No comments about Rob Roy Macgregor.

4 comments about Guerilla Days in Ireland.

1. For the third reviewer : you don't need to be English , Russian , German or American to understand and condemn nazi or stalinist atrocities ; similarly , you don't need to be an Irishman to realize Britain's unfair , oppressive and intolerant rule of Ireland , not yet finished by the way . There's ample historical evidence of all kinds of wrong doing by the British during their centuries-long illegal occupation of Ireland , denial of elementary basic rights to the Irish (catholics obviously)and the establishment of an unnatural separation of the North from the South that it is still unresolved .
   
   Like any other country in the world , Britain has had brilliant pages in history and also dark , shameful ones , with their handling of the Irish case probably being the worst - to day .
   
   As for the book , I'll only say this : don't miss the opportunity to learn how a small group of determined men (basically peasants)were led with brilliance to defeat a much bigger , stronger and modern army . Probably much to the dismay of some , still today .



2. The first problem with the two previous reviews is that they make no distinction between Loyalist (Protestant) and Republican (Catholic) Irishmen so claiming this book to be an account of "the unbelieavable atrocities the English purpetrated on the Irish people" or "The actions taken by armed mercenaries, English military, and English puppet police against the Irish people" or even "Anyone interested in understanding the mindset of Irishmen" is clearly wrong. This is the account of the Southern, Republican Irish on the events that took place and should not be accepted as Ireland's (as a whole) views as Protestant Northern Irish are loyal to Britain, not Ireland. Reading reviews on the books about the troubles it is striking how from people's locations and surnames they seem to have no link whatsoever to Ireland yet claim this book is the definitive account without any other evidence!!! Look into the situation for yourself. Who's asking for control of more land? That answer alone should tell you who the real aggressors are. The comment that this book "brings to mind Hitler's treatment of the Jews in Europe twenty years later" is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. You're telling me that about 10million people were exterminated!?!? To this day Irelands population isn't close on that so I STRONGLY suggest you check your obscenely inaccurate views before posting a review that incredibly 8/12 people found useful!!!???!!! It is truly disgusting how World War II gets banded about as an example whenever an injustice occurs, you are souring the memory of those who truly had probably the worst human injustice ever done to any human beings. British rule of Ireland vs. Hitler's Nazi Germany. Only a fool would try to compare them. The main aim of this review is purely for people to understand this is a Southern, Republican Irish view on British actions in Ireland (therefore not taking into account Loyalist Irish views) and I will leave it to you to decide whether this account MAY have bias.



3. The incredible career of Tom Barry and that of the West Cork Flying Column is an inspirational example of what virtually untrained volunteers fighting for their families and their country can achieve, even in the face of overwhelming odds. The British had over 12,500 men in West Cork chasing after about 310 IRA Volunteers...and never defeated them. Barry discusses many military topics and personal thoughts which the student of Irish warrior traditions will find extremely helpful. Members of many guerrilla movements around the world have read and profited from the lessons in this book including Che Guevera (whose last name was "Lynch" thanks to his Irish grandfather) and the early Jewish guerrillas in the Irgun and Lehi. Anyone interested in understanding the mindset of Irishmen bent on taking a stance and fighting for what they believe in, will be well rewarded for reading this book.



4. This on the scene writer grimly reveals the unbelieavable atrocities the English purpetrated on the Irish people in this century. This book is a beginning to the understanding of the relations between the English and the Irish. The actions taken by armed mercenaries, English military, and English puppet police against the Irish people in their own country is appalling and brings to mind Hitler's treatment of the Jews in Europe twenty years later. A must read for all who seek an understanding to the Anglo/Irish situation.

1 comments about Churchill: An Illustrated History (Readers Digest).

1. One of the better biographies of Churchill. Considerable in depth information and well chosen Chuchill quotes.

No comments about All Will Be Well.

3 comments about Five Empresses: Court Life in Eighteenth-Century Russia.

