have an open mind and, clearly, you need some driving interest, curiosity. but i think you've got to be willing to change your mind if facts and the documents or the interviews you do lead you to a different view of the, of the character. and that happened several times in "american caesars." ..

>> guest: i don't know that i would say necessary because it depends what kind of biography you're going to right. personally, i have always to, until now, their biographies about people like don't like because i think it's, as you say , difficult to empathize with them. he may end up dozen them unfairly are not being able to put yourself in their shoes. but if you do have to write about people you don't necessarily care for, and in this book among the 12 presidents there were several. >> host: right. >> guest: i basically did not like. i think you owe it to them to, i don't know whether empathizes the right word, but you owe it to them to try and keep an open mind. at least intellectually be able to project on to them.

a big challenge, see them not necessarily as domestic presidents, but as the most powerful man in the world and how they responded to that challenge, which had never existed before the second world war. >> host: let's back up a bit. we have a very literate audience. for those who don't know, tell us, who was the tiniest? the inspiration in terms of classical literature for this book? >> well, he was a roman historian at the time of the hadrian who was working in rome in the caesar archives and you got this idea that he would like to write the lives of the great roman dictators from julius caesar on words. he chose the first 12 from

julius caesar through. many of them assess the it did. some of them, terrible tyrants and dictators. some of them great man. that book that he wrote became famous and since printing began has never been out of print. it is our source material, not only for the lives of those great roman emperors, but for the characters, the personalities because being in round he was able to do interviews. people who lived through some of that and by telling not only their public lives, but their private lives. he gave this unforgettable in sight, this window onto the world of rome at the height of the roman empire. >> host: often credited as a

psychological character driven biography in fact he had a classical line. >> yes. that's true. the big difference i think is that he did something that has never been done since as far as i know. and i don't know if my book is the first time it has been tried since roman times, but he decided to write about this emperor's first in terms of how the became president and how they operated as caesar and only then to look at their private lives. he separated the public from the private. now, over the last few centuries we became more and more interested in the psychology of human beings. certainly every biography i have ever written was kate jfk or

clinton or bill marshal montgomery i always tried to lace into an understanding of the character right from the very beginning, almost before he's born, and understanding of the context and the psychology. and when i was asked if i would like to write a new version of the american caesar, the roman season, i looked back and thought, i try to analyze how he had structured his life. i really liked that template, that idea that you first look at the public life so that you can actually see clearly the political challenges and the administrative challenges, the challenges that those men faced in the time when they were cesar and only then look at their private lives.

so i wrote an initial chapter on harry truman and showed it to my editor. he said, this works marvelously. you first see him as a person. ec him and the way that he had to deal with the extraordinary sense of the disease on the death of roosevelt and only then do you stop and look at him in terms of the personality. >> host: you do, in effect, the sense of a life being left come evolving, growing, reacting and all of that shaping the individual who comes into office . >> guest: and anti psychological approach, at least in the early part. but the advantage, as i say, if you're looking at a political figure and are interested in the history of the estate as an empire since world war ii when it abandoned isolationism i

think it deserves to clarify the issues with which these great presidents had to deal. >> host: there is a statistic that is jaw dropping early in the book. at think i've got this right. in 1938 the united states was responsible for 14 overseas military installations. today that number exceeds 1,000. how did we get -- is that the story, how we get from 14 to 1,000? >> guest: that is the story of american empire. the united states was 17th in terms of military ranking before world war ii. the army was desperately understaffed. >> host: how much of that was the result of disillusionment following world war one? world war one had been, in effect, sold to the american people as a crusade. >> guest: absolutely.

the same in britain. john f. kennedy wrote his thesis at harvard that was made into a book, why england slept. did not want to know anything about the armaments and the tragedy of world war one. but once the japanese attacked pearl harbor the whole scenario changed. what i found so fascinating looking back at fdr was the way that the united states do itself of so incredibly quickly to fighting not only the world war, but the world war on to vastly separated france and the pacific and in europe. >> host: it's interesting. first of all, you acknowledge that there would be candidates for a caesar before fdr? for example, teddy roosevelt, woodrow wilson?

>> guest: certainly there were characters who were would be caesar's. often they were referred to as caesar. very quickly that notion of the united states becoming as a pseudo markey or empire was abandoned. it is only with world war ii that the united states forever abandoned isolation. the real reason is the atomic bomb. with the united states had developed, the atomic weapon. i mean, people talk about disarmament, but before you could disarm and somebody else would have the bomb. so really out of necessity they united states became not only a competent entity, but the great democratic hegemony of the postwar.

