In the Garden of Beasts discussion

I think this is a great book, I'm just perplexed that the Author, kinda can't bring himself to state a well-known, historically documented fact: That Martha Dodd was a Soviet Spy. She took all the secret reports and cables from her daddy's office and gave them to the Russians.

I used to live in Prague during the 1990s I knew people who worked for her and knew her and the story they tell makes Erik Larson's book look totally LAME!

I would call that seriously downplaying it. She was a major Soviet agent in her day. I'm not passing judgement, except on the author for leaving it out. I realize it got in the way of his narrative arc, but it's wrong. He has an obligation to tell the truth and that means not leaving out something like that.

But ya know, Erik Larson is a great writer and I seriously need to read Devil in the White City.

Perhaps the relevant point is that her time as an official spy came after the focus of this book (1933-1934)? It doesn't lessen her involvement but it would explain why you might feel he makes light of it.

I would also agree that it is beyond the true scope of the story he was telling. Her actions as a spy would - and could - be at least an entire book if not a series on their own.

Like I said, I know people in PRague who knew her and they all said she was a strange piece of work. By the 80s she was like something out of Sunset boulevard, still dreaming of bopping celebrities, only the only celebrities who ever went to Prague were the ones inside her weekly copy of PEOPLE Magazine

On the other hand, if you'd like to read a story set in the very very last days of Nazi Germany, Check out my novel GERMANIA, now out in Paperback from Simon & Schuster. My novel takes place during the three-week regime of Hitler's successor Admiral Doenitz.

IT's fun, its weird, it's 90% historically hyper-accurate, especially the weird parts. You probably didn't know Hitler had a successor!

www.brendanmcnallyauthor.com

It seems like a case of "He said, they said." Larson developed his story from one set of sources. You're getting a slightly different story from other sources. Larson probably never met the people you met. And I think Larson had to make a judgment call on how much of a spy Martha was. Was she truly a spy, or more of a sympathizer being used by the Russians. One hates to say it, but a "useful idiot." She seems to have been a quite intelligent woman, but very foolish.

Kiri wrote: "Perhaps the relevant point is that her time as an official spy came after the focus of this book (1933-1934)? It doesn't lessen her involvement but it would explain why you might feel he makes lig..."

I just finished the book and tend to agree that it isn't an inability on Larson's part to identify her as a spy but simply outside the scope of this book.

I believe the primary focus was the Ambassador and a specific time period. After reading the book I get the impression the family was more of a backdrop. Larson wanted to emphasize the challenges and circumstances that Dodd faced not only in Berlin, but also with his colleagues back in the States. It was an impossible situation to manage and maneuver through. I did come away with the understanding that Martha was a Soviet sympathizer and was manipulated by the Russians.

He didn't. It was sort of a side bar to the novel; read some of the information in the 'notes' section--very interesting as well. I agree with most of the posts that the primary focus of the story was the Ambassador and the period in which he served.

I found this book truly fascinating. I thought he did a great job. I think working from the diaries of Dodd and his daughter may be why there is not a definitive statement of her being a spy. I read Devil in the White City and though it was good, In the Garden of the Beasts was far better

The main focus of the book were the events of 1933 and 1934. The remainder of Dodd's term as ambassador is merely summed up in the last couple of chapters. During the focus years, Martha was not a Soviet spy, she was a prospect. I think Larson did a great job of describing Martha Dodd's evolution from Nazi friendly to pro-Soviet. In the early chapters, Larson leads the readers to think that Martha is going native and will embrace the Nazi regime (literally, one Nazi at a time). She dodges that bullet only to swing the other way and become a tool of the Soviets. And we're all thinking, "No, don't go in there" like we're at a teen horror movie. She was just doomed. It is that transition that Larson is trying to capture, and just coming out and calling Martha a Commie Spy undermines the suspense of that story.
Along the same lines, why didn't Larson come right out and call Martha a slut. I not a prude by any means, but she was worthy of being a Kardashian sister - and this was the early 1930's. I fully understand the career diplomats' concerns that she was a diplomatic liability and an international incident waiting to happen.

