5 comments about Bound by Honor: A Mafioso's Story.

1. This is a sort of watered down story of a mafiosa. The author does not disclose or detail some of the slimy backhanded sneaky criminal things that he surely committed an the book borders on a made for LIFETIME movie vibe.



2. This is a well written, interesting read. If you are looking for the typical "mafia" book full of violence and the stereotypical, almost mythical, portrayal of mob leaders, this book is probably not for you. This book provides one man's insight (a man who writes from an insider perspective) into many important events in our recent history, including the JFK assassination.
   
   One of the other reviewers mentioned that a true "man of honor" is one "who goes to work everyday" and that Bonanno was not a man of honor. In response to that I would only say that there are many lawful jobs that are not honorable. Is it honorable to work for a big corporation that exploits men and women for cheap labor? The second point is that the Italians (along with other immigrants) suffered discrimination when they arrived to the U.S. and had to provide sustenance for their families in any way they could. Furthermore, they certainly did not have a monopoly on organized crime as other immigrant groups were also forced into that lifestyle in order to survive economically.
   
   Overall, I would say this is a very interesting read and is one of the more well written books on the subject of the mafia in general and the Bonanno family in particular.
   
   It would be naive to assume that Bonanno does not present events in a light that is favorable to his family, but everyone engages in this sort of thing. Moreover, anti-mafia books have also engaged in this sort of hyperbole, presenting mobsters as demons who are not even human and enjoy violence for its own sake. I'm sure the truth lies somewhere in the middle. One thing is certain, the mafia cannot be understood outside of the historical and cultural context that spawned it.



3. I'll keep it simple. The Bonnanos are the worst liars I've ever seen. Bill and Joe are trying to rewrite history, and it's getting pretty pathetic.



4. I have read nearly every book written about the Mafia, both good and bad. Let me say this: Bill Bonanno's book goes beyond bad. It's absolutely awful.
   
   The title itself, "Bound by Honor", is soaked in irony. Where is the honor in breaking the law, going to prison, living a lifestyle that includes trampling on the rights and lifestyles of other people?
   
   My own father truly was a Man of Honor. He got up everyday and went to work and made an honest living. He may not have gotten rich, but he never served a day in prison or lied to save his own skin. But Bonanno has done both. Where is the honor in that?
   
   As I read one of the book's passages about a gunfight that Bonnano was in, it struck me that his vision of that shootout was rooted more in stupidity than in danger.
   
   While Mafia books do interest me, the lifestyle itself disgusts me and makes me glad that I live a clean life.
   
   My biggest regret concerning Bonanno's book is that I spent money on it- even if it was on sale. It was a waste of money written by a blowhard who wasted a college education and probably put a good wife through hell. Some Man of Honor, that Bill Bonanno.
   
   So the bottom line is this: don't waste your money. His story isn't worth reading, he isn't worth respecting, and there isn't one scintilla of honor to be found in the activities of his family.



5. The book as such is an easy read and has some amusing stories, it is, however, filled with appearent contradictions and self promoting spins on most of the events.
   The writer is clearly unable to put is own life into perspective and believes he has done no wrong........but that the government is at fault for hunting down organised crime, mostly himself and his father (who is depicted as the role model mobster).
   The book is worth reading if the subject itself is of interest to you. For most readers it will become clear that the writer is a complete and total loser.

5 comments about Combat Swimmer: Memoir of a Navy Seal.

1. At first this was a bit of a tough one to get into. Gromly's style of writing is a matter of fact recitation of what he remembered happening. Although this is great from a factual standpoint for memoirs and history, this doesn't make for much of an engrossing read. In fact I was a little bored and wasn't caring about Gormly's account as a SEAL at all, just waiting to be done. But Gormly's memoir slowly grew on me and I am now a huge fan.
   
   One of the reasons I couldn't become as involved is because we don't see too much of how Gormly got into UDT and then the SEALs. He tells us briefly of some of what the training and testing he went through for UDT, but nothing to really show what the process was like, such as Haney's Delta experience in Inside Delta Force, or Marcinko and Pfarrer's accounts of their testing and training for SEALs (Rogue Warrior and Warrior Soul, respectively). In fact, there was absolutely none of the famously tough strength and endurance testing that the SEALs had to go through as Gormly was given a pass on the training and allowed straight in because of his UDT training.
   
   From there Gormly went straight into his Vietnam tours, which, arguably, he performed quite well. But again, his matter of fact way of telling a story (such as something like, we waded in and setup an ambush. We waited around a few hours and when nothing happened we called it a day and went back to base) didn't lend well. We never really quite got the feel for the excitement and rush that would invariably be there when moving into enemy territory to hunt something that could kill you just the same. Where this is a slight drawback to a potentially great story about his experience in Vietnam, it soon became his saving grace as you began to realize that Gormly is not embellishing his story to make for a better read and sell more books. He is stating it as it is and giving a true insight into the daily life of a SEAL in combat. We see more of this when Gormly was the CO of SEAL Team during Urgent Fury (Grenada).
   
