5 comments about Prince Henry the Navigator.

1. Prince Henry 'the Navigator' provides the reader an intricately detailed account of the life of this crusader, geographical visionary, and aggressive entrepreneur. Seeking an end around the Saharan caravan trade, Henry pushed maritime exploration down Africa's Atlantic coast into a region shrouded in myth and mystery. Ostensibly claiming a crusader's fervor for the conversion of the barbarous, Henry initiated the Afro-Atlantic slave trade, charted Africa's western shoreline, commercially developed the Azores, battled desperately for control of the Canaries, and, as time and events allowed, launched invasions of Morocco with varying degrees of success.

   Henry thrust medieval Europe into the Atlantic providing the impetus for empires to come. Like any mortal, he was imprisoned by the consciousness of his times, yet unfettered in his drive to explore the unknown. Both flawed and famous, P.E. Russell's Prince Henry is placed firmly within the chronological context. He can be detested for his commerce in flesh, his cynical exploitation of faith, and his innate impulse to conquer, but he would then be measured not by the standards of his day, but of our own. In settling this score, Russell admirably adheres to objectivity.

   Despite spotty source material, P.E. Russell has presented a comprehensive, entirely readable account of Henry the Navigator. This is a solid and satisfying book which easily merits a rating of 4 stars.




2. Mr. Russell's book is superb in many ways: the prose is very elegant, even to a French speaking reader, the author's erudition is impressive and any amateur historian will find here a fascinating introduction to a side of European history which he or she is most unlikely to have been familiar with prior to acquiring Mr. Russell's book. That "the navigator" hardly ever set foot on a ship of any kind, I must confess I didn't know! His cupidity, pettiness in certain ways and magnanimity in other are very intriguing. The context is beautifully described. In other words, here is a splendid book by a very gifted historian. One word of caution, though: this is not an easy read! Don't take Mr. Russell's book to the beach after a stressful few months at the office. It takes a relaxed and attentive mind to really enjoy the book. I read it whilst in a yoga camp on a carrot juice fast. Both were perfect!



3. In 1385, when Henry the Navigator was born, Europe was a Eurasian backwater--fragmented and poor, inferior to China in marine technology, and far behind the Islamic world in geographic scope and cultural achievement. Two centuries afterward, Europeans dominated the world. Henry was one of the individuals at the root of this turnaround.

   As Peter Russell's biography is at pains to point out, Henry himself had no such grandiose vision. As a younger son of King John I of Portugal, he helped lead an attack on the Moroccan port of Ceuta in 1415, and was given responsibility for governing and supplying the enclave afterward. In the course of this work he seems to have devloped an appreciation for the special capabilities of Portuguese sailing caravels, and to have seen how they might be used to promote Portuguese expansion overseas.

   Beginning in the 1420's, Henry sent out a series of state sponsored voyages of exploration and commerce. As Russell relates, his motives were not always clear and were sometimes contradictory. At various times his captains sought uninhabited land to colonize, pagans to convert and enslave, allies to fight against Islamic North Africa, and new markets in which to trade. At times Henry seemed to relish fighting for its own sake, since the medieval culture in which he had been steeped required worthy enemies against whom to perform chivalric deeds of valor.

   In the 1430's Henry's captains began charting the coast of Africa south of Morocco, which had previously been unknown to Europeans. By his death in 1460 they had reached as far as Sierra Leone and had established profitable trading relationships with many of the kingdoms of West Africa--with slaves, sadly, as one of the principal commodities. After Henry's death the project continued until Portuguese ships had rounded Africa and reached India and the Far East. Henry took time off from these endeavors to sponsor further (unsuccessful) attacks against Morocco and to intrigue against his fellow Christians in Castile and Aragon.

   Russell, however, emphasizes Henry's medieval mindset so much that he almost misses what was unique about Henry's life and work. No other ruler of his time thought to direct state resources to maritime expansion. No other prince required his captains to keep such careful charts and records so that discovery might be cumulative. No one else, a century before Columbus, saw the potential for improved sailing ships to revolutionize commerce and warfare.

