5 comments about Danger Close.

1. If you want to know about Mike Yon's background and what makes him tick, read Danger Close.



2. The thing I will remember most about this book is that, surprisingly, it was a deeply touching tribute to his mother. The military stuff is all extremely interesting, to the point where you won't be able to put it down. But the book goes far deeper. It's a timeless story from the heart -- one that every son wishes he could write for his mother. On the outside, the author is a tough-as-nails soldier. But on the inside, he's still a little boy who continually reaches back to his mother's love to guide him through life. This is as it should be. God bless all the good mothers of the world.



3. Mr. Yon is currently in Northern Iraq and writes periodic pieces on the web about his experiences with American forces. He is a very dedicated and personable guy who is just trying to do the right thing. I enjoyed this book very much but would have liked to know what happened after the car wreck. How did his SF career end,etc. Anyway those of you who are interested in personal military type accounts will definetly enjoy this book. It received an award for his writing style.



4. I haven't read this book yet (sorry for the 5 star rating), but have picked up on his online magazine (blog). Michael Yon has and is travelling all around Iraq - mostly in the hotspots with the U.S. Army (Strykers), where he does his reporting. I find his weekly dispatches informative and interesting, and will definitely be picking up his book. If you liked his book, please go to http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/ and start reading at the bottom (where he started writing) and work your way up. New dispatches posted weekly (mostly). Also, it seems he's doing this out of his own pocket, so donate towards his blog if you can. From his online magazine:
   
   Michael Yon, author of "Danger Close," is currently in Iraq. Email: [...] Michael Yon is an independent, informed observer chronicling the monumentally important events in the efforts to stabilize Iraq. His dispatches have the benefit of his life experiences without drawbacks based on deadlines or demands of marketplace. The cost of these dispatches is borne solely by Michael. Readers who enjoy these dispatches and want to support Michael's mission in Iraq, can make a contribution using the PayPal links



5. Although Mike Yon and myself both graduated from Winter Haven High School it was years apart and I never had the pleasure of meeting him. I found the book enjoyable because I could relate to some of the local places that he mentioned. But the story was well written and interesting besides being informative despite that fact. Charles E. Gist author of the historical fiction novel "The Other Side of The River"

5 comments about George B. McClellan: The Young Napoleon.

1. Has anyone of so much purported skill and promise failed so spectacularly at such a critical moment in American history as General George B. McClellan? If there is, I can't imagine who it would be. Douglas MacArthur comes to mind as a possible analogue (indeed, Harry Truman turned to Lincoln's dealing with McClellan for inspiration in dealing with MacArthur), but at least MacArthur ultimately prevailed in the Pacific in WWII and can at least point to Inchon as a moment of triumph.
   
   This biography is heralded as scrupulously balanced and fair. If so, few actors on such a large stage have had so few redeeming qualities, the fascist and communist dictators of the twentieth century included. The man that Stephen Sears describes is incorrigible - there is no other word for it. Sears paints a portrait of a fool. Several Union generals matched wits and nerve with Robert E. Lee and suffered humiliating defeat, but such men as Ambrose Burnside were, at least, self-aware. They recognized the enormity of their task, felt inadequate, but pressed ahead to the greatest of their ability to fulfill their duty. McClellan, as Sears portrays him, was delusional. His arrogance and conceit were colossal. As he stumbled from one miscue to the next - and the Lincoln administration fretted over how to prod their field general into action - McClellan was convinced that history would confirm his genius and place him in the pantheon of military greats. Not American military greats, mind you, but alongside the likes of Napoleon, Caesar, and Hannibal.
   
   The only positive things that Sears has to say about McClellan is that he was not disloyal to the Union (he was committed to seeing re-union as a precondition to peace with the South, but disagreed vehemently with the Emancipation Proclamation), he never intentionally contributed to the defeat of another Union general, such as Pope at Second Manassas, and he had a loving and tender relationship with his wife. Beyond that, this biography is essentially an indictment of McClellan's military conduct at the head of the Army of the Potomac and his character as a military officer and human being.
   
   What this biography fails to do is explain why so many people - from the front ranks of business, politics and the military - thought so highly of McClellan, so consistently and for so long. McClellan was one of the highest paid railroad executives in the country while in his early 30s. He received the vigorous patronage, as Sears describes it, of Jefferson Davis when he was secretary of war in the Pierce administration and Salmon Chase when he was secretary of the treasury in the Lincoln administration, but Sears never describes how or why those relationships developed or why those men had such confidence in McClellan. When the Civil War broke out, the governors of the three largest states in the Union - New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio - all turned to McClellan as their first pick to lead their state militias. McClellan clearly had the ability to impress intelligent and experienced men - the type of men one would expect to be good judges of talent and character - yet the reader gets no sense of this from the Sears biography. Moreover, for all of the failure and hardship endured by the Army of the Potomac while under McClellan's command, the rank-and-file largely remained loyal to the general, often enthusiastically so.
   
