21. Russell's Despatches from the Crimea edited and introduced by Nicolas Bentley

My on-deck shelf is maxed out and has been in this state or close to it for quite a while now.  I keep promising not to buy or find any more books, or at least only to look for my most prized treasures, yet I keep finding things that I can't not take.  The iron will of my disciplined youth has mellowed into a more supple approach to life.  This is my long-winded way of justifying me picking up this book on the Crimean war I found in a free book box I don't usually have access to (next to the Pirate park down by des Pins).  It's just such a beautiful book, with pull out images and maps.  And I do need to better understand 19th century European political history.  Unfortunately, it took me several weeks to read and put's me in slight catch up mode for my 50 book goal.

William Howard Russel was a very successful military journalist whose honest reporting from the Crimean front and specifically the siege of Sebastopol, though polite and respectful, exposed the incompetence and disconnection of the government at home.  The logistical planning for the war was a total disaster and the British lost thousands of men to cholera and exposure before the fighting even started. I know we all hate the British and colonialism now, but there is an element in their politics that always allowed for critique and you see that in the writing here.  He writes with sympathy of the brutal situation of the men in the field, who had to spend a winter on sodden ground without tents and insufficient food and clothing and in the gentlest way makes your understand the incompetence of Lord Raglan, the general who was given the post out of respect for his seniority rather than competence.  He also goes after the excessive paperwork and bureaucracy that stymied the army and navy actually making decisions and getting things done.

At the same time, he speaks in the voice of a patriot and his writing is so good that he makes the battles seem quite thrilling.  You could see how young men could read his passages in The Times and feel the allure of the false glories of war.  These passages, however, are strongly tempered by his descriptions of the aftermath.  Wow, these battles were just gruesome.  Russell describes the various mutilations (from shot balls, bayonets and other shrapnel) as well as the fields of the dead, dying and wounded.  It's crazy how expendable life was considered back then in the pursuit of strategic goals on the other side of the continent.

Ultimately, this battle was about western Europe using the Ottoman empire as a buffer to prevent Russian expansion (and allow Britain a free and open market in the Ottoman empire).  The specific flashpoint or excuse to trigger a war was ostensibly a conflict over who was allowed to protect the Orthodox Christians in the Palestine.  It is a conflict that we are still fighting today, in both regions.