   Nevertheless, for all its flaws, this is a ground-breaking and carefully researched biography, marked by judicious evaluation of source material. One only wishes that Russell had not been so anxious to debunk his subject as to make him seem like just another medieval grandee, rather than the remarkable innovator which he was.




4. A fascinating book for history buffs and professionals, although maybe hard going for the general reader. It's wrong to criticize an author for not writing a different book, and this is a biography rather than a history of maritime technology but I felt shortchanged in the scientific history department. Why were the Portuguese able to make these voyages at this particular time? He mentions the caravels as better able to sail close to the wind than were purely square-rigged ships but does not say when and where they were developed or what the evidence is that this was a major development. Did anyone in Portugal possess any kind of sextant? Did the King really have "a court astrologer" ? Did Henry have access to the Majorcan maps? I'd like to have known more about these, and how they were circulated.
   Sir Peter's main message is debunking. He wants to show that Henry was a narrow-minded incompetent, literally Quixotic, medieval bigot and not a scientifically curious Renaissance man. He holds no punches about his involvement in the slave trade.
   Without endorsing post-mortem psychanalysis it seems strange that the author so resolutely withholds comment on Henry's celibacy and relationship with his adopted heir, while freely speculating about his motives in other areas.
   I was puzzled about the fate of Henry's brother Don Pedro. Regent of Portugal. The table at the front shows that he was killed in 1449, and on page 357 of my paperback edition we are told that Henry contributed to his death, but no details are given. Did I miss something?



5. Don Henrique, younger son of Portugese royalty, represents the cusp between the medieval and the Renaissance; the 14th and 15th centuries. As Russell's life of Henry shows us, he was a passionate crusader whose stupefyingly backward prejudices fueled a succession of costly wars against the Arab world (and won only one prize: the Moroccan port of Ceutes, still technically part of Europe). He founded his own religious order and lived a wholly ascetic life. Yet he was also an extremely risk-happy entrepreneur, funding exploration to the Azores, Madiera and the African coast as far as Guinea. Henry is not to be glorified, and in fact Russell's portrait is quite damning; he was a stubborn, greedy, violent man responsible for killing and enslaving countles Africans. But he was a force of history, and can be argued to have pioneered Spanish and Portugese expansion, even if, as Russell shows us, he may not have been fully conscious of this.

5 comments about Michael Collins: The Man Who Made Ireland.

1. Excellent book, very well written in the usual "Coogan" way, that is, skilfull, fluent and full of nice anecdotes. Gives an insightful portrait of one of Ireland's greatest men and my personal favourite. Eireann go brach!



2. An informative humanizing biography that provides a good picture of revolutionary Ireland. More photogrpahs would have made for 5 stars.



3. I recommend this book to anyone who wants an intense indepth study of Collins and Ireland of his time. This is easy to read and full of interesting information about the man and those around him. Collins was a genius who shaped the fate of modern Ireland and did so with an acute sense of how far he wcould go to achieve what he wanted.
   
   It really makes me wonder how much better off Ireland would have been if he had not best lost so early in his life.



4. This is an extarodinary book about an extraordinary man. It is well wriiten, it is exciting and easy to read. It gives a wonderful insight into the life and times of Ireland during this remarkable time



5. Although the pages and the sophisticated writing style might intimidate one, if you stick to it and read the book to the end, you will NOT regret it. It was my first book in Irish History and I have learned so much from reading it. This book is amazing beyond words. If you buy it, you won't reget it.

No comments about Bernard Shaw: The One-Volume Definitive Edition.

5 comments about In Command of History: Churchill Fighting and Writing the Second World War.

1. Much has been said and written about Churchill, and not least by the man himself. That, Churchills writing of his own history and legacy, is the subject of David Reynolds book "In Command of History". It is an expertly written story that we don't get to hear that often. How Churchills selective memory made him a greater leader and prophet in his memoirs than he'd been in reality, how money was very important in his decision about how and when to write his memoirs, and how Churchill so expertly merged political ambition with writing history.
   