   As a side note it is interesting seeing the two sides of a story between Marcinko and Gormly. Marcinko really disliked Gormly, and it wasn't until Gormly discovered Marcinko's political machinations against Gormly did he begin to realize that an old SEAL acquaintance from Vietnam and before was closer to an enemy than a friend. I tend to lend a lot more credit to Gormly's account because he did tell the story as it was, with no embellishing, whereas Marcinko's account was a rip roaring read that was probably embellished quite a bit, although certainly based on truth. Of course Marcinko going to prison doesn't help his story much, so Gormly's account of what really happened rings quite a bit closer to the truth.
   
   All in all I was very happy to have stuck through the slower beginning and come through with a much more balanced and enriching account of Navy SEAL commanding officer. We learn quite a bit about the formation of SEALs after its inception and to what it is today. I wish we would have seen more on the operational missions that the SEALs went through, really only seeing Vietnam and Agent Fury as the major action of the book, but the story is still nonetheless an informative read and one that any SEAL or military forces enthusiasts should considering reading. The only reason this isn't a 5 star is because it is a slow read. A would recommend.
   
   4 stars.



2. The author receives command orders for Seal Team 6 after Marcinko is convicted for corruption. Gormly has to fix, but not neuter Marcinko's Seal Team 6 brain child and even go to combat with the team. Gormly is honest and straight-forward and does not pull punches-- he tells it like it is from Marcinko's recklessness to taking over a unit that was built on balls-to-the-wall audacity. He has to walk (and run) a straight and narrow line and tells that story very well. Excellent book and well written.



3. I've never served in the military, but I have great respect for those who follow that kind of life. I also have great interest in history, military strategy and tactics, and behavior in combat situations. I therefore checked out the following special-forces-related books from the library: Rogue Warrior, by Marcinko, Combat Swimmer, by Gormly, and Inside Delta Force, by Haney.
   
   Marcinko's book is a classic testosterone-driven, adolescent Hollywood adventure story. I mean that in a (mostly) good way. The author's focus is on himself, on his grand escapades, and his ability to destroy his enemies, whether at war or in the chain of command. It makes for a fun read, although I never knew how much Marcinko might be inflating his exploits.
   
   Gormly is in many ways the anti-Marcinko. Of course they knew each other, and Gormly goes into some detail about inheriting Marcinko's SEAL team and getting the house back in order. But more than that, Marcinko represents the unihibited ego, breaking all the rules and doing whatever he wants. Gormly is all about responsibility and chain of command. Don't get me wrong; he's not at all boring, but definitely comes off as a stiffer sort of character. I'd rather work for Gormly (more job security; less likely to get killed unexpectedly) but I'd rather have a beer with Marcinko (though too much of that, and you probably increase your chances of getting killed unexpectedly).
   
   Haney strikes somewhat of a balance. He's more individualistic than Gormly, but more disciplined than Marcinko. He's also the best writer of the three, with a good mix of gritty reality and genuine philosophical reflection. That's probably why I liked his book the best. Marcinko's book is a fun ride, like a blockbuster action movie, but in the end didn't leave me with much to think about. After reading Gormly's book, I admired the man a great deal but didn't particularly like him. Haney provides all the adventure but he's clearly more of a thinker than the other two, and I can imagine a long, fascinating evening's conversation over a bottle of scotch.
   
   I suspect that you would find all three types of individuals (and many more) in the military, and you probably need all of them to get the job done. All three memoirs are highly entertaining and quick reads. Which you prefer probably depends to some extent on your own personality.



4. <>
   
   How do you know that Seal is the best? What the hell you mean by universally recognized? And beleive me you're not the first person who assumes that navy seal to be the best special operation force. Do you know that 80% of Seals never see combat in their career? The real thing doesn't look anything close like people's perception.
   
   Let's just say that I've been an infantriman for a little while and I'll admit that BUD training is very hard, but from a PURE PHYSICAL ASPECT, Spetsnaz is probably the hardest and the training can last up to five years. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, I've worked with Seals and Special Forces, and trust me, the Rambo aura people have about them is just what it is - an aura. They're highly trained individuals that can undertake very dificult missions that conventional force can't, but they're no supermen.
   
   The British has among the finest and most elite special operations forces in the World, the SAS and SBS. They set the standard for special operations. And don't even start with the Israelis. When it come to low intensity warfare, their troops and special forces are more combat experience dthan anybody in the World.
   
   Within the U.S armed Forces, the most elite special operations goup, Delta Force, is based on the SAS model. Delta has the lowest qualification rate than anybody in the U.S Armed Forces and Delta recruits from all branches of the military, including other special operations.
   