1. I had desire to read a book about strong women. I thought that choice of reading biography of five (5) tsarinas would be a good start.
   Book is well written with a chapter dedicated to each empress. I was disapointed to learn that most of them were petty women, more interested in gossip and trivial form of entertainment and that only Catherine the Great managed to add some intellectual component to her reign. But even that seems to fade compared to her sexual appetites for men in her court. I believe that I am still searching for a woman (tsarina or not) that I can find truly inspirational. None of these have done it for me yet.



2. I enjoyed this book for the most part. It delves into the lives of these 5 empresses and how they came to power. I didn't expect the book to get into too much detail about each empress since that would involve volumes. However, since the author pretty much followed the chronological path, I did expect it to remain that way until the end. What I found was that characters and events sometimes showed up more than once in the same context and other times, characters and events were mentioned way out of chronological order. I found myself having to flip back/forth many times to keep everything straight. If you want an overview of these 5 women and their contribution to Russian history, this is a good read. If you are looking for something more "meaty" - then this isn't the book for you.



3. My knowledge of Russian history is zip - a collection of names (eg, Catherine the Great, Peter the Great, the doomed Nicholas and Alexandra). Mr Anisimov has given me a thoroughly delightful history lesson of five empresses of 18th century Russia. His clever comments and personal way of writing made me look forward to each page turning.

4 comments about Royal Panoply: Brief Lives of the English Monarchs.

1. As a lay person, I found this book a fascinating glimpse into the lives of the British Monarchy. Most of my exposure to them has been through plays or movies, touching on a short vignette or period of time. Having recently seen "Henry V," I was interested in reading what happened to him after Agincourt. And "The Lion in the Winter" was a majestic play that left me wondering which of Elinor's sons would become king. This book is easy reading and a delicious look at the royalty.



2. "Royal Panoply" is an indispensible book for anyone wanting a good, well-written overview of the British monarchy. From William the Conquerer to Elizabeth II, author Carolly Erickson covers the good, the bad and the plain incompetent. It is all of English Royal history in one volume.
   
   Carolly Erickson began her career writing about the Tudors and the Stuarts, so it is not surprising that she is at her best when writing about those reigns. Her brief analysis of those characters who limned the golden age of the English renaissance are the best in the book. She is on less sure, and more gossipy, ground in the chapters on the more modern kings and queens of Great Britain.
   
   Erickson's later writing has suffered in comparison with her first efforts at historical biography, especially "The First Elizabeth" and "Great Harry." She has even condescended to write historical fiction, a "hidden" journal of Marie Antoinette.
   
   With this valuable volume in hand, the eager student of English history will find fascinating facts and tidbits on all of England's Majesties.



3. Dr. Carolly Erickson is a prolific author of historical fictin as well as excellent nonfiction works. Her area of expertise is in medieval and Renaissance literature. Nevertheless, she does a good job of survey all the English kings and queens from William the Conqeror in 1066 to the reign of Elizabeth II.
   Along the way the reader will read of countless murders, cabals, plagues, wars, adulteries and dynastic battles for power.
   There is nothing new here for the serious British historian;
   the book is written for a popular audience in need of getting
   the basics of British history in their heads. The book would be
   an excellent resource for courses in English history and literature. It is well illustrated and is a worthy addition to the library. It can be read from cover to cover or a particular
   monarch can be studied to coincide with the reader's interest.
   No matter how many biographies and history of England I have read this book is valuable because it:
   a. Refreshed my memory on key events that have become murky.
   b. Reminded me of how the fight for constitutional liberty in
   a democratic nation was a hard, bitter and complex struggle.
   Well done and worthy of your time and money!