   Reynolds goes into tiny detail in this volume, which gives his conclusions more authenticity and 'weight', but also tends to make it a tiny bit slow or sluggish. Maybe a couple of generalisations would've been preferable here and there.
   
   Also this level of detail really only comes to its full right if the reader already has a good basic understanding of the second world war and has read Churhills six volume memoirs.If the reader is familiar with these two things, then I my opinion, this volume is not only of great interest, it is essential.
   
   I give it 5 stars because it really is a new layer to be added to the Churchillian myth and the second world war and anyone interested in these subjects will find it most delightful. It dosen't serve as a stand alone work on Churchill and/or the war, but then again, a monograph of Churchills war memoirs cannot be taken out its rightful context and understood on its own.



2. John P. Bernat writes the following amazingly ignorant statement: "The first theme is that some complex financial machinations were done in order for Churchill to avoid payment of 90%+ in income taxes on the book's royalties. It's funny to read this; the ultra-patriotic Churchill puts Al Lay to shame with his capitalistic self-interest."
   
   How about human self-interest? The creativity by which Churchill was able to reduce (not avoid) such punitive taxation is one of the fascinating parts of this superb work of history by David Reynolds. Why would anyone in his right mind labor for thousands of hours only to have the government confiscate all but less than 10% of the value of his labor? If Churchill had wanted to avoid all tax he could have done what many wealthy Britons did (particularly some famous artists and entertainers) and leave Britain for a more tax-friendly environment; Churchill was more than willing to pay "his fair share" of taxes, but not that ridiculous rate. Indeed, Churchill quite understandably said he would not have written these invaluable volumes if all he would receive was "one shilling per pound." Mr. Bernat needs to read "Atlas Shrugged" or "The Fountainhead."
   
   (Or perhaps he should read a critical history of Britain during the post-war period, when the taxation and nationalization policies of Labor precluded the economic recovery that occurred in other countries--until Margaret Thatcher turned the country around and made it the economic powerhouse it is today. Indeed, even the Labor Party in Britain today has largely adopted Thatcher's free-market, moderate tax policies.)



3. This is a brilliant book! It is extremely well researched and written and tells a powerful and interesting story.
   
   "In Command of History" is the history of a series of books - Winston Churchill's monumental and authoritative "The Second World War", his six-volume narrative of Great Britain in World War II. "In Command of History" is also many other things, including a book about World War II, the Cold War,and Churchill himself.
   
   Perhaps the underlying theme of this book is that histories and memoirs written by politicians are not to be totally trusted for their aim is not historical accuracy, but rather to enhance the own political and military reputations and to vindicate their leadership.
   
   Author David Reynolds writes about Churchill with an honesty and insight that is refreshing, covering every aspect of the British leader and his work. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this book was the ability of Churchill to use classified documents that would not be available to historians for many years to come. Equally interesting are the many documents that were available but not used because they would have cast the author in an unfavorable light.
   
   Certainly one of the most contentious issues that Reynold addresses is Churchill's resistance to Operation Overlord, the Allied Cross Channel invasion of the France. After the war the British leader expended a great deal of energy to show that he supported the invasion, but Reynolds research reveals this is not totally true. Also of interest to this reader was Churchill's decision to plan for an attack on Soviet Russia in 1945, "Operation Unthinkable."
   
   As might be expected "The Second World War" highlights Churchill and Great Britain's many important contributions to the Allied victory in Europe.
   
   Despite Churchill's many shortcomings, Reynolds makes it clear the British leader remains one of the greatest political figures of World War II and history. "In death, as in life," writes the author, "Winston Churchill continues to glow. He remains in command of history."