   I think that one of the reasons that people think that navy seal is the best is because of good PR. I mean navy seal is the most popular of all the U.S special operations. More movies and documentaries have been made about navy seal than any other group. When was the last time anybody has seen a documentary about Delta Force Training. Part of your statement is right though. There's really a mystic about Navy Seal, but that doesn't make them the best. Hell, no combat group has been more mystified and romanticied than the French Foreign Legion. It's really a great fighting force, but that doesn't make them the best.
   
   I don't want to take away anything from the frogmen, but people has to stop that better than anybody view they have of the Seal. They're exceptional soldiers with exceptional skills but the world doesn't revolve around them. They excel and fail just like everybody else.
   
   P.S: By the way, this was a great book. I truly enjoy it.



5. Bob Gormly wrote a great book on his 30 year experiences as a Navy SEAL. He recounts how he passed the most gruelling toughest training in the world to be a SEAL. His 2 tours of duty in Vietnam are filled with pulse pounding action. He then led the most elite of SEAL's, SEAL team 6, into combat in Grenada. I really liked his discussion of Richard Marcinko the convicted felon who founded six and left it's reputation tarnished. This is a great book for those interested in SEALs or Special Operations Forces. Thanks Bob for this great memoir.

No comments about The Great Comeback: How Abraham Lincoln Beat the Odds to Win the 1860 Republican Nomination.

5 comments about Martin Heidegger: Between Good and Evil.

1. Writing about philosophers is a rather difficult task in most cases. The author has to be able to separate the philosophy from the man without making too many conjectures as to how the man shaped the philosophy or how the philosophy shaped the man. It's rather understandable the different opinions on him. He was a rabid National Socialist, hough he saw the errors of this ideology with time, he alienated many of his close friends for petty reasons, and showed blatant infidelity towards his wife.
   
   His writing had a tendency to be obtuse, but this book is anytihng but. His philosophy is well covered, and there are some instances of a tongue -in-cheek amusement at his play on words. Like every philosopher, the philosophy changed with him, and there were times he was writing almost incoherently. It seemed he was in love with his own words as opposed to being at certain points, or perhaps couldn't come up with a logical structure to explain what he felt. Regardless, his influence is without question, and with time he always recomposed himself to the core of his teaching, to be-in-the-world, and to be open to one's own Dasein.
   
   An excellent biography that is a good introduction to his core teachings.



2. Rüdiger Safranskis biography on Heidegger combines a profound understanding of Heidegger's philosophy with a wealth of anecdotes and perceptive analysis of Heidegger the man and his relationships. In particular, Heidegger's affiliation with National Socialism is well covered.
   
   Overall, the book is very impressive and well worth time and effort. As I am quite familiar with the young Heidegger via Theodor Kisiel's "The Genesis of heidegger's Being & Time" and the work of Scandinavian philosophers on the subject, my only regret is that Safranski didn't write more about the "thinking" of the late Heidegger.



3. I have read four chapters of this book, the ones on Anti-Semitism, Heidegger and Hannah Arendt, and the concluding chapter. The book is clearly written and the philosophical exposition outstanding.
   I was interested more in the whole question of Heidegger's Anti- Semitism, and his relationship with Hannah Arendt- in part because I just finished Elisabeth Young- Bruehl's excellent biography of Arendt.
   My sense of it all is that Heidegger was not at all a Socrates willing to take the hemlock for a higher ideal. His relations to his great mentor , the Jewish Husserl are shabby to say the least. He did not stand for him in any way, removed the original dedication to Husserl of 'Time and Being' from later editions of the work. He did not go out of his way to save Jewish friends.
   And in fact he became a Nazi ideologue at a certain point.
   His 'rehabilitation' in the eyes of the world owes a lot to Jaspers and Arendt. She especially showed a lifelong devotion to him. His failure to recognize the quality of her own work, the power of her mind in anything but understanding him shows a certain obtuseness, and inhumaneness.
   It is always disturbing to deal with a creator who may well have done great work when that creator's personal life is not commendable. It is all the more so when the creator is one like Wagner , truly evil.
   Heidegger obviously does not fit 'the evil category'. He may not be exactly midway between good and evil, but he was not the worst of the worst.
   I myself cannot read his Philosophy simply because I would feel very guilty in doing so. The thought of all the innocent dead murdered by the Nazis by a regime he served, cannot let me do this.