4. Starting with William the Conqueror and finishing with Elizabeth II and including every English monarch in between, Carolyn Erickson provides an intriguing overview of the royals and their spouses in a chronological fascinating sweep. Each ruler receives somewhere in the range of seven to twelve pages regardless of historical importance or length on the throne. By going chronological, the reference is easy to read and follow, but repetition also occurs as death marks the end of an era (chapter) and the beginning of the next reign (next chapter). The epigraph that starts each royal provides an interesting perspective on that personage and is especially fascinating with the more famous as the audience sees a somewhat differing view than the textbooks or romance novels. Still the lack of analysis of overarching trends takes somewhat away from a fine look that will elate those who prefer their look at the English monarchy based on facts not tabloids.
   
   Harriet Klausner

1 comments about To Kill Rasputin: The Life & Death of Grigori Rasputin.

1. The scheming and charismatic Rasputin has tantalized historians for 90 years, and there are many books attempting to give all the answers about his influence on the last Russian Tsar and claiming to solve the mysteries of his assassination. This book is the latest, and though Andrew Cook doesn't find any real surprises, he does debunk many stereotypes and tall tales with a high degree of believability. For instance, legends have it that Rasputin was so evil that he was nearly impossible to kill, as he wouldn't drop after being poisoned and shot and stabbed and bludgeoned and kicked and beaten and impaled and cornholed before finally being entombed in an icy watery grave. Cook examines the forensic evidence (and supplies the reader with plenty of gruesome autopsy photos to boot) and finds that while Rasputin was a healthy tough guy, he wasn't really so indestructible. For instance, the prissy Russian noblemen who plotted the assassination purchased their poison several weeks in advance so it lost its potency, while as gunmen they couldn't hit the side of a barn.
   
   So Cook ably dismantles those stereotypes, and while his research doesn't really lead to any blockbusters that would surprise the knowledgeable reader, he does find some strong evidence that British agents were in on the plot - wishing to rub out Rasputin because he was giving the Tsar war advice that could damage England's prospects. The interested reader should be willing to believe Cook's conclusions here because he has looked at all the evidence objectively. Just note that the reading experience doesn't get too far beyond a dry investigative report, and anyone looking for robust historical background will probably be disappointed. The bizarre true history of the last Russian Tsar is better found elsewhere, as are insights into the intriguing treachery of Rasputin himself. Alas, in this book he's not much more than a rugged corpse. [~doomsdayer520~]

5 comments about Beria.

1. Amy Knight's biography of Beria deserves a place in the pantheon of post-Soviet analysis of the Soviet Union. Knight is a serious scholar and doesn't suffer from the excesses seen in other works about the Soviet Union written in the last ten year. Unfortunately, this serious approach also has a limiting factor in discussing somebody so thoroughly reviled like Beria. Unlike Stalin, who even Knight admits still maintained his followers even after he was denounced in Khrushchev's 1956 speech, Beria became a complete non-person. As a result, one has the impression there is very little actual 'original' source information left by and regarding him. Knight says that Beria kept very few papers, but one has the impression that even if he had they would have disappeared in 1953 as quickly as their author did.
   Knight does a good job in showing Beria's rise from simple roots in Georgia to almost the top of Soviet politics. Beria is portrayed as the ultimate opportunist, ruthlessly undercutting everybody in his path to further his ambition. In the process, Beria built up his own 'personality cult' and network of cronies to do his bidding. Indeed, Beria is portrayed as being the ultimate Stalinist politician, a born survivor with an ambition to reach the top (unlike other people, such as Molotov, who were content just to survive). In the end, its Beria's ambition and his own arrogance that prove to be his undoing. According to Knight, Beria was taken down by an amateurish coup by Khrushchev, who Beria consistently underestimated.
   The greatest weakness of this book is its own serious nature. So little actually unbiased or original information is left that a lot of the early parts of the book are pure history with very little analysis or new information. Beria supposedly was a vicious pedophile, a serial rapist of young women, but very little mention is given of that or other sins. Knight does give some examples from witnesses of Beria's cruelty, but not enough to really give a feel for the man. Reading this book, I never felt like I had a real appreciation of who this man was. Beria was supposed to be a monster, as brutal as Ezhov and Yagoda but much more intelligent. With a few exceptions, Knight gives the reader very few glimpses of this brutality.
   The big irony of the book, and its greatest strength, is the coverage Knight gives to Beria's 100 days in power after Stalin's death. This man, so reviled for unrestrained brutality, shown to be a complete opportunist with Stalin, spent his last days in a quest to completely reform and overhaul the Soviet system. As with everything, Beria's personal arrogance and inability to restrain himself in his reforms proved to be his undoing. After some bungled liberalization in East Germany that resulted in riots and Soviet military intervention, Beria was 'removed' in a coup instigated by Khrushchev. The book's real impact is in these final chapters. Much detail is given to the wholesale reforms instigated by Beria; taken in context of a speech Beria gave the previous year criticizing Russian chauvinism (at the expense of minorities) one can really see the enigma of the situation: Beria, so reviled for his brutality, in the end is a reformer... a man, despite all his flaws, who is before his time. Knight does a good job of showing how Khrushchev, despite his recent rehabilitation, was as compromised as everybody else, and how Beria, has been reviled without a second thought by history. Knight's biography makes you wonder how accurate this view is.