Will wrote: "The main focus of the book were the events of 1933 and 1934. The remainder of Dodd's term as ambassador is merely summed up in the last couple of chapters. During the focus years, Martha was not a ..."

Will, I could not have said it better! Thanx!

Will wrote: "The main focus of the book were the events of 1933 and 1934. The remainder of Dodd's term as ambassador is merely summed up in the last couple of chapters. During the focus years, Martha was not a ..."

Martha was indeed a Soviet spy as the KGB archives began revealing in the early 1990s, the same with the FBI archives. It's a great story. I'm have a fun time not trying to sell it to magazines. I will step back from my original opinions and just say Erik Larson made a judgment call I disagree with. He tells a great story about an exciting period. By the way, according to the NY Times book section today, there is a new, biography about William Shirer, a journalist who was there then, saw it all happen, and apparently knew Martha Dodd well enough.

Yet another book to add to my list!

Dodd is the focus of the book, not his daughter. She is a side character but does tend to play in tons of information. I have read many books about WWII and this lead up to the war is very well written. Personally, I like reading books where people who actually lived through write. I read a book last year written by a woman who lived in the shadow of the Eagle's nest, Hitlers retreat area. She was a child and talked of going to school with many children of high profile leaders in the Hitler regime who lived in that area.
Larsen is a very good writer and I am going to read Devil in the white city very soon.

Thanks to all of you for posting these interesting footnotes. I wondered why it wasn't more apparent that she was a spy. I didn't care for the book, found it flat and lifeless, considering what was going on.
And yes, DO read "The Devil in the White City." It's a great read!

Great comments!! Definitely, someone needs to write a book about Martha Dodd. I did enjoy the book and keep thinking about how well Larsen developed Dodd's insights throughout while focusing on Martha's adventures and risk taking. I thought the book was written by contrasting Dodd's frugal perspective using Martha's frenzy to create tension and adventure. Indeed Dodd and Martha both took risks and were headstrong in their point of view and interests.

Someone sent me an email about Harry Bingham, who I think would have been a more interesting, and certainly heroic, subject. But perhaps Larson wanted to write about 1933? :

"...A few months ago, Secretary of State Colin Powell gave a posthumous award for "constructive dissent" to Hiram (or Harry) Bingham, IV. For over fifty years, the State Department resisted any attempt to honor Bingham. For them he was an insubordinate member of the US diplomatic service, a dangerous maverick who was eventually demoted. Now, after his death, he has been officially recognized
as a hero.

Bingham came from an illustrious family. His father (whom the fictional character Indiana Jones was based) was the archeologist who unearthed the Inca City of Machu Picchu, Peru, in 1911. Harry entered the US diplomatic service and, in 1939, was posted to Marseilles, France, as American Vice-Consul.

The USA was then neutral and, not wishing to annoy Marshal Petain's puppet Vichy regime, President Roosevelt's government ordered its representatives in Marseilles not to grant visas to any Jews. Bingham found this policy immoral and, risking his career, did all in his power to undermine it.

In defiance of his bosses in Washington, he granted over 2,500 USA visas to Jewish and other refugees, including the artists Marc Chagall and Max Ernst and the family of the writer Thomas Mann. He also sheltered Jews in his Marseilles home, and obtained forged identity papers to help Jews in their dangerous journeys across Europe. He worked with the French underground to smuggle Jews out of France into Franco's Spain or across the Mediterranean and even contributed to their expenses out of his own pocket. In 1941, Washington lost patience with him. He was sent to Argentina, where later he continued to annoy his superiors by reporting on the movements of Nazi war criminals.