4. There are a lot of reasons why I was interested in picking this book up: my mentor at Georgetown, Wilfrid Desan, stressed how important it was to know the life of a philosopher, even the likes of Quine, because philosophy is ever and always about one's life. In the case of Heidegger, the mysteries of this man, the profound impact of his work on the course of 20th century thinking, the controversies of his politics all left me wondering how to get a grip on this man.
   This book is not for beginners. I've spent my undergraduate and graduate years studying Heidegger. Like a moth to the flame, and it consumed me in every regard. His books have totally spun me inside out, shook me to my soul, sent me off into Asian thought. If ever there was a Dasein thrown, yers trewly is it. How to begin to come to terms with this writer?
   Safranski does an absolutely brilliant job at delineating the strands of thinking leading up to the advent of phenomenology. But, as I say, this isn't for the novice or the casual reader. This is disciplined, committed writing in service of Thinking itself. There are no two ways about it, Heidegger erupted into the Twentieth Century. There seemed to be a sense among his teachers that this was an extraordinary thinker. As he gains the acceptance and posts of influence in German university life, he gains his confidence and from the point of BEING AND TIME onward, nothing, absolutely nothing will ever be the same.
   This book documents the transitions remarkably and with great clarity.
   Of course, one of the things that troubled me the most in my undergraduate days was the prospect of Heidegger's anti-Semitism and his political allegance to the Nazis in the early days of their rise to power, all the while entering into a passionate romance with Hannah Arendt. The book does not hide or apologize for Heidegger. But it seems clear that it is not real clear just how anti-Semitic he was. He quite directly states to Arendt that he finds his Jewish students annoying, and he somewhat buys into the supremecy of the German state espoused by the 1920's and early 30's Nazis. And he very definitely benefits from their appointments. Yet, he witholds. His wife does not. She is clearly and vehemently disgusted by Jewish people. I'm sure that her husband's affair with Arendt only added fuel to that fire. Yet Heidegger does not seem to buy the whole program. On the other hand, he does little or nothing to help Arendt get out of Germany, and nothing at all to save Edith Stein, his colleague from their days with Husserl, who had become a Catholic nun, was murdered at Auchwitz and has since been canonized. Nor is he willing to give a full and clear account of himself in the trials after the war. I am as puzzled now as I have always been. Was this incredible thinker also so filled with narrow mindedness that he could watch a people get exterminated because some of his students were annoying him?
   And as his thought began to walk more Buddhist paths, how did he resolve this great beginning of thinkng with the conflicts in his life? Those questions are not answered. Still in all, this book is a remarkable achievement. I could go on about so many other aspects, but I'll leave it at this: this is a book about a man's beginning, about being thrown fully consciously into the ground of thinking, and it uncovers what he found in the clearing with great insight.



5. The epigram at the front of this brisk and efficient biography of Heidegger opens with an epigram from Arendt, 'The gale that blows through Heidegger...is not of our century...'. This is true, and evocative of the mysteries of philosophic history and origins, and yet the observation poignantly reveals the mystique that swept through the culture of the times and brought too many to a fool's ruin, among them students of Heidegger. One reviews the question ad infinitum reluctant to pass judgement on a philosophic genius, and yet the facts of the history show just this, a long grace period, viz. the postwar French devotion to this philosophy, now followed by a renewed offensive at the harsh reality of the facts of the case, and the difficulty of separating any longer the philosopher in politics from his philosophy. Hellishness beckons.
   This biography is very dry, neat, but includes the assessement of the case in the light of the work of Ott and Farias. Much was clear even before the rectorship speech, the influence of Junger, Spengler, then one gets unlucky, if one is mesmerized.
   How can one judge? Is there a choice? One looks at the wreckage in a hurricane and moves on.

1 comments about Potemkin: Catherine the Great's Imperial Partner.

1. Frequently historians have chosen to focus on the more on the love affairs of Catherine the Great rather than on what she actually did to achieve greatness. After all of the things that Catherine is famous for are also things that won the Empresses Anna and Elizabeth notorious reputations. Catherine was great because she was a great ruler, not because she came to power with the aid of an army of lovers. She was also very good at talent spotting and the empire ran as well as it did because she could place members of the nobility in positions of influence.
   
   One of the greatest of Catherine's assistants was Prince Potemkin. Simon Sebag Montefiore has broken new ground here and has exploded old myths. Potemkin emerges as the most capable of Catherine's subordinates, but also as her consort. Whereas previous books had dwelt on the eccentric qualities of Potemkin, this book demonstrates rather convincingly that he was in fact Catherine's consort. It appears that after a prolongued period Potemkin can be recognized for being something more that a battleship.

5 comments about Daniel Morgan: Revolutionary Rifleman (Institute of Early American History).

1. A great read. Could have been titled The Wagon Master. It was the efforts of troops led by people like Morgan that held off the British long enough for Greene to 'succeed' and for the French fleet to arrive.



