best books on a subject that one hopes is never lost to time and remembered always.

Two of the reviewers on here have totally misunderstood this book. They make it sound like Horne is perpetuating the 'babies on bayonets' myth. Horne does nothing of the sort. This is a nuanced study of the genuine atrocities commited by the German army in Belgium and sets this alongside the propaganda which exaggerated these atrocities. It is a finely balanced, scholarly book which deserves to be read before it is criticised.

Horne and Kramer show that there were some unjustified executions due to panic, but their generalization is dubious. They claim that virtually all 900 German soldiers killed, and the 2,500 wounded, in Belgian cities in August and September, were caused by friendly fire---simply because the Belgian government claimed that there was no resistance by armed civilians. But the reports they use were written during or right after World War I when such reports were even less believable than government reports are in general.

Christian Hartmann of the liberal Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung noted in his long review on June 14, 2004, that this book is no proof at all but merely a welcome foundation for more studies. For, as he notes, their bias in trusting French and Belgian official wartime accounts over German ones is pervasive. They did not check the veracity of these sources. As 2/3rds of the civilian victims listed died in a direct combat zone, a larger number could be the victims of what today is called "collateral damage" during fighting instead of the wanton executions which Horne and Kramer postulate. Nor, may I add, did they look at the death records of the people they claimed were executed. Just because a Belgian commission in 1919 claims that x people died in village z does not mean they did. But civil records are rarely faked--why not get the numbers from the local mairie? Also, was the Garde Civique really not a genuine reason for German (over)reactions? And what did the British do when confronted with the Boer equivalent of a Garde Civique? They deported women and children to concentration camps where tens of thousands died of hunger and disease. But their husbands had indeed been fighting in civilian clothing. So for Horne & Kramer to simply blame a peculiar German psychosis seems wrong.

Incidentally, the review in the FAZ is one of the very rare reviews that dared to look closely at the book instead of simply jubilating that Germans were exposed again as wanton brutes, so different from the kind-hearted British soldiery of that era exemplified by Lord Kitchener, or the noble souls in the US army fighting Indians, and then in the Phillipines. That tells you more about what's politically correct and what's not nowadays, than about what is true....

All the lies about the germans in blegium throwing babies in the air onto their bayonets was all propoganda to enrage british soldiers and civilians into accepting entrance into a war which many of them would die horrible deaths. Both side had a hard time to get their troops to fight in the early stages of the war as there was little racial / national hatred between the germans and the english. Watch the history channel episode about christmas 1914 in the trenches and see if these are the same blood crazed barbaric germans that were bayonetting women and children. All of these claims have been discredited, I find it hard to believe people still waste their time writing books on it, and more incredible to find people wasting their time reading those books.

I understand that this book is only two years old, but I was surprized how much was missing. I scrolled to the last page of the search and got the 2002 instead (it's now 2003 when I'm writing this) per a suggestion I read. It was more on target about things friends had said and suggested.

It will give you the courage to go, and that's a big plus. I found fault mainly with the limited number of places he covered (none of which I was going to be near), and his sense that it would be very easy to get around France with minimal French because English is so widely spoken. This was not my experience at all. Perhaps the places he likes are that way (and maybe that is why he likes them). I found instead that I was getting along very barely with my minimal French, some signs, but very rarely any English spoken even though I always started in French.

I was looking for a guide book about the Netherlands, but this had very little about this area. It is mostly devoted to France. I also didn't feel it was organized in a clear fashion.

We've just returned from a 2-1/2 week vacation in France, the Netherlands and Belgium -- and we used Rick Steves as our primary source of information for accommodations and sights (for restaurants, we mostly went our own way). All I can say is that this book worked out great.

All the accommodations at which we stayed were Steves recommendations, and they had three things in common: They were comfortable, friendly, and reasonably priced. We paid $60/night in Paris and Amboise; $40/night in Bruges; and $100/night in our "splurge" stop, Amsterdam. Info on accommodations has always been a Rick Steves specialty, and he has not failed us this trip.

I am especially grateful for Rick's recommendation of the Zuider Zee Museum in Enkhuizen, Holland. Most other guidebooks either don't mention it or just mention it in passing, but it was one of the highlights of our trip.

We also used the minibus service Steves recommends for the Chateaux of the Loire, and as a result had a memorable time.

Not all guidebooks are good for everyone. Steves economizes by concentrating only on locales that he likes and only on accommodations in selected areas (only three neighborhoods in Paris, for example). If you must stay in Montmartre or Menilmontant in Paris; visit Montpellier and Clermont-Ferrand; and spend a week in Utrecht or Luxembourg -- then Steves is not for you. But if you are not the world's most seasoned travel and want to put together a memorable European vacation, then you could hardly do better.

Although Rick Steves' France, Belgium & the Netherlands 2000 was our primary guide during our 2 week vacation in France, we felt that he did not do justice to such a beautiful country like France. This book dedicates over 60 pages (out of 330) talking about Paris and leaves out beautiful places in the Alps and the Atlantic Coast. Also, this book has not lived up to the standards expected in the new millennium such as providing complimentary information regarding websites related to travel in France. I recommend using the Michelin Green Guide as a supplement, especially if you plan to drive around France. As always his recommended eateries, hotels and places to visit are always on the mark. The hand-drawn maps and helpful hints always came in handy. For example, following his advise about using alternative entry into the Louvre saved us over an hour of waiting in line. Otherwise, despite its shortcomings, this book still is my top choice, especially if you intend visiting the touristy-most-visited places in France.