Eventually, he was forced out of the American diplomatic service completely. Bingham died almost penniless in 1988. Little was known of his extraordinary activities until his son found some letters in his belongings after his death. He has now been honored by many groups and organizations including the United Nations and the State of Israel. "

I found this site/string because I was puzzling over the same question as to why Martha Dodd's (and her brothers) pro-communist activities were so downplayed in both the main text, the Epilogue and the notes. I have read a fair amount about the Red Orchestra, the German Resistnace to Hitler and Soviet Spies in the US and GB both before and after WWII. What struck me about Larson's treatment was the peculiar way that he finessed the whole issue of the role of the Soviets, German Socialists and Communists in enabling the collapse of the Weimar Republic and the ascent of Hitler. What particularly caught my attention was his treatment of the American Mildred Fish Harnack, one of Martha's friends and a key player in the Red Orchestra. Larson does a good job describing Ambassador Dodd's critical view of the Naziis. We know little of how he viewed the Communists and the Soviets. Larson also does not IMHO really explain why his superiors were so critical of his stance vis a vis Hitler.
Given that Martha plays such a significant role in the book, Larson's limited coverage of this aspect of Martha's activities is very unfortunate.

Overall, I would recommend this book but only while recommending Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America by Vasiliev, Haynes and Klehr

I haven't read Spies: but it's something I want to read. Haynes and Klehr and kind of the top authorities on the subject. I'd love to hear what they think about Larson's book. Check out Resisting Hitler by Shareen Brysac. She knows an awful lot on the subject.

From what I've heard about Martha Dodd first hand she really seems like a stupid, self-centered skank who took herself a bit too seriously. Brysac described her to me this way: "What can you say about a spy who didn't get up before eleven?"

Dora Slaba said of her, "She was a nobody trying to be a somebody."

Somehow I'm going to sell this story!

Hope you tell a better story than Larson!

Why don't you check out GERMANIA a Novel and tell me?

Seriously, I think I'm a pretty good story teller, my friends tell me so. But my friends have also read Devil in the White City and they keep raving about it. One of them, put down Garden of the Beasts and said it was too dry. I doubt it. Erik Larson is an excellent writer. I only disagree with his judgement call.

Brendan:
Actually I am almost finished Brysac's book. It is nicely written, as was Larson's,, but again I find the uncritical assessment of Harnack's embrace of Stalin and the Soviet system more than a little perplexing. Ann Nelson's recent book Red Orchestra: The Story of the Berlin Underground and the Circle of Friends Who Resisted Hitler
is pretty good also - but again she is far too uncritical of the ideas that motivated many of the pro-Stalin players. On the other hand, there is no doubt as to their courage and the strength of their convictions. On Amazon my reviews are as Observer.

I find the story of Donald Heath and his son particularly fascinating. I'm considering using it as the basis for an upcoming fiction project. I asked Brysac about the young Heath, and she seemed kind of iffy about him. He apparently had a spook career and wasn't totally sure what to make of him

Larson was busy getting it through the reader's heads that this woman was a promiscuous young slut!! I was very disappointed in this book. "For the triumph of evil, all it takes is for good men to do nothing". The Dodds were a family in the wrong place, the wrong time and missed their chance to be of any significant historical notoriety.

Jeff wrote: "I believe the primary focus was the Ambassador and a specific time period. After reading the book I get the impression the family was more of a backdrop. Larson wanted to emphasize the challenges a..."

The end of the book dedicates many pages to what happened to the principle characters after the war, including Martha. Larson could have easily put this information here without detracting from/compicating from his main narrative.

As a reader I did feel cheated finding our about this omission after I finished the book.

Charles wrote: "It seems like a case of "He said, they said." Larson developed his story from one set of sources. You're getting a slightly different story from other sources. Larson probably never met the people ..."

I would say the author should review ALL credible sources. I would also consider declassified KGB documents, that detailed Martha's level of spying, at least credible enough to mention.

Also, I seem to remember the book said she and her husband fled to Prague due to being indicted on tax evasion charges. It was widely reported, including in the NY Times, that they fled to avoid being prosecuted on espionage charges.

I really enjoyed "Garden of the Beasts." No, it didn't answer all my questions about the characters involved. But it prodded me to go on and read more about them. To learn from other sources. Isn't that what a book is suppose to do? Broaden your knowledge and incourage you to look further. To consider other views and incourage critical thinking? "Garden of the Beasts" did an admirable job.

I loved the book. What I took away from it was the fact that the Jewish "question" was left untouched by the US because our big banks and institutions had loans to the German government which they were worried might not be repaid if they criticized their anti-Jewish behavior. Martha was just one of many characters caught up in the times -- whether she was an official "spy" or not doesn't matter to me -- she was very reckless. I was surprised how accepting her father was of her actions.