2. Higginbotham does a credible job of revealing Morgan's personality, character and genius as a military leader, particularly since there is little if anything known about Morgan before he appears in Winschester VA at the age of 18. The book reads fairly easily and describes the elements of the Revolution's Southern Campaign in which Morgan participated, but Higganbotham seems to have a penchant for defending Horatio Gates in a positive light I have not seen before. He seems to gloss over most of Gates's personality flaws and military errors to render him more effective than he probably was. This treatment of Gates raises the issue that face many biographers; i.e. they take a liking (or disliking)to a character and sometimes use literary license to make their points. This is the first biography I've read on Daniel Morgan, who is portrayed as a classic American hero, rising from nowhere to have a major impact on history. My interpretation of Higginbotham's characterization has me believing that without Morgan the Revolution may have been lost because Morgan's victory at the Cowpens effectively set the stage for Nathaneal Greene to later drive Cornwallis from South Carolina to Yorktown where Washington and the French conducted the final battle of the war. Stuff I love to read and talk about: unheralded heroes and certainly Morgan appears to be one of the most important in America's fight for freedom. But I have to wonder whether Higginbotham has skewed the facts about Morgan as he seemed to do with Gates. I hope not.



3. One can hardly pick up a book that has anything to do with the Revolutionary War without reading something ranging from a tidbit to several chapters on General Daniel Morgan. The significance Morgan played in the war for American independence cannot be overstated. And yet, only two biographies have been published on this heroic figure that played such an integral part in American history. This book DANIEL MORGAN: REVOLUTIONARY RIFLEMAN, by Don Higginbotham, being one of them.
   
   It borders on travesty that General Morgan is a virtual unknown in American society and certainly unknown among anyone lacking basic knowledge of American history. Higginbotham accurately portrays Morgan as a man among men; a portrait of the rugged individualism that characterized so many of our founding generation.
   
   Morgan, perhaps as much as Washington himself, I believe, had as much to do with winning the war for independence as any single individual. Many might disagree with that statement, but consider the outcome if Cornwallis' southern campaign had been successful. Consider the consequences if the southern revolutionary army had been annihilated. It is more than likely that there would have been a different outcome at Yorktown had it not been for the commanding leadership and battle tactics of the "Old Wagoner". It can certainly be argued that Morgan's actions at Cowpens, where he soundly gave Tarleton's light infantry a `Devil of a Whoopin', turned the tide in the south. And though he missed action at Guilford Courthouse due to illness, his same battle tactics were employed with success.
   
   This is not one of the best books you will ever read, but considering the lack of choices on Morgan, this is a must read for knowledge on the General's life and accomplishments. Perhaps in the near future, one of today's acclaimed historians will render an updated version, but until then, put Higginbotham's book on your reading list. The book is brief, but concise, and will lend a candid look at a somewhat forgotten, and often overlooked American hero.
   
   Monty Rainey
   [...]



4. A terrific telling of one of America's first heroes. Dan Morgan and his kind are the ones who helped birth America. Higginbotham's writing is slightly dry, but the content more than makes up for it.
   
   A simply outstanding story!



5. Dan Morgan epitomizes the rough-and-ready individualist who made America.

   A frontiersman from the Shennandoah Valley, Morgan knew a hard early life that steeled him for the physical challenges of his Revolutionary War service. A wagoneer in Gen. Braddock's Expedition, Morgan endured 400 lashes after tangling with a British soldier (he claimed only 399 and loved to regale listeners with the fact that he still owed the British one miscounted lash).

   His physical endurance and prowess was combined with the ability to lead men and a superior ability to plan and manage battlefield tactics. He has been described as one of the Revolution's best battlefield commanders and this book gives plenty of examples to support that claim.

   Morgan's service to our Republic was remarkable. Although a failure, his part in the Quebec expedition helped make possible one of the most grueling campaigns military history. Traveling overland through the spine of backwoods Maine, Morgan helped lead outnumbered American forces to a wintry showdown that could have produced a fourteenth colony in revolt against the Crown. In fact, Morgan stood at the moment of victory; had his desire to keep driving into the city after breaching its under-defended backside been followed, the city could have been captured. As it was, hesitancy on the part of other American commanders led to defeat and Morgan's capture. He had to endure a period of imprisonment until paroled.

   That parole was a costly one for the British. It allowed Morgan, when exchanged, to play his decisive roles at Saratoga and Cowpens.

   Morgan's ability to lead riflemen and read the battlefield was crucial to Gate's success at Saratoga (which led to French recognition, support and the resources to chance complete independence). Morgan's later brilliance at Cowpens, site of the famed double envelopment of Tarleton's British Legion, led to the series of events that ended with Cornwallis being pinned against the James at Yorktown. Cowpens, arguably the most decisive American victory of the war, was brilliant. Morgan, as the American commander, threaded strategic understanding, leadership (he had to persuade bayonetless American militia that they had a crucial role to fulfill in the battle and would be allowed to retire once fulfilling it), battlefield planning and tactical control to produce a victory that is rightly studied to this day.

   A character, Morgan is one of the men who made the Revolution a success. This highly readable account develops the man, his character and his military personae in introducing the modern reader to a historic figure who needs to be more widely appreciated for his great effect on the success of our founding.

5 comments about Queen Victoria's Little Wars.