4. Winston Churchill liked to say that history would be kind to him, as he intended to write it. In Command of History tells the story of how he did this. David Reynolds, a Cambridge professor, has made a close examination of how Churchill wrote The Second World War. In doing so, he shows how Churchill used the books to place his own war-time actions in the best possible light and to further his future political agenda. Reynolds has thus produced a fascinating story of Churchill the writer, Churchill the politician and Churchill the statesman. It is an absorbing account that illuminates an undiscovered corner of the Great Man's career.
   
   Reynolds shows that Churchill tried, and largely succeeded, in framing how history would view World War II. Indeed, by calling his history "The Second World War," he confirmed the name we would give to the conflict (recall that what we now know as "World War I" was originally called "The Great War.") Churchill "wrote" his account mostly while he was the leader of the Conservative opposition in the post-war Labor government of Clement Atlee. Churchill structured his six volume work, written between 1946 and 1954, and released in seriatim, to emphasize the elements of the conflict that he deemed most significant and in which he played the central role. Thus, Volume 1, "The Gathering Storm," was written to drive home the lesson of the failure of appeasement. "The Finest Hour" emphasizes the bravery of the British people at their darkest hour, when they turned to Churchill as Prime Minister in May 1940. By contrast, there is astonishing little about what in retrospect was the main field of combat: The Eastern Front, pitting Russia against Germany.
   
   Reynolds shows that Churchill also had a distinct agenda:
   
   * He painted himself as the chief opponent of appeasement. Reynolds notes, however, that Churchill was hard on Hitler's Germany but softer on Mussolini's Italy (Anthony Eden saw through Mussolini and resigned from Chamberlain's Cabinet because of appeasement towards Italy, not Germany.)
   
   * In Britain's "Finest Hour," he sought to perpetuate the myth of a British government united against any peace with Hitler. He deliberate falsified his account of Cabinet meetings in which Foreign Minister Lord Halifax sought to open negotiations with Hitler, the story of which has only emerged over time (most notably in John Lukacs' Five Days in London: May 1940.)
   
   * He emphasized Britain's close cooperation with America, in part because when he was writing Britain needed America's financial and military support after the war. In doing so, he underplayed friction within the military high command, especially between Gen. Eisenhower and Field Marshall Montgomery. He blunted his opposition to Operation Overlord, the Normandy invasion, by selective editing of published documents and misleading innuendo. He feared bloodshed on the order of World War I and only reluctantly faced up to the need for a cross-channel invasion.
   
   * He tried to appear far-sighted in his fears of a Soviet-dominated post-war Europe. Certainly he was better than Roosevelt in this regard, but he was willing to do deals with Stalin where he could, as when he and Stalin divided up Eastern Europe on a scrap of paper in October 1944.
   
   * He emphasized the importance of the war time conferences, such as Cairo and Tehran, because he liked "Big Man Diplomacy" (what we now call summitry). During the Cold War, he believed that he could reach a rapprochement with the Russians in part by the force of his personality.
   
   Reynolds shows how Churchill shaped his history to make it serve both his historical and political purposes. His historical purposes were to magnify his role in events (not hard to do,) and to look omniscient on strategic issues (a much more difficult task) while furthering his political purposes (to return to power in Britain and retain his influence with America.) He won the cooperation of the British government doing this (a central role being played by the Cabinet Secretary, Norman Brook,) as gradually the government saw Churchill's memoirs become Britain's "official history" of WWII.
   
   Did Churchill, at advanced age and as leader of the Conservative Party or Prime Minister, actually write the book? Churchill was, after all, a professional writer. He had written a monumental history of World War I (Arthur Balfour is said to have remarked, "Winston has written a great book about himself and called it The World Crisis.") Churchill had his war-time memos and letters bound monthly. These provided the "backbone" of his history. Churchill employed a team of writer/editors, including academics and former military officers, to put these into shape, research ancillary topics, and in many cases to write first drafts of chapters. The "Syndicate" was enormously productive, accomplishing this task faster than any single writer could hope to do it. (Reynolds notes that Eden had no such assistance and that his memoirs, appearing years later, were a mere historical footnote.) Still, Churchill gave the book his close editing attention and wrote crucial sections on his war time meetings with Roosevelt, Stalin and DeGaulle. One of the Syndicate was later asked about authorship of the series. He replied that a master chef is not expected to chop the lettuce. Churchill won the Nobel Prize for Literature; he was disappointed, he wanted the Nobel Prize for Peace.
   