After reading "Garden of the Beasts", which I really enjoyed, I read chapter 3 of "The Haunted Wood" by Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassiliev. This chapter "Love and Loyalties I: The Case of Martha Dodd" makes it clear that by March 1934 Moscow wants Boris to invite Martha to Paris with the idea of convincing her to spy for them. I too questioned why Larson didn't describe Martha's extensive spy activity and loyalty to Russia, at the end of the book when he writes about what eventually happened to all the other subjects in his book. The omission seemed very odd.

Maybe Mr. Larson would answer the question for us. He studied Russia in college and possibly even the language so there should be no doubt that he knew the extent of Martha's involvement.

Why did he leave it out? I too read somewhere Martha and husband fled to Prague to avoid prosecution/arrest/indictment or some such thing.

One important element that is missing from this discussion is how many Americans go caught up in working for the Soviet Union before the Cold War. A lot of the lure of Communism during the 1930s was the fact that it was anti-Fascist. Larson points out in the book that Martha Dodd refused to give up her Soviet ties after the war, and lived most of the rest of her life in exile as a result.

Devil in the White City is much better than Garden of the Beasts. In Beasts it seems like Larson really wants to tell the story from Martha's point of view but really cannot allow himself to write in the perspective of a promiscuous female. It is like he set out to write the book one way, but the book wanted to take a different direction and he wouldn’t allow it that way. I’m not a writer, but have often heard that many times a character will take on a life of their own. I imagine that Martha Dodd outshined her father, but Larson refused to let Martha take over the book.

Melanie wrote: "Devil in the White City is much better than Garden of the Beasts. In Beasts it seems like Larson really wants to tell the story from Martha's point of view but really cannot allow himself to write..."

Good summary! I agree! Devil in the White City was a better read.

Kiri wrote: "Perhaps the relevant point is that her time as an official spy came after the focus of this book (1933-1934)? It doesn't lessen her involvement but it would explain why you might feel he makes lig..."

That was my thought too

I don't think he did. He mentioned Martha's involvement with the Soviets, but tempered that by saying her spying activity was limited, and that she didn't play a major role, mainly because her connections were somewhat tenuous.

In her day in Berlin, she apparently was considered highly important. Her reports apparently went directly to Stalin. She felt important enough to write him directly for permission to marry Vingradov. Her time as a spy back in the US during the 1930s through the 1950s does sound pretty ludicrous, though apparently she did play a key role in Recruiting Jane Zlatovsky. Anyway, It's interesting hearing that Tom Hanks will be making a movie of the book. Can't wait to see what it looks like!

twenty years ago, KGB briefly opened their archives, and there was all kinds of juicy Martha Dodd material there. There is also some good stuff in the FBI archives that's online. They were only watching her for ten years after Boris Morros of the Mocase spy ring got mad at Martha's husband over hubby's negative opinion about the song "Chattanooga Choo Choo" and went over to the FBI. I'm not making up this crap! The KGB archives also contain a report from a psychological counselor the commies brought in to talk to her about all her sexual affairs. No use, she nailed him too!

Anyway, I'm going back to Prague in a couple weeks and I'm going to resume my Martha Dodd search. I've found the daughter of her secretary. I'm hoping her mommy told her some stories.

Just to clarify, Larson does say Martha and her husband had to leave the US due to their communist ties. He just says they found later they couldn't return due to tax problems.

That's what she told my friend. But apparently around 1979 they had some meetings in Yugoslavia with some US Justice Department Officials and following that President Carter ordered charges against them be dropped. The FBI howled protest, but couldn't stop it.

I had no doubt, by the end of the book, that Martha was a Soviet spy. She exiles to Prague to avoid the House on UnAmerican Activities and never returns to the US. Martha Dodd's activities would make a great book! Maybe that's Larson's plan?

She clearly was identified as a spy in the text and notes. She was not the focus of the book.

Interesting thread. Am I the only one that finds Brendan's advertisements for his book very tasteless? Really Brendan, find another place to sell your book!