1. This is simply a terrific book for those who wish an overview of British military involvements in the 19th Century without having to sort through the literally thousands of works which have been written about them. It is not, and was plainly not intended to be, an exhaustive history of the subject, but rather a terse and readily digestible summary, made vital and appealing by Farwell's engaged and engaging writing style. As is true of his several other, and equally well-crafted, books, the author tells this story through the lives and exploits of the principal military leaders involved, from the brilliant but ultimately frustrated (and, he thought, betrayed) Garnet Wolseley, to that Hapless Hero, Evelyn Wood, who appears not to have been able to eat dinner without stabbing himself with his fork. They're all here, leading the finest soldiers in the world at the time, through a seemingly endless thicket of minor and major conflicts, many the product of hasty and defective thinking by their political masters, but nonetheless invariably costly in blood and treasure. Every time I read one of Farwell's books, I picture him as having picked up his pen (he died in 2000) thinking, "I'll write what I find interesting, and see if readers agree." We do.



2. This book, says the back cover quote from the Library Journal, "will be of value and interest to both the student of military history and of the Victorian Empire," but on the first page of the Foreword, Farwell writes, "Scant attention is paid [here] to the causes of the wars or the political manoeuverings which preceded the hostilities. They are not of much importance." Such matters are, however, of great importance to anyone wanting insight into "the Victorian Empire." And, as others have pointed out, this book is far too short to do justice to the military history, so unless a reader is looking for little more than a "light read," this book disappoints on all scores.



3. This extremely well-written book tells the reader, in somewhat condensed form, about the various wars, excursions, etc., that happened during the long reign of Queen Victoria. I don't think that it's completely comprehensive, because to even say a little about each event would mean this book would be three or four times its length. The author hits the "highlights" (if you will), and the reader who is interested in further in-depth resarch can do it on his or her own. There are a plethora of books about the various actions of Imperial Britain during the 19th century, but this one short book gives the reader guidance for them. It's a book that contains much savagery, but there is a touch of humor also, which relieves the almost constant tension. There are also thumbnail biographies of the most important personages of the times, which are quite helpful. This is an excellent short book on the apex of the British Empire.



4. Magnificent job,describes the various military expeditions, little wars, rebellions, mutinies(well only one was the only big threat to the Queen Victoria Empire, the Indian Mutiny)and all the small affairs to repel a proboked attack, to save or to protect resident Britons, to avenge an insult or to stop any other Empire from extending it.

   A lively and compelling study of the Savage wars of peace and the eccentric personalities who fought them,from 1837 to 1901 continuos warfare to protect British Interest in Asia, Canada, Africa, Arabia, this is not a complete work but is one of the best, Mr. Farwell gave us a fascinating overview highly readable with many entertaining historical anecdotes of British colonial wars and bloody confrontations, well written.

   I know that there are other works that name all the battles or small campaigns(like the work of Philip J. Haythornthwaite "The Colonial Wars Source Book")but a fascinating and exciting story that was omitted was the Fashoda Incident,this was going to be one of the greatest collision of rival imperial ambitions, the French with their historic claims of the Nile try to take control of a small town call Fashoda and this was a big threat to the British control of the Suez Canal and Egypt so after the famous battle of Omdurman Kitchener was send to stop the young Colonel Marchand, at the end the Fashoda crisis was eventually resolved, the British gave the French a free hand on Morrocco and the French forget about Egypt.

   Even with out this the author made an exciting book and a valuable addition to military history, maps and pictures,well laid out, nice appendix, one on the British Regiment system essential to understand the British Military Mind and the other a easy to follow list of the Little wars from 1837 to 1901 this is a partial record of the conflicts for the "PAX BRITANNICA"




5. Queen Victoria fought more wars in her time then any queen in english history. Under Victoria the british government was involved in countless wars in the colonies across the world. This was the era of the great british empire, that the sun never set on. THis book details these wars from the war against the SIhks to the wars in Sudan and the Boer war and many more. Churchill wrote anumber of books on this period as well including his book the 'River war'. Unfortuantly this read tries to compact all these fascinating events into a single volume, but the text is horribly boring and tedious. Its a great resource and one of the only books of its kind(that focus on the entire period and detail every small skirmish and battle). It should be updated by a writer who will help you live history rather then a writer who writes like sheep, like a plodding lawnmower.

5 comments about J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and the Secrets.

1. Fifteen years in the making, "J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and the Secrets" is a long, intricate, dense, but ultimately rewarding read. There are occasional minor lapses like misspellings, date typos, Congressmen misidentified as Senators, etc., as well as names dropping in and out of the narrative which require frequent use of the index to refresh one's memory, but it's all to be expected in a work of such amazing depth and scope. I first read this book shortly after its original publication in 1991, and have found myself frequently referring back to it ever since - it's what I consider a great "gateway book," as its exhaustive bibliography covers virtually all facets of American history and political life over most of the past century. And its lessons remain relevant even today, particularly in light of the Bush Administration dusting off Nixon's infamous Huston Plan in the aftermath of 9/11 and very nearly setting off a palace revolt within the Justice Department as a result. The story of Hoover's final years is all the more compelling now given the more recent revelation of former FBI Deputy Associate Director W. Mark Felt as Bob Woodward's famous Watergate source, "Deep Throat." Felt's current state of both physical and mental frailty, as documented in Woodward's "The Secret Man," means that Gentry's work may well be the clearest available view of what led one of the Bureau's highest officials to guide a young reporter through the opening acts of a story that would bring down the President. And Gentry ably captures the atmosphere of Washington at a time when the famed FBI Director could still cast a long shadow over events that transpired both outside his Bureau and after his death.
   