   Did Churchill get it right?
   
   Revisionists (e.g., Charmley) argue that Churchill sold out Britain to the U.S. and that Britain should have arrested its decline through a negotiated peace with Germany. Can one really take this argument seriously? Hitler was a monster and any negotiated peace with him would have been a monstrosity. I believe Churchill's history lesson against appeasement has stood the test of time. No effort has been successful, in my view, to restore the tattered reputations of the Prime Ministers who preceded him, Baldwin and Chamberlain. No sensible historian has ever explained how a negotiated peace with Hitler would have been in Britain's, let alone Western Civilization's, interests.
   
   Churchill succeeded in making the Mediterranean a major theatre of operations and in trying to use Italy as a springboard to operations in the Balkans and Eastern Europe. Certainly his efforts in this direction are problematic. General Marshall was right in insisting on a direct cross-channel invasion at Normandy. Churchill's history, as previously noted, creates a bit of a mirage here, and doesn't tell the full story of the Anglo-American disharmony over planning Overlord.
   
   Lastly, by emphasizing operations on the Western Front, Churchill fails to credit the Russians. Far more divisions were employed by Hitler against Russia than against the British, Canadians and Americans. Stalingrad gets only a few paragraphs and other major battles, such as Kursk, receive only a summary treatment. A fairer view of the European theatre of operations would give much more weight to the Eastern front than Churchill chose to.
   
   Reynolds is a sparkling writer (he refers to Churchill's "iron whim") and this is a first-rate book. Churchill fans, of whom I am one, will devour it, but those not familiar with the broad outlines of the war (or Churchill) may find the going tougher. At the end, Churchill appears to be much more calculating, deliberate and even devious than the popular image. (He refused to put word to paper until his tax advisers figured out how to avoid Britain's then-ruinous income tax.) But he pulled off a marvelous feat. He not only won the war (or at least, prevented it from being lost,) but won the minds of future readers by shaping our view of the war. Our admiration grows.



5. This is an intereting book, full of things I did not know about Churchill and his long history of WWII.
   
   I admire Churchill, and always will. Reynolds' book proves he was human.
   
   There are many aspects of the Churchill WWII history I had not realized. Among them are:
   
   1) He did not write it all himself. Many sections were written by others.
   
   2) He could have been accused of plagarism by Samuel Elliot Morrison. Sections dealing with the war in the Pacific came straight from Morrison, and Morrison was nice enough to ask for an attribution. He could have made things ugly.
   
   3)Churchill used the books to burnish his image. Parts of letters and memos were deleated in writing the history. Churchill did not want the truth to emerge.
   
   4) Churchill used the history to blame others for mistakes he made. This is not a real surprise, and part of it went back to earlier disagreements.
   
   5) Lord Mountbatten was not the wonderful military leader the image makers created. In fact, he was behind the Dieppe fiasco, and his later leadership was of little relevance. But damn, he did look good in that white uniform, and those royal connections hardly hurt.
   
   6) Churchill used the books to help him regain political office. Hardly against the law for a politician.
   
   I did not come away from Reynolds' book thinking more of Churchill. But I don't think less of him. He was human, and was faced with a task which would boggle the average mind. Few people could have achieved the things he did. He was remarkable.
   
   I still think of his leadership, and his ability to inspire the British to hang on, fight on, and "never surrender." When one considers his overall achievement, his petty faults, and personal foibles don't matter all that much. God knows FDR had them as well. All leaders have them. Churchill's are easy to understand.
   