>> host: you are a native break. does that give you a particular insight into the imperial mindset? in fact, was that one of the factors of the american century postwar? the route of withdrawal? >> guest: absolutely. i don't think i could have written the book. i certainly would not have had the arrogance to undertake it because a lot of people said this is rather ambitious. i have written quite deeply about two american presidents. jfk and bill clinton. >> host: you have written about young jfk. certainly stirred a fair amount of controversy. a two volume biography about bill clinton. and, of course, bernard, montgomery, you certainly that up with the eisenhower.

so you brought all of that into this enterprise. >> guest: i thought i had a handle. the real advantage, i felt i had in relation to my colleagues in the united states was that i had actually grown up in and detained british empire. born in 1944. churchill was still dreaming of holding on to india. african colonies. one of the most fascinating things about fdr in my chapter is the way that fdr basically tells churchill that it's no go . >> host: it's interesting. you portrayed churchill with all of his heroic qualities, larger than life qualities as essentially a man looking over his shoulder.

a grasp of the future that has yet to unfold. >> guest: i think he was a real visionary, domestically, but also globally. he's the hero of this book. >> host: the first four, the great caesar's, and of course that raises the question. what happened posted the? i mean, has it all been down hill? is the nature of the empire, the non, individual presidents? what combined to trace this trajectory from fdr to the present >> guest: for short answer we

are all looking. but i do think the big turning point was lyndon johnson. in a sense that is the most tragic chapter in the world. >> host: that tragic figure? >> guest: absolutely. raised in the south in texas who had not shown any particular enthusiasm for civil rights. then took up that mantle of the civil rights reform. basically ran down the throats of congress and certainly some politicians who knew that it might be fatal for the chancellor of a democratic cancer. at think he showed enormous courage and a sense. there is a wonderful moment which i had not come across. in 1964 when he was still an unelected president.

he simply assumed the mantle after the assassination. there is a moment when he drafts a letter of resignation to say that he would not stand for the presidency and the national convention. and people were so worried about senator goldwater and the republican rank that he was almost pressed into service. but. >> host: is that what he had in mind? >> guest: he may have had in mind. it's interesting that in a way if he had stood beside he would have had to be in this book as the fifth great president because what he achieved with civil rights rally was extraordinary. he inherited kennedy's involvement. it was not a war at the state. and i think in many ways, although a great man johnson was not equipped to be a season.

he had traveled some one around the world as vice president. essentially is around was the united states. israel round of texas. exactly. i don't think he had the confidence in the same way as jfk develop did even though he was such a young man. don't think he had the confidence to overrule his advisers and to say, well, cold water may be still pushing. we won the election, and we are not going to war there. >> host: an even larger sense, even though we all have a set of criteria for the ideal president, presumably we all want our presidents to have a sense of history, a perspective that brings with it. is it also possible, though, for

them to become prisoners of history? clearly lyndon johnson's generation was branded. the munich analogy kept surfacing appropriate or otherwise. in johnson's case he also was haunted by the fact that the right wing had exploited. you know, he'd recognize that in signing the civil rights bill he was probably signing away the south. i mean, just wonder whether all of those came together to influence in any way. >> guest: i disagree with my fellow historians who tend to believe in movement, passers that can't be changed. i think a good example of rejecting this notion that you are imprisoned within, say, the

history of munich, appeasing a dictator or threats is the way that president eisenhower the third great caesar in my view, the way that he dealt with this sewage crisis in 1966. the british and french and israelis went in to take back the suez canal. they assumed the united states, even though the most powerful country in the world would simply stand back and say, touch that, not to kids, and allow to happen. eisenhower did not. the president of the united states. he is the commander in chief of the american armed forces. he said no. he basically bankrupted the british by said were not going to support. the president is in an extraordinary way to change

stand will cost his part. >> guest: and courage, and i think looking across these 12 lines one of the common themes there things, i mean is central to under all circumstances. what to you learn collectively from these lives? >> guest: what can you then?

