No comments about Le Second Empire et une nouvelle restauration: Tome 1.

No comments about The Diary and Correspondence of Charles Abbot, Lord Colchester; Speaker of the House of Commons 1802-1817: Volume 2.

No comments about Disraeli.

No comments about Henry Viii/the Politics of Tyranny.

No comments about The Letters of Benjamin Disraeli to His Sister 1832 to 1852.

5 comments about Diana: In Pursuit of Love.

1. This book talks alot about Diana's pursuit of love and emotional difficulties. She was a very young women when Prince Charles began courting her and she lived what all women her age would believe a fairy tale existance. She was the lucky one who got her prince or so she thought. But along with the Prince came Camilla. Charles took her youth and dignity and anyone in her position would be struggling with the same emotional problems that afflicted Diana. I think the Charles has finally gotten his precious Camilla and on that journey has made a joke of the monarchy. I feel the next King of England should be Prince William, son of Diana.



2. This was not the worst book I've ever read, but it certainly was not the best. I felt the author digressed too much throughout the first two-thirds of the book -- which made me lose interest at times. Plus, there really wasn't anything new in this part of the book that hasn't already been published. I felt the author was merely stating facts from other books and tabloids. I also felt he used this book to promote other books he wrote. He kept bragging on and on about all his other books. But when Paul Burrell's book was brought up, well, he wrote about it in a negative manner. Not only did I find that unprofessional, but I read his book and felt it was much better than this book. Anyhow, the last third of this book was much better. The digressing ended and the topics became interesting. No more bashing. No more self-promoting. Instead, facts and theories into Princess Diana's final days were quite interesting. If it wasn't for this part of the book, I would have said I wasted my time. Lastly, the best part of the book was the epilogue. It was emotionally touching.



3. This book has all the old stuff everyone already knew. Morton must be lacking of money that's why he is trying to make some out of the poor princess. Please do not waste your money on this book. Please do not waste your time and money



4. I own and have read practically every book ever written about Princess Diana, including all of Andrew Morton's books about her. This one was well-researched and written, and he obviously cares a great deal about his subject matter. However, I feel that he strays from the title the overall intent of this book: Diana in Pursuit of LOVE. He re-hashes many old details, and therefore much of this book's content is superfluous and simply makes it TOO LONG WINDED. I knew all of those old details! It took me forever and a day to get through it, which is not usually the case. My other complaint is Morton's obviously personal vendetta towards Paul Burrell. I happened to love Burrell's book "A Royal Duty" and do completely believe his account on life with the princess. Morton obviously has a personal bone to pick with Burrell, yet Morton was the only one who chose to use his book to air their problems publicly. Otherwise, I'm glad that Morton is keeping Diana "alive" by writing about her; I just hope that his future novels, if any, are shorter and stick to the main subject.



5. Once again Andrew Morton provides readers with a highly personal look at a very human princess. From her temperamental faults to her unfulfilled hunger for affection, he gives a frank and accurate portrait of the world's most admired - and missed - woman. The world is a poorer place without Diana, and may she rest in peace. The fact that Diana herself never knew how very much she WAS loved is yet another tragedy of her untimely death

2 comments about Cromwell in Ireland.

1. invading imperialists and Iraq Ireland?



2. Professor Wheeler's book is an excellent military and political history of the tumultuous and devastating decade in Irish history of the Cromwellian conquest. This Irish disaster unfolds slowly, but seems a foregone conclusion almost from the start, given the deep political divisions between Gaelic Irish, Old (Catholic) English, and Royalist Protestants that prevented the development of an effective anti-Cromwellian coalition. Furthermore, the generally brave, but notoriously undisciplined Irish levies were no match for Cromwell's New Model Army. (Although when well-led, the Irish were capable of giving Oliver a bloody nose, as at Clonmel, perhaps Cromwell's weakest display of generalship.) The only major criticism of this volume is it lacks somewhat in the flashes of color and character that give pleasure to posterity.

   Wheeler documents the surprising brutality of both sides. Any reader seeking the ancient roots of the deep sectarian hatred in Ulster today would find this volume a good starting point.

   It occurs to this contemporary reader that the furies and fanaticism of the era, and the figures of Oliver Cromwell, Ireton, and Ludlow, with their inhumanity, bigotry, violence, and barbarity, are eerily and unpleasantly familiar. For what is Osama bin Laden but Cromwell with a Kalashnikov, what are the Taliban but Roundheads with rocket launchers?