   At any rate, Reynolds wrote a book which is worth the time and effort. There are some hidden gems of information (Churchill felt that when life ended, it would be like "black velvet," or sinking into non-existence). There are facts about the war that are new, and interesting. Its a good book, and serves a purpose for fans of Churchill, or those interested in the writing of a huge history.

No comments about The Magnificent Monarch: Charles II and the Ceremonies of Power.

No comments about By the Waters of Liverpool.

4 comments about Object Lessons: The Life of the Woman and the Poet in Our Time.

1. I'm all for feminist discourse and when I began reading this collection of essays I was impressed with Boland's unique style, direction and many times thought that she in some ways compared to Virginia Woolf. Unfortunately as the collection progressed I found myself growing more and more bored, this I attribute to the "I" which Woolf spoke about in "A Room of One's Own". Boland puts I at the front and center of the poem, constantly accusing Irish male poets of turning the female into a symbol without allowing them to be an actual part of the poem. In turn this arguement gets repeated and repeated and repeated to the point that when you're reading you find yourself questioning if maybe you've backtracked and are rereading something again. With a little editing, proper education and enlightenment Boland could have written a fantastic collection but ultimately it falls short. Is it possible that the female is both symbol and subject simultaneously? Boland fails to consider this option and as a result I cannot take this collection seriously, stick to poetry.



2. The author talks about how-- the history of her country (Ireland), her experiences growing up in London and New York, the culture of poets, and her process of self realization all influenced the development of her poetic voice. This isn't a book just for Irish poets or women, the issues she discusses go to the heart of why people write the poetry they do and what expectations they have in doing so as well as how it influences other poets.
   
   More than anything, her book shows the many ways in which we can find ourselves in different environments and roles throughout the course of our lives. She goes from daughter to exile to urbanite to rural to suburb to mother as well as exploring her own ancestry. She discusses the culture and politics of nations, poetry, and gender.
   
   A good read for people who aren't even interested in poetry.



3. I first read Eavan Boland in an Irish literature class in college. Her writing is magical, lyrical, ethereal and forces you realize the power of identity, language, culture.

   Not just for Irish literature fans, but anyone who enjoys beautiful prose.




4. Boland addresses the struggles of a poetess finding her voice in a society which seems to lack a place for her. Through seemingly circular reasoning, she approaches, considers, defines, and returns to consider the significance of the events of Ireland and the writing of others in her own unique and powerful voice. An enchanting read that reminds women of their own experiences while addressing the dichotomy that keeps them separate.

2 comments about Stalin: Revolutionary in an Era of War (European History in Perspective).

1. Kevin McDermott's book on Stalin, in a general introductory series called "European History in Perspective", is probably the best short overview of all the issues in historical scholarship relating to Stalin and Stalinism in print at this time. Eminently readable, McDermott analyzes the person and policies of Stalin as well as his social context and the international politics of the time, and does so in a particularly balanced manner which takes all the controversy into account. Stalin is one of the most controversial politicians of all time perhaps, and the many different currents in both historical and political discussions about his person and legacy range from the absolutely adoring to frothing hatred, so it is by no means a small feat to have succeeded in giving a good impression of the controversy over the most important issues in Stalin scholarship as well as giving a balanced summary of the weight of evidence.
   
   McDermott is certainly no fan of Stalin, but is not a rabid Cold Warrior either. Contrary to some authors, he does not diminish the achievements of the USSR during Stalin's reign, while at the same time always acknowledging the effects, mostly deleterious, his policies had on the workers and peasants on whose behalf they were (at least nominally) undertaken. McDermott correctly analyzes Stalin's policies as demanding huge sacrifices of his people in exchange for extremely rapid industrialization and modernization, combined with a despotic personal tyranny of Stalin which could bear no disagreement or dissent of any kind. Of course the question whether Stalin, overall, was historically 'worth it' as well as the question what a different leader, say Trotsky or Bukharin, would have done can never be wholly answered, but McDermott certainly gives an excellent overview of all the things one would need to consider to give an opinion on those questions. And the questions are of crucial importance, especially to socialists.
   