   "J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and the Secrets" is the story of a consummate functionary and master of bureaucratic survival, whose reputation was destroyed by his own prejudices and paranoia in much the same fashion as the last President he "served". It's a cautionary tale about the perils of investing too much power in government, and the personal toll upon the wielders of that power and those who would aspire to it. It's a story of how praiseworthy accomplishments in Hoover's early career were ultimately overshadowed by his petty vindictiveness, which bordered on the childish, and his pathological aversion to sharing the limelight. It's a story of how these character flaws ended up costing lives, including several FBI agents like Melvin Purvis, whose successes in cracking high-profile cases did more for the glory-hungry Director's reputation than for their own advancement. It's a story about the limitations of power, and how one of the most respected (and feared) government agencies either completely missed or failed to stop changes in society at large, whether by expending vast resources on a nonexistent communist threat while ignoring the growing power and reach of organized crime, or unsuccessfully attempting to sabotage the Civil Rights movement. It's a story of hypocrisy and self-delusion, not only of Hoover but of politicians like McCarthy, Johnson, Nixon, and others who tried to use Hoover's secrets for their own ends. And finally, it's the story of literally decades of activities that made a mockery of the Bureau's widely-proclaimed founding principles of Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity.
   
   Curt Gentry does a commendable job of maintaining scholarly detachment while recounting details, whether gory or erotic, from the famous cases and (mostly illegal) surveillances that formed the basis of Hoover's power. Drawing from these, plus White House tapes from two different administrations and extensive source interviews, Gentry paints a warts-and-all portrait not only of Hoover, but of many other famous people (heroic and otherwise). There's the origin of the urban legend concerning Dillinger's anatomy. There's President Truman earning Hoover's eternal ire by correcting him on a matter of Scripture. There are snide remarks galore - from FDR about Eleanor, Bobby Kennedy about Associate FBI Director Clyde Tolson, Nixon and Haldeman about Hoover, and the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s locker-room joke about Jackie. There's JFK's penchant for amphetamines, and convincing evidence that this was one thing Kennedy and Hoover had in common. Gentry recounts Hoover's pique at being victimized by the Bureau's own tactics when reporters like Jack Anderson dared to circumvent the FBI propaganda machine with dumpster diving and "black bag jobs" of their own. Watergate cognoscenti will appreciate Attorney General John Mitchell's off-the-cuff reference to "programming Liddy," as well as Mitchell's unforgettable wife Martha, who sang Hoover's praises with "...if you've seen one FBI Director you've seen them all," followed by, "John tells me he's never worked for a nicer fellow." And Gentry manages to address, without sensationalizing, the persistent rumors of a homosexual relationship between Hoover and Tolson; a perfectly fair subject given Hoover's penchant for sexual slander and Tolson's spectacular ascent through the hidebound bureaucracy that Hoover himself designed.
   
   The book begins and ends with the events surrounding Hoover's death in the Spring of 1972, some six weeks prior to the Watergate break-in. The first telling presents the passing of the nation's most famous unelected public servant in its more "official" version; the second is colored by the sordid history behind a carefully-engineered facade that had already begun to crumble. Included are Nixon's recollections of his own failed attempts to fire Hoover - military history buffs familiar with Guderian's memoir, "Panzer Leader," will recognize a familiar pattern to the conversations. For J. Edgar Hoover, like both Hitler and Stalin, was a master of political and media manipulation who ultimately failed to live up to his own image, and it's no small irony that a man lodged within the bureaucracy of a supposedly free society could outlast both dictators by a substantial margin. But no matter what one thinks of the Director's tenure and legacy, Curt Gentry has succeeded admirably in providing a thorough, and possibly even definitive, examination of a significant figure in American history.