2. I could not put this volume down. The most incredible discovery I made after reading this book was that it was the bloody monster Beria--of all the Stalin's henchmen in Kremlin-- who tried to De-Stalinize the Soviet system after Stalin's death. Khruschev's unforgetable reaction to that was an attempt to put brakes on this process. Eventually, he succeded in presenting himself as the man "who opened window to the West". Speaking about the truth in history...
   This book deserves a much more popularuty due to its many unique qualities. Kudos to the author with such a wonderful name.



3. Laventrii Beria by far outshines Joseph Djugashvili Stalin by far. As Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels was to Adolf Hitler, Beria is to Stalin, perhaps he went one better than the Nazi Minister of Propaganda? The closest person to Beria's stature today is Richard Perle, the man in the White House who influences George Walker Bush ("Junior"), 43rd U.S. President (2000-2004), like he did former president George Walker Bush ("Senior'), 41st U.S. President. Like Stalin's and Hitler's regimes, the Bush regime bears a striking similiarity to the other two totalitarian regimes, perhaps Perle is more sinister than Beria and Goebbles?



4. Having just read this, the only book-length biography of Lavrentii Beria, Stalin's most powerful henchman, I wondered if I would have survived in Beria's world. Office politics in the Stalinist USSR was not just about bitching by the water cooler and trying to suck up to the boss (although such elements were also present, writ large). Even surviving in such an environment required degrees of political acumen and sheer nastiness that very few people need to demonstrate in our herbivorous times. Even as an apparatchik reached his goal of near-absolute power (say, Yagoda, Ezhov or Zhdanov) he would find himself subtly undermined. Even as someone was appointed to the Central Committee he would find that key associates carefully placed across the state and party apparatus were being removed to the coziness of the Lubianka or Kolyma.