   The book's organization is thematic, such that every chapter discusses an 'aspect' of Stalin: Stalin as modernizer, Stalin as leader in wartime, Stalin as follower of Lenin (or not), Stalin as dictator, and so on. But he maintains a broad chronological order both within and through these chapters as well, making the whole of Stalin's reign quite easy to grasp, especially for the interested layman. Of course one can have differing opinions on some of McDermott's conclusions, such as the degree to which he (following Service) considers Stalin to be a 'mainstream' Leninist, but McDermott relies in every topic mainly on the modern scholarship of people like Fitzpatrick, Lewin, and Khlevniuk, which greatly enhances the value of this work. Some might complain that he still gives too much credence to people like Courtois and Conquest, but since their Cold War professional anti-communism has strongly shaped popular views of Stalin, this is probably a good decision for an introductory work. Of special interest is also McDermott's chapter on Stalin's relations with the Comintern, which is regrettably short; very little has been written on this subject of great importance to the history of socialism. Fortunately, McDermott has written a monograph on the subject: Comintern, The: History of International Communism from Lenin to Stalin. I can much recommend this book to people who are interested in learning who Stalin was and what he did, without wanting to read anything too specialized or inaccessible.



2. Stalin's single purpose was, as Professor Richard Overy has noted, "to preserve and enlarge the revolution and the state that represented it." His policies were forged in war and revolution. How could World War One's slaughter of Russians be stopped? How could the counter-revolutionary war of 1917-21 be defeated? How could a feudal peasant society be modernised? How could the kulaks be defeated? How could the fifth column linked to Hitler be defeated? How could Hitler's invasion be defeated? How could the Soviet Union be rebuilt after the war's devastation? Capitalism caused all these problems; liberalism compounded them. Stalin's answer was class war - war against the warmongers. How else could Russia have survived these lethal threats?
   
   So, without a capitalist class, without profits from exploiting people in other countries, without investment by foreign firms, and without foreign aid, the Soviet people built an economy that transformed their country from the backward semi-colonial land of the tsars into the world's second industrial, scientific and military power. They collectivised agriculture and created an iron and steel industry, tractors, machine tools, agricultural machinery and aircraft. They brought electricity to the whole country and built coal and oil industries. There was no unemployment, and people had free housing, free education and free health care: children got free vitamins. The late Lord Bullock, not the friendliest witness, wrote, "the achievement of the Russian people on the economic front, under the Soviet system and Stalin's leadership, was remarkable."
   
   The supreme test was the Second World War. Soviet forces inflicted 90% of Nazi Germany's military casualties. As Albert Seaton wrote of Stalin, "he must be allowed credit for the amazing successes of 1944", which are "among the most outstanding in the world's military history."
   
   General Alan Brooke, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, judged that Stalin had `a military brain of the very highest order'. The veteran American diplomat Averell Harriman wrote of Stalin's "high intelligence, that fantastic grasp of detail, his shrewdness and the surprising human sensitivity that he was capable of showing, at least in the war years. I found him better informed than Roosevelt, more realistic than Churchill, in some ways the most effective of the war leaders." Henri Michel, the French historian of the war, wrote, "The Soviet victory was the Red Army's victory, but it was also the victory of the Soviet economy and of the Bolshevik regime ... finally, this victory was Stalin's victory."
   
   As they say in Russia, Stalin found the country a wreck and left it a superpower; Gorbachev found it a superpower and left it a wreck. Without Stalin's leadership of the Soviet Union, Hitler could have defeated the Soviet Union, then occupied Britain and won the war, so we owe Stalin and the Soviet people a huge debt.

5 comments about The Blue-Eyed Salaryman: From World Traveller to Lifer at Mitsubishi.

1. Content is accurate, well-observed, and recounted with sensitivity and balance; happily, it's very well-written and flows beautifully. Certainly worthwhile reading for foreigners working with (or for) the Japanese. Hopefully, this work will appear in a Japanese edition as well, and I'll bet it would be a best-seller in Japan. Like the author, I have worked in a large Japanese company, married a Japanese national, and make my home in Japan.