>> host: that will probably tell us. >> guest: exactly. if you think about the difficulties, almost every one of these presidents had whether years in office, a huge learning curve. in that sense you think, surely political system that trains people in advance. but i don't know that there is. i was interested in -- when i was writing about bill clinton in my multivolume book, i'm sure this is the most clever, intellectually smartest, the highest i.q. of any president who has ever occupied the white house. he just has an extraordinary abel mind. but in no way he was the worst president in terms of the caesars, in terms of taking over the reins of power once he

reached washington. he was obsessed with the public approval. i mean, you can psychologize that. i mean, the fact was that he. >> host: winning the election was not enough? >> guest: no. and the other thing he did not understand was that you have to have a terrific chief of staff. i spent years as a military historian recording world war ii i knew him. i knew him extremely well. he would always say, you have to have a good chief of staff. work to the bone. goes mad with all the work you toss them out and take on another. it's interesting you say that. this issue arises again in the fourth white house where

from implying it in in presidency. as you write, to his detriment. >> guest: and clinton. it's like, let's hope that future presidents who read this book at least learn some of the lessons. they are so obvious. it is not as though -- yes, it's always going to be a learning turf. there are some things we can ninth mystery. at the the ability to be a good administrative chief once you enter the white house absolutely harry truman's no mention about public persuasion, the chief

making the white house function are often overlooked. >> guest: again, one of my changes of mind as a biographical historian. ron reagan in this book. in the united kingdom where i was when reagan was president. reagan was considered by my colleagues to be a joke. i mean, they did not know much about him as governor of california. nobody had any idea that his political convictions went so deep and so far back into his career. and i ended up having -- i did not always agree with them, but i ended up having enormous admiration, first of all, for the death of his assurance that

communism could be confronted from an economic point of view and that the soviet union could finally be brought down by economic competition. but the other thing i admired him for was his temperament. we had not talked about that. i think one of the scenes that runs through the book is that certain president did have the a cesar. >> host: let me ask you. of the service if we are just talking about self-confidence, conviction, however you want to call it, jimmy carter had no lack of self-confidence. ronald reagan had no lack of self insurance. two very different presidencies. >> guest: right. i don't think self-confidence is necessarily the right

requirements. nope. i am talking about temperament. such as jfk. the ability to read distance yourself a little bit. stand back. you know, looking at the way jfk handle the cuban missile crisis, to listen to the advice you're getting from your cabinets international security advisers, but to be able to filter that through your of mind as an independent mind and remember that you were elected by the people of the united states, not by these people sitting around the table. you owe your loyalty to them. i think that is terribly important. i'm not sure jimmy carter really had that. he had this absolute sincerity and a visionary quality that he

saw the challenges that the it -- it wasn't a lack of patriotism, so to speak. at least the national interest. on the contrary. he believed the so deeply. the problem was he believed it so deeply that he wasn't listening to the other people. >> host: you quote him early on as someone to establish a relationship with the soviets being akin to our relationship with great britain. so the two he will come out with these remarkably nutty notions which, in a way, were very christian, very terrible. they lacked a certain realism if you're going to be emperor of the yeah the states. i keep saying empire. americans here do not like to consider themselves. we get rid of the british. we don't want to go back.

>> host: surly we don't see ourselves as a colonial power. >> guest: but abroad that is exactly how the united states is seen. they very quickly become aware that. the number of military bases were well over 1,000. it means that the united states is operating at a military level that has never existed in the history of humanity. not even the romans were as powerful as that in their time. so, you know, it is a huge challenge. >> host: it is interesting. i think it is fair to say it is revisionist history in a number of respects. for example, one of the threads runs throughout the story of the last 70 years. america in the middle east, particularly the relationship with israel.

david accord as, perhaps, the highlight. you present that in a very different light. >> guest: yes, i presented in jimmy carter's retrospective light. he came to think at the time -- he was very proud of it. he brought these enemies of egypt and israel together. they came to a peace agreement. they wanted to withdraw. but over the years he felt that he got the poor end of the stick. the israelis had really run rings around him. the israelis had gotten everything that they wanted. peace, which is what he really wanted in the middle east, would probably not happen, certainly not in his administration, but even after that. and i know socially most of my jewish friends and colleagues

think rather badly of jimmy carter. i'm sad about that. certainly not anxious. a brave man who constantly goes over there. truly interested. i think i quote him. mahatma gandhi is of modern times. >> host: the sense, not least of all, that in some ways he is a better former president. >> guest: i don't think he would agree with that. a great man, but not a great season. >> host: it raises a fascinating question. it may very well be that the of the largest part is to redefine this nebulous which has pluses

if you look at bill clinton's center it is as ambitious in his our reach in the various humanitarian efforts. but not an operational diplomatic element to what bill clinton does. . he and other presidents thought he was operating as a freelancer . the two ended can be very embarrassing by the incumbent president if he feels he is being overshadowed. it happened with richard nixon and president ford. said he was going to china. >> host: a week before. >> guest: i mean, he had a good reason to a few, i gave this man apart which is the centerpiece of the chapter.