No comments about Affectionately, Wallace: The life and work of W.W. Gilchrist.

No comments about Mary Anne Disraeli or the Story of Viscountess Beaconsfield.

4 comments about Churchill and Hitler: In Victory and Defeat.

1. When I first saw this book I got excited. I thought what a great concept writing a biography of both of these extremely influential leaders in the same book. It would give the reader an amazing perspective to see how these leaders came about, and what influenced them and led them to be the men they ended up as. I thought that both men would be a study in contrast that would give readers a greater insight into these men and their times. Instead what I found was a lop sided work that was nothing but a study in the author's own biases.
   
   We all know the history of these two men, and so I don't expect a history of Hitler to cast him in a positive light, but what I do expect is some historical perspective and even-handedness by the author. The author from the very beginning suggests that he is somewhat of a fan of Churchill and as such the book may have a slight bent towards Churchill. I thought that would be fine, and I thought it showed great integrity in the author that he was willing to admit this. I also thought since the author himself was aware of his bias that would mean he was aware during his writing, and would thus have worked against his own feelings to give readers a more balanced account. No such luck though, as I found out this work is about as lopsided a book as I have ever come across. Churchill is portrayed as a great hero from the beginning, while the writing on Hitler oozes vitriol from the very beginnings.
   
   The history writer must do their best to set aside personal feelings to attempt to truly capture the objective truth. History must be allowed to speak for itself because when authors let their biases seep in then history becomes subjective, and when history becomes subjective it can also become dangerous. It is a very difficult thing to accomplish (especially with these two figures). Unfortunately this author didn't even give it a try, and this book suffers terribly for it. My disappointment is certainly compounded by my initial excitement.



2. As I read the author's account of Superman Churchill, passing lightly over Churchillean stumbles such as putting Britain on the gold standard, Gallipoli, holding badly needed troops in northern Norway, etc., I realized I was reading hagiography and not history. The abhorrence of unpleasant stuff extends to Hitler. It's hard to believe that anyone could write a book about the dictator and never even mention the Holocaust, but Strawson did, without explanation or apology. I'm surprised he didn't omit World War II.



3. I am a Churchill admirer and was anxiously to read Strawson's book. I was a bit disappointed once I finished it. I had hoped for a detailed description - by a military man - of the war and Churchill's and Hitler's role leading their nations. Strawson spends almost half of the book "setting up" the war. This may be a good tack for those who might not know much about the background of the two protaganists. But, if you do know anything about Churchill's and Hitler's youth and rise this is needless filler. Also, Strawson seems to draw quite extensively from Isiah Berlin's "Churchill in 1940" and Allan Bullock's "Hitler" as sources. Having read both I am a little disconcerted that Berlin's work (a short but brilliant monograph) figures so prominently. And although Bullock's work is also well done, there are other superb Hitler biographies - like Joachim Fest's. I am additionally disappointed that Strawson's editors did not put full citations in the work - as foot or endnotes. Overall, this book didn't give me all I wanted. But, it is an admirable effort by an aging general who wants to leave his mark on modern military history.



4. this book does a fairly good job in paralleling the lives of hitler and churchill.the authors objectivity,however is clouded by his unbridled admiration for churchill.i was a bit disappointed in this because in order to get the full flavor of a person a balance of negatives and positives must be met.yet i admire the authors military acuman.he tells a good one of the north african campaign how the british rolled up the italian army,capturing no less than 10 divisions only to be repelled by rommels panzer forces.one of the best parts of the book to me was when the author did a comparison of leadership and temperaments between rommel and montgomery.he did a good job in explaining the might of the german army,and how it was developed in the 1930's.indeed one is left with the impression that german leaders like rommel and guderian were among the most innovative of the war.the author illustrates how hitler though a master of stragedy and creating bold concepts,gave in to his megalomania,and eventually lead the wehrmact to disaster.stalingrad is a case in point.overall i enjoyed the book, particularly the battle of britain, and despite the possibility of imminent invasion,churchill was eager to get the british back on the offensive.this book makes clear how important the meditterean was to the british empire.for history buffs this book may be a revisit of old territory.yet for students of military history this book is worth a read because he describes several of the campaigns so well,like the allied landing in anzio, and how general lucas waffled;blowing the allies chance of walking into rome with little german resistance.still this book disappointed me in one respect.the author fails to explain how hitler became the monster who caused the death of millions.there is little description of his childhood.