2. Niall Murtagh is an Irishman who came to Japan to study the language. He ended up working for the Mitsubishi corporation for 14 years. Murtagh was a world traveler who did not stay in any one place for to long. So how is it he stayed with one company, a japanese company at that, for 14 years? This book attempts to answer that perplexing question. Though Murtagh has led a varied life, he devotes most of his book to his 14 years with the Mitsubishi Company as a Japanese kaishain, or salaryman.
   
   Murtagh rose to a middle-manager position, almost unheard of for any gaijin (foreigner) in a Japanese corporation. He was always the only gaijin in the room. Because his Japanese was flawless he was always looked at askance. The Japanese feel that their language is to difficult for gaijin to learn let alone speak fluently. He tells of his daily commute to work on a bicycle, his unpaid overtime, company uniforms and he even the company song.
   
   He says little of his personal life. His courtship and marriage to Miyuki is a good example of this. He sums up this chapter of his life by saying Miyuki's parents approved of their marriage because of his Mitsubishi credentials.
   
   Murtagh keeps the story moving in a conversational style. He has an eye for the irony of the cultural differences between the west and the east.
   
   I have a friend in Tokyo who is also a salaryman. I got this book for that reason. I wanted to see some of the things that he had to go through. He said that many of the experiences that Murtagh went through are quite common for a gaijin salaryman.
   
   It is an entertaining book and I would definitely recommend it to anyone who has friends or family working in Japan. And for those of you who don't, it is still an interesting read to compare the cultures.



3. From the first opening sentence, this book is a page turner. The writer provides a simple but deep insight on working in a major Japanese company. The events presented are sometime caricatural, looks too bad/good to be true, but I can attest from my own experience they're quite real.
   A must reading material for people thinking of working at a major traditional Japanese company.



4. Niall Murtagh gives us an understanding of the real(hone) underbelly of Japanese corporate life. The book is well written entertaining and accurate. I have the same roots as the author and like him have endured 14 years in a large Japanese corporation. So I can verify his accuracy. He deals with the frustrating an oppressive aspects of salaryman Japan life in a very Irish way - he uses humour. He tries hard to fit-in but soon learns that foreigners, even Japanese fluent ones with a Phd., never fit in. or become totally accepted. He could have expanded on the psychological impact of salaryman life on foreigners. For those with a work link to Japan, read this book.



5. "The Blue-eyed Salaryman" is a book written by Niall Murtagh, an Irishman, and is based on his real life experience as a salaryman at Mitsubishi Corporation in Japan.
   
   The story starts when he joins the R&D department at Mitsubishi in the early 1990. At the beginning he was a contract worker, but eventually he became a normal lifetime salaryman. He was also the first foreigner to be promoted to management level in Mitsubishi in Japan.
   
   His book is very interesting, because it is based on his experience over a period of more than 10 years. So he really got to understand deeply about Mitsubishi's culture and way of working. He also experienced the end of the bubble area, and the following crisis years.
   
   Later on, Murtagh-san was transferred to Osaka, which allowed him to compare between Osaka and Tokyo working culture. His finding was that people in Tokyo cared about big visionary research projects, whereas in Osaka all research needs to have a practical application to get accepted. He did enjoy living in the Osaka area, and eventually enjoyed working here.
   
   The final conclusion of his book is that for foreigners, as change agents, it is not meaningful to join traditional Japanese companies from the bottom; because the only way to drive fundamental change in large Japanese traditional corporations is top down. According to Niall, Carlos Ghosn would never have been able to impact to Nissan if he had joined them from the bottom...
   
   Working as a foreigner in a large Japanese corporation in Japan, I really identified strongly with Niall's writing. It gave me a sense of comfort, making me believe that I still haven't lost my common sense....

No comments about Christy Ring: Hurling's Greatest.