>> host: you are not in that. those close to president ford. that was one of the library's i ran. we had a personal relationship. i think it is safe to say, he lived long enough to have the satisfaction of knowing that most americans had come to the point of view that what he did was necessary, an act of political courage. but, i take it, you question that consensus you still think it was a mistake ? >> guest: i think it was a terrible mistake. i think that richard nixon was one of the most dangerous we've ever had.

i think he was truly close to being a madman. >> host: you can. both johnson and nixon to caligula. >> guest: johnson in terms of his private life. each of these had a private life they are often at complete odds with the public figure. you have to ask yourself, it says the private life actually impacted. reckless. so what is the correction? >> guest: i don't think if i was a psychologist and might try and draw some statistical and loans, but i did not think it would be worth a damn really.

at think the fact is all of these caesars or individuals. you need hello lot of individuality and ambition to get to the white house. they were extraordinary characters. going to extraordinary tensions just to get to the white house let alone the responsibilities they carried and how they manage their private lives differed from one to the other. i mean, harry truman is the perfect example of the devoted husband. i love the story. he is about to drop or decide whether or not to drop the atomic bomb. he is put in a villa by the russian. this young american. comes and says, mr. president, if there's anything you need, i can't do anything, anything you like. german said, son, don't ever mention that again.

i married my sweetheart. i am devoted. we are loyal to each other. don't ever speak to me about that again. he was a truly honorable husband . >> host: that something important about harry truman, the modern culture, celebrity driven culture the, the we spend too much time on private lives. >> guest: well, their is a risk that we do. i am afraid it is a lost cause. try and stop the media. exclude c-span. try and tell the media not to concentrate on the informality and private life. i mean, i tried to be coming you know, said the patterns. i have tried to be truthful

about the private lives. i have tried to be and judgmental about the private lives. they are in succession pretty extraordinary. the one that most fascinates me actually was richard nixon when he was a gun man. >> host: is the the hardest to know of these tall figures? >> guest: i think so. he was quite a brilliant man. he was so dark and had these different sides to him. he was part liberal and part conservative, right-wing conservative. we now know from his psychiatrist's, we have the notes of his psychiatrist he said -- i think i quote him. he was an enigma to himself and me. he was a psychiatrist. even nixon's first growth trend, he pursued for five years.

she was a democrat. in fact, i conclude that you are understand you completely. he says, now you're getting somewhere. that close to your point. he understood. >> guest: he would look in to the mayor. one point he was suffering a lot of depression. at think he would look in the mirror. he said to his psychiatrist, i ended and that it happened at all.

>> host: i'm not the first to say it. i think robert rebook on this. basically i think he was guilty of high treason in sabotaging johnson's peace negotiations. >> host: in a broader sense given his personality, he set himself up. there are those who regard him as a closet intellectual. it was not cool in his circles for that to be known. but he was not a natural in the democratic vote seeking door knocking process. >> guest: know, and yet he reached the top. you know the secret of that. he studied acting at college. he was recognized as a great shakespearean, potentially great shakespearean actor. you see that when you see the

archive film. he is extraordinary with the speech and those moments when he goes before the camera and talks about the silent majority and talks about his people, his background, the people from whittier. ways a takeoff on fdr? was being exploited, not listen to, punished. >> guest: but in the case of fdr it was idealism. that is why i admire. there was a man who was born an aristocrat who could see beyond his old circle and c. d. true populist.

but in richard nixon's case i think it was actually genuine. he came. when you go to his little house at the nixon liba. >> host: a combination of idealism and resentment. >> guest: he grew up poor. a very early stage dying of tuberculosis. the father with his terrible temper. so determined to do well at school. carry this shoes in a paper bag so that they would not get 30. going barefoot to school. i mean, i think what would happen in those great moments of crises when he was accused of corruption and it looked as though president of the hot eisenhower would drop in as nominee in

1952, it looked as though nixon would have to retire or resign from the vice-presidential nomination. he goes in front of the public and gives the speech. but i think that is the moment he reaches back into himself. and it's not just resentment. is that moment when he puts away his political ambitions and he >> host: terribly moving. had ever had. the speech. nixon ostensibly praising general eisenhower and calling

on everyone. i mean, he knows exactly. the instinct of politician his knew exactly what was being done to him. it is an amazing moment. that is his brilliance, his genius really, nixon, he could turn that kind of potential defeat into potential victory by being able to see other people's weakness. >> host: would you buy the notion that nixon was the last president? >> guest: to some extent i would. he did believe in health care reform.