   In this world, which was described quite well by Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, in a chapter titled "Why the Worst Get on Top", Beria was almost bound to rise (although, for political reasons, Hayek was describing Nazi Germany rather than the USSR). He was a Mingrelian, a minority ethnic group in Georgia, and, like Stalin, he was brought up by his mother after his father's early death. He rose rapidly through the ranks of the political police and eventually managed to become Georgian and then Transcaucasian party boss (he even killed a few competitors in the way). Ezhov's "Great Terror" of 1936-1937 paved the way for a takeover by Beria, who consolidated his position during the war and then by heading the nuclear weapons project. A brilliant manager, who was able to get on well with those he worked with (but who had no compunction about delivering them to their deaths if it served his purposes) he always delivered. Unlike Stalin, he was not interested in praises (although he organised his own personality cult for practical reasons) and was reasonable enough to tell the difference between real enemies and loyal followers. Women were his weakness. Ms Knight, a serious historian, does not indulge her readers with lurid stories about girls picked up in Moscow streets and then killed in the basement of Beria's town house, but she does mention that Beria was treated for siphilis during the War. As Stalin aged, be became more and more deranged and eventually wanted to be rid of Beria and his Mingrelians. Unlike other historians, such as Edvard Radzinsky, the author does not speculate about Beria's possible role in Stalin's demise in March 1953, although she concludes that only this saved Beria from the destiny of many of his predecessors. While Beria's energetic attempts at de-Stalinisation were already known (Beria's lieutenant Pavel Sudoplatov had already mentioned them in his book "Special Operations"), Ms Knight elaborates on how wide-ranging they would have been had Beria succeeded in consolidating his grip on power. Indeed, it is quite possible that glasnost might have come more than 30 years before Gorbachov came to power, and that it would have been implemented from a position of strength rather than one of weakness (in 1953 the Soviet Union was at the top of its power, having succeeded in launching a Hydrogen bomb and having established control over North Korea). German re-unification might have happened in the 1950s rather than the early 1990s, and would have been much less costly and disruptive. On the other hand, it's also possible that Beria might have backtracked after attaining his goal, which was only power for himself. As Ms Knight shows, Beria, like most Soviet politicians had only very slight concern about policies, reserving most of his time and effort for power politics. His downfall was swift, and to be frank, required significant courage from Kruschev and Malenkov. Kruschev comes out of this book (like he did in Volkogonov's Stalin) as a devious henchman who was no less guilty than Beria, but far less able.

   It is interesting to see that the downfall of Soviet leaders in the period 1948-1990 was associated with failures to control events in their zones of influence. Beria's downfall started with the breakup of Soviet-Yugoslav relations in 1948 and concluded in 1953, due to demonstrations in Eastern Germany. Kruschev's downfall came in 1964, after he badly miscalculated the risk in transporting nuclear warheads to Cuba. Gorbachov's fall was associated with failure over Germany in 1989. As it was, Kruschov's de-Stalinisation was probably much less comprehensive than Beria's would have been. A nice complement to Ms Knight's book is Sergo Beria's recently published "Beria My Father". One last comment: Ms Knight's book is not for the casual reader. Even for someone who has read Conquest, Pipes, Volkogonov, Radzinsky, Bullock and Ulan it is sometimes difficult to keep straight all the unfamiliar names and party organisations, especially in Transcaucasia. The book would have gained from a few charts illustrating who worked when and where with Ezhov, Beria, Kruschev, Zhdanov or Malenkov. A "power map", with Stalin on top and the various top leaders and their key protegees would also have been useful. If you haven't read much Soviet history you should probably stay clear of this book, as it probably is not the most suitable one for a novice.

   Stalin once famously introduced Beria to some Americans as "Our Himmler" (Ms Knight has ommitted this anecdote, and I wonder whether that was because she didn't believe it really happened). If one compares Ms Knight's Beria with, for example, Peter Padfield's Himmler (although his book is clearly much less scholarly than Ms Knight's) one can see that Beria was much more realistic and efficient than Himmler. The correct comparison is between Beria and Heydrich. Had the Third Reich truly been a totalitarian state, Himmler would have gone the way of Yagoda and Heydrich would have been Hitler's Beria. With Goering liquidated during the purges that would have followed, the entire foreign service culled for unreliable elements such as Ambassador Schulenburg and the Wermacht rid of likely conspirators such as Claus von Stauffenberg, it is possible that the War might have ended otherwise. But that's a different subject.




5. My only reservation that this book is almost as much about Georgia as about Beria. It portrays the monster of the Soviet police state who loyally did Stalin's bidding and acquired such ferocious reputation that, when Stalin died, the new leader Khruscheve thought it necessary to kill Beria to protect his own power. Well-research, this book is a valuable addition any library on Soviet politics or history.

No comments about John Hawkwood: An English Mercenary in Fourteenth-Century Italy.

No comments about Conversations with Gorbachev: On Perestroika, the Prague Spring, and the Crossroads of Socialism.