Ilene wrote: "Larson was busy getting it through the reader's heads that this woman was a promiscuous young slut!! I was very disappointed in this book. "For the triumph of evil, all it takes is for good men t..."

I was under the impression that was indeed Martha's game. But like Brendan said: "she was a piece of work" even in her old age. She struck me as one of those odd girls I went to school with, who are sexually attracted to the strange and different and are willing to sell out family and country to achieve that end. Her idealism and sexual promiscuity sickened me.

Robert wrote: "Ilene wrote: "Larson was busy getting it through the reader's heads that this woman was a promiscuous young slut!! I was very disappointed in this book. "For the triumph of evil, all it takes is ..."
What shocked me the most were the dismissive comments she made after seeing a woman dragged through the streets. Her brother and the guy she happened to be dating that night had to pull her away because she just wasn't bothered at all. Her promiscuity isn't as bad as her apathy and selfishness. She really is like a parady of one of those odd "mean girls" from middle school. Nobody can be all one thing though.

The mother hardly gets mentioned in the entire book.

I found that particular scene disturbing, as well. Not only was she apathetic and indifferent, her naïveté made her an easy target to be influenced and indoctrinated in anti-semitism and communism. She was not an individual that, in my opinion, that had many redeeming qualities.

Maybe she was just hiding her head in the sand.

I hope she never Googles herself and reads what I've written. I was thinking of her as a character in a book not a real person. She's elderly now. The author spoke to her so she must still be alive.

I read the book and thought it most illuminating about the years that Hitler was gaining power and what a hard position it was for the Ambassador. As for Martha, she was what she was. I do not think at the time she was a full blown spy. I do not think she was an important part of the book.

What was written of Martha Dodd in Larson's book portrayed a young, spoiled woman with little empathy towards fellow humans being treated in vicious, brutalizing ways by her German acquaintances. Yes it is a fact that she slept with many men, while still legally married to boot, at a time when such behavior in high society was frowned upon and unlike "more civilized" socialites she did little to be discrete about her amorous attachments. She compromised her father's diplomatic position but Mr. Dodd seems to be the kind of male who could deny nothing to his "perfect" child. Like many parents perhaps he saw his dreams realized instead of his actual offspring? Of course Ms. Dodd was a Russian spy, this is well documented historical fact however Larson's book was focused on a specific time period and centered rather on Mr. Dodd and the actions of the American Embassy in Germany rather than his daughter. The entire family was wrong for the posting and I truly believe (as Larson posits) that it was President Roosevelt's difficulty filling this post plus a case of mistaken identity with another man of more experience, higher social power and greater intelligence that led to Dodd receiving the post that should have never been his in the first place. Dodd carried a perpetual chip on his shoulder about his humble beginnings and since he himself was never taught "how to leave a drawing room gracefully" Dodd resented the hell out of his own foreign office so how could he possibly understand and play the game of diplomacy with psychotic men like Hitler? Dodd spent so much energy fighting petty office politics with other Americans and worrying about his personal economic status that his failure as a diplomat was even made more glaring since he was ineffectual in acting as a reliable, discerning conduit of information to Washington on German policies and domestic actions. Dodd was a short sighted, limited man and his daughter was a traitor destined for sexual and political ridicule.

Martha Dodd died in Prague in August 1990. Her house got robbed by the StB secret police who'd been guarding her all those years. They robbed the house and left her tied up on the floor. It was more than a day before she was found. That happened I believe in April. She never recovered is how I heard it. My friend Dora heard it from Dodd's driver, who was probably StB himself. I doubt the author ever talked to her. If he did it was a long time ago. Shareen Brysac did talk to her, as did Robert Dallek. The great cartoon animator Gene Deitch knew her for a year or two in the mid-1980s and talks about her in his book "For theLove of Prague" He thought she and her husband were two boring old people and let himself drift far away from them

Neighborhood bicycle turned spy, these thoughts and sentiments are fun to read but I really don't think she had the where with all to be very skilled. She strikes me more as a honeypot than anything else and when those things punch out past forty they lose their appeal.