2. i decided to read about hoover after the debate began on the patriot act and its impingement of our civil rights. Was it really a change from yesteryear? how bad were the intrusions? after reading the amazon reviews, i selected this book over others.
   
   it is a well detailed history of j edgar hoover and his over 50 years as head of the fbi. the book is well documented with footnotes, source notes, and bibliography. the biography is told fairly objectively. i was glad to see the author didn't spend hardly any time on the cross dressing/homosexuality rumors that run rampant. it is not to say they are not correct, only that they are unproven. that means the author stuck to the facts he had, not the salacious history it could be. for that i appreciate the integrity of the historical perspective that the author portrays. i feel i have the true story on what he presents, and that is what i look for in a political biogrphy.
   
   with all that said, this book is an eye opener. the power that this man held was unbelievable. the lives, both innocent and guilty, that he destroyed innumerable. the tactics disgusting and terrifying. Simply put it could have been almost anyone.
   
   does it change the debate? i don't think so. even with his scum tactics, he did not prevent dr martin luther king from changing the world. the question still stands. should we be prepared to give up some of our civil rights to assist in the pursuit of those who threaten us? will there be abuse? of course. but that doesn't make the interests of the whole less than the interests of the few. the problem with hoover was the duration of his control. had presidents had the will to risk their careers and fire what they knew to be a problem, it would not have become systemic as it did.
   
   very good book of a dark side of our history.



3. In the context of recent concerns about spying on Americans by the Executive Branch of government, it is timely to re-read this classic biography. Gentry skips sensationalism and scandal, but his carefully detailed portrait shows a nasty, bigotted old man who happily chiselled his employer.
   
   So how did Hoover remain in power for half a century? Simply put, he had a file on everyone. And he wasn't afraid of using his minions to imply the threat of blackmail.
   
   There's little evidence of active homosexuality by Hoover, indeed labelling someone a "fag" seems to have been his biggest threat. However, here we have a many who lived with his mother until his mid-40's, whose "Associate Director" was his daily companion whose adult sexuality at best could be called retarded.
   
   Gentry's indictment of Hoover does not avoid his few good qualities -- he was a hard worker and an efficient administrator. The notes and footnotes are extensive, but do not interfere with a page-turning narrative for those who want to go quickly. In sum, it amounts to a crashing indictment of a man whose name does not deserve to be on a government building.



4. A fascinating and comprehensive look at a complex, powerful, and manipulative man. Gentry brings to life the power that Hoover held, power bestowed on him by virtue of the secrets he held in the massive volumes of FBI files he collected over his 48 year tenure.
   
   Hoover's far reach and influence are stunning. Most people probably have a cursory idea of Hoover's god-like legacy, but Gentry brings out the jaw dropping, scandalous details in vivid candor. Hoover had leverage over his superiors - the president and the attorney general - as well as his subordinates, Congress, Hollywood, local police jurisdictions, and civil rights leaders. His sway only increased with every year his held his office.
   
   Gentry's account is exhaustively researched and probably the most extensive and authoritative history of Hoover in existence. He delves into the paradox that Hoover was, a rigid, aggravating, unlikeable, and deeply vindictive man to many, yet to a few close associates, he was engaging and affable, if not warm, and to him they were 100% loyal.
   
   Hoover was no doubt a product of his time. For the calculating personality he possessed, who could ask for better career advancement opportunities than to serve in a time of the depression, bootleggers, gansters, the mafia, the Communist red scare, and the Kennedy assasinations successively. All during Hoover's time at the FBI, there was a valid argument to be made that he was simply indispensible. The desire of many in government to end his tenure was thwarted time after time, almost to a comical degree. Hoover was saved by the skin of his teeth more than once by fortuitous turns of events.
   
   Beyond just Hoover, this book explores the dark side of politics in general. The horse trading, the double dealing, the secret deals, the blacklisting, blackmailing, break-ins, cover-ups, set-ups, take-downs, paybacks, payoffs, and the vindictiveness. It's ugly, ugly work. Most would have no idea their own government operates in such a shameful, despicable manner.
   
   Gentry writes in an engaging narrative style that's easy to read and compelling. The book is well paced and very cohesive despite covering a wide time period and a diverse range of incidents. The book is lengthy and comprehensive. It does not skimp on details. I'm hard pressed to imagine a more thorough account.
   
   I highly recommend this book for anyone who is interested in this period of contemporary American history or the fascinating personality that was J. Edgar Hoover.



5. I didn't read the book. I was looking for a serious biography of Hoover, after seeing Oliver Stone's primitive representation of a dark perverted homosexual in "Nixon". I thought : "well, it's 2006, this should be a serious object for research now". Looks like I'm wrong. The cover quotes Newsweek: "Eleanor Roosevelt was right. Hoover's FBI was American's Gestapo." Well, this is appalling. I know that Eleanor was a Gestapo specialist, as I know Newsweek is a well-documented contemporary history magazine. I mean, those are the ones you should trust when you look for information either on Gestapo, or Hoover. It means the FBI/Hoover deported Jews and tortured thousands of people, doesn't it ? Do I get the information right ? I just don't get it: either there's no serious american historians of the 20th american history main characters ; or there is a liberal new order of things on such publications. Maybe there's another possibility, just tell me what's wrong here. Please.

No comments about Grant's Lieutenants: From Chattanooga to Appomattox (Modern War Studies).

No comments about Francisco de Miranda: A Transatlantic Life in the Age of Revolution.