good politician, accommodating himself to the prevailing consensus? >> guest: i would say it goes deeper than that. again, what moved me was nixon's absolute adulation for his mother. a very religious woman. she never beat the children, but they were terrified of her calling him not for doing something sinful or whenever. and i think, again, he would reach into himself for a notion of responsibility from society from the less well-off.

his mother was a true christian. so yes, i don't think it was. >> host: today would he be a man without a party? >> guest: definitely. he would not fit into the current republican party. at the very few of these republican presidents would. you see in almost every case they are fighting tea party style elements within. >> host: that is an interesting observation. i wonder if that on both sides of the aisle if fdr had to put up with you belong here thought that he was not. people who thought that he wasn't decisive enough. this is an aboriginal not just harry truman talked about

professional liberals. so is it fair to say that all of these elements. >> guest: date paul walked into the middle. they basically are the extremes on the left and the right. in the end they are forced into the middle. the work was so interesting. if you exclude, to a large extent, the domestic policy side effect ec the miracle of how they managed to deal with that domestic policy side as best they can. have they still have the reserves that they need and the insight they need to recognize a more global perspective in terms of the american interest and global peace. >> host: is it safe to say that reality intrudes and ideology receipts?

>> guest: definitely. i think a lot of them have to take a very deep breath and basically forget politics or at least ideological politics and look at the reality of the situation. >> host: john kennedy is the fourth. i'm wondering. my sense, nixon said it would take 50 years. the irony, i would think in 50 years in kennedy's case that the deification that follows the assassination in sure that the president would swing to the other extreme. only now in some ways. the kennedy presidency for a long time we heard he did not get much was session passed, the style or substance. ito's need to minimize. impact amount to a variety the cold war and civil rights, to

use that favor term, he grew. in fact before his death he embraced the politically difficult position. >> guest: just as eisenhower had adoptive a progressive position on the civil rights in the previous administration. >> host: had he as opposed to that southerners would be as they could, in fact, be educated in a reasonably short amount of time to a new racial order. >> guest: you have put your finger on it. in a short order. because a lot of these presidents, if you put them together in a room, they would have very similar approaches, very similar visions in

patriotic terms, in terms of social responsibility. they would differ in terms of when this can happen, when the great american public would be willing to accept it. and in eisenhower's case obviously he felt his hand had been forced by the supreme court in terms of schooling. you know, he embraced the moment he said the troops down to arkansas. i think that is a salient moment in american history. and the same with john f. kennedy. he was concerned that he should get a second term in office. he was constantly trying to put things off until his second term you know, martin luther king and many millions of black people

were not willing to wait for that. to that. >> host: in irony jfk is seen as the first television president. his news conferences contributed to his legacy. it was the pictures. get him on the front page of times and television. upon with fire hoses and the like, which in effect to some degree forced to sand. >> guest: photojournalism definitely changed history in that respect. and that's true. eisenhower had accepted that he had to have training. at think he got training. >> host: yes. >> guest: is. they recognize that like we were

>> host: fascinating. numbers. that's not really possible. >> guest: the diffusion of communication means that you don't have that monolithic >> host: before you finish the sermon you are twittering. the internet is commenting. >> guest: we will see different kinds in the future. >> host: that obviously is where we want to go. one of the lessons of this book, as you know, we are taping this on the eve of the midterm election. prior to the conventional

narrative, their is a considerable amount on the left with this president who really thinks -- makes only a cameo where does he fit at this point in your narrative? >> host: well, the obvious parallel is with bill clinton in '94 who was stunned when he lost both houses, not just one, with both houses of congress. a change in congress. and it is remarkable. at think i quoted the moment when bill clinton after losing, his image, we are talking about photojournalism. his image was more staunch. >> host: why was he so polarizing? >> guest: a number of reasons. >> host: culture will? possible racism.

but in bill clinton's case he could save it because he was white. at think there is definitely the counterculture thing. the idea that these people had it too soft. service in vietnam. there was some of that. at think a lot of it was the first two terms, learning experiences. he made this terrible mistake in taking an old kindergarten friend as his chief of staff. he wanted somebody he could trust. to be honesty have quite a lot of secrets. in terms of his private life. he wanted the chief of staff who would respect. it was a terrible mistake because, you know, he has a brilliant mind. it's not a good administrative mind.

you have to have some, the bad cops your pit,. so i think bill clinton is a wonderful example of how a president can lose the midterm election and get once he got through his front see that he is not a member of congress. he is in this unique role as chief. and the whole world looks to have. it's not just the electric or the senators and congress. the whole world looks to him for global. and if you think of bill clinton, the way he actually brought peace to bosnia, how he dealt with the oklahoma city bombing, terrorism coming from within the yeses states, those

people. >> host: clinton brilliantly through triangulation stole a lot of republicans. he basically went to the center. no real fear reform. does that option exists for this president in this incredibly polarized ideologically driven political climate? even if he were so inclined. >> guest: i don't know. i don't know that i would have a guess. i think i respect him enormously , not only for his intellect, but at think he does have a great temperament. he has a mix of fdr and jfk. jfk was quite a cold man in his way.

>> host: given the tumultuous events of the last few years speak to you can, but i think, you know, the focus on recently has been on those cabinets or for the midterm election. i think once that is over and people see just how difficult the problems are, foreclosure and so forth. they see congress wrestling with that whether it's under the supervision are not, the stature of the president will be seen as something, somewhat to one side. and i think president obama polls are really not bad. higher than president reagan's war at this time. so i have great confidence in his ability to lead this country be a 13th season.

>> host: what to you think the effect is? not only on american politics, but the president? >> guest: i'm not sure i want to save on air. i think my father was editor in chief of the london times. rupert murdoch rescued the times from anarchy takes to the trade unions in great britain. in a sense to the great service. then he proved to be a really awful newspaper. at think the way he has operated his communication empire, suppose you could call him. has had a really terrible effects, particularly in flaming .

at think he is a man of no deep social responsibility. i think to use somebody like roger ailes to was a colleague, a master of dirty tricks and that kind of approach to electioneering, i think, is a very, very sad commentary. i still feel very optimistic. he don't have to travel abroad. winston churchill, much that is actually better. when you travel abroad and you see other countries having to deal with high unemployment and with a great deal less freedom of thought. >> host: on a personal level, biographical level, what was the biggest surprise to you in the course of writing this book?

>> guest: i think most of all the life of ronald reagan. i think, you know, the story, for instance, the attempted assassination in 1981, you know, it is almost impossible to believe a man 70 years old, you know, somebody shoots of bullets extraordinary things. millimeters of his heart. you know, getting within minutes here, not far away to george washington university. you know, the jokes with his nurses. hollywood could not have written such a script. >> host: the assassination attempt and the air traffic controllers' strike a few minutes later it is as if -- that is the larger than

life reagan. obvious geopolitical consequences. it is hard to believe we are >> guest: no. fascinating. we could go on all afternoon. the book is called "american caesars". highly recommended. thank you so much. >> guest: it's been a pleasure . >> an iranian journalist to opposed and shared a prison cell with current iranian supreme leader talks about his years of imprisonment and torture following the iranian revolution. he spoke at barnes and noble booksellers in new york city. ad th >> good evening everybody in think you for cotming. our rnes& this is part of our barnes and cture se noble and amnesty internationalh

lecture series. great honor right now every just a few passages from e "letter to my torturer" by thea, main speaker. if you would be so kind, a is woman's voice, but you need to picture it as a man's, and thisr was the story. it is chapter 15. i am a spy.ckingmy my little dog is yapping, licking my feet. he'sants me to take him out. his name is sunny. he is my little boy, kind and loyal. he has no idea that under the he is pressure of the whip by too, become a dog. he is the opposite about broke,o loaded, and devastating self. all this has nothing to do withe my dog.to he has no idea that once i hadae to bar before i was allowed to speak. on this stormy parisian morning i am writing my 15th letter to you and history. retu i am forced to return to theittr most bitter days of my life.s ae a t wime when my battered body n

shaking on a torture bed, and ms soul was running away to avoid surrendering to the devil. prison 12-18 march. you have left, and and twisting and turning on the blanket.the my shoulders are in agony. want my shoulder blades want to brea. away from my body. to want to find some call, sleep for a few minutes. with it's not possible. i sit up with difficulty. e tooth i leaned my head against the wall.and the toothache has returned to pre-press my hand against the wall in stand-up.get i walk on my feet withggle difficulty. i get tired quickly and struggle to sit down. you might come back at any show moment. first we will show you your wifs and a coffin.oking ve she is like my own sister, woulo looking very pretty.see ur by the way, would you like to see your wife on the night of. then i s my wife's image appears. coffin. i see the role of coffins.