   Sears emphasizes several themes throughout the biography. First, McClellan had utter disdain for civilian control of the military and the performance of non-regulars in the army, an opinion that emerged during his early days of service in Mexico and that he carried, unaltered, through the Civil War and to his grave. Second, McClellan harbored a personal animus against his superior, Abraham Lincoln. He felt that Lincoln was his social and intellectual inferior (McClellan regularly referred to Lincoln as "the gorilla" in his correspondence with his wife), and resented the commander-in-chief's meddling in military matters. Third, Sears argues that McClellan was paralyzed by the unknown and unexpected. If a maneuver met with unanticipated resistance or a plan seemed to go awry, McClellan's impulse was to freeze and react to enemy movements. Sears frequently contrasts McClellan's timidity with Lee's flexibility in the face of regular surprises and setbacks. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Sears stresses how badly the Army of the Potomac intelligence apparatus, run by Allan Pinkerton, failed to understand the order of battle of the Confederate Army of Virginia. Throughout McClellan's tenure as commander, the general belief was that the Union troops were outnumbered by as much as two-to-one, when the reverse was usually the case. The catastrophic intelligence failure of the Union (and McClellan's eagerness to believe the inflated numbers) raises the question: if McClellan had accurate intelligence on Confederate numbers, would it have changed his behavior and battle plans? Sears never addresses that question directly, but one can anticipate his response: no, it wouldn't have changed anything.
   
   Political scientists Eliot Cohen and John Gooch argue in "Military Misfortunes" that readers should be suspicious of the "man-in-the-dock" explanation to failure on the battlefield. In short, large scale military failure is rarely the result of one man's actions (or inactions). Yet, it seems to me that McClellan has been squarely put in the dock by history for the failures of the Union forces on the Peninsula and for not destroying the Army of Virginia at Antietam after receiving Special Order 191. Is that fair? This biography suggests that the answer is "yes," but I'm not convinced. I'm no fan of McClellan, but there had to be more to this man than Sears conveys here.



2. Stephen W. Sears proves once again that he is a master of Civil War histories. A must ead for students of America's greatest conflect.



3. Billed as neither an indictment nor an apologia, Sears makes it pretty plain that George B. McClellan was a failure as a military leader. Overly cautious, slow to act, seeing the worst in every situation, McC was probably his own worst enemy. It's easy to see why so many of the soldiers liked him, though: fighting with McC meant there was a good chance you wouldn't see much action and if you did it was with the utmost planning for the soldiers' safety and well-being. He always thought he was outnumbered by the enemy and let opportunities for victory slip quickly through his fingers. Sears makes the point that McC always planned his campaigns and battles as if facing an overwhelming enemy force, and in that regard they were superb plans. Unfortunately, that wasn't the way it was on the field. Antietam probably should have been McC's best chance to destroy Lee's army and perhaps end the war then and there, but he squandered every opportunity and left a third of his army in reserve. Even worse, and what surely makes the man detestable, was his tremendous ego and feelings of self-importance. Sears' biography covers McC's entire life, though 90% of it deals with the Civil War years. Well written and interesting.



4. History and historians have, on the whole, not been very kind to Major General George B. McClellan. Lately a trend, or better, the beginning of a trend, can be discerned in Civil War historiography towards a kinder view of McClellan. I'm referring to books like: "McClellan's War" by professor Ethan S. Rafuse, the book on McClellan by professor Thomas Rowland and to the 3 books on the Army of the Potomac by Russell Beatie.
   All these books are very good and offer many valuable insights.
   
   Yet I remain convinced that the reputation of George B. McClellan is quite beyond saving and that that there is only one man who comes in for the lion's share of blame for this: George B. McClellan.
   
   On the plus side, and this has to be acknowledgded, McClellan never got near enough credit for his greatest achievement: he MADE the Army of the Potomac. He really did, and it was a magnificent job, considering the time he had to do it in.
   So often we read about McClellan: "oh well he was a great organizer, but a very bad general" but that -unfairly- belittles his tremendous skills in that respect. So more kudos to McClellan for that. It is very, very hard to organize, to build, to equip arm, feed and clothe an army, and then to train and drill it in preparation for it's deadly work. Then of course there was another task: he had to select it's leaders, from the senior command level on down. Don't think to lightly about this. McClellan did so superbly. He gave men like John Gibbon, George Meade, Henry Hunt, Rufus Ingalls, John Buford, Winfield Scott Hancock, John Sedgewick, Charles Griffin and Andrew Humphreys their first commands on brigade level.
   
   He should never have led it out to fight himself, though, his beloved Army of the Potomac. He was distinctly unqualified for that. I think that deep down inside of him, he was aware of this, read his correspondance (also compiled in a magnificent book by Stephen Sears, buy it!!!): his letters offer a case-study of a man plagued by insecurities, complexes and paranoia.
   
   mr. Sears comes down hard on McClellan, very hard. But the points he argues are correct: McClellan was singularly unfit to lead an army.
   Yet he was so boastful and arrogant that he put himself first and the Union war effort second, as is witnessed by his behaviour during the interlude in august 1862, when Major General John Pope commanded half of MacClellan's army aginst Lee. McClellan preferred to let Pope (who possessed as annoying a personality and as large an ego as McClellan) be beaten by Lee than come to his aid.
   
   By then Lincoln was don with him: he let McClellan lead the army for the Antietam campaign, in order to drive Lee from Mary land, but when McClellan again started whining and dragging his feet he fired him.
   "Alas, my poor country"McClellan wrote his wife after his removal from command. Alas indeed: the war was to last another two and a half years, while he could have ended it in one day, had he not so utterly mismanaged the battle of Antietam.
   That is McClellan's enduring bequest to his country: two and a half more years of war.
   
   What baffles me is this: why wasn't he brought to account for this in his own time??? Instead he was honoured, admired and even nominated for the Presidency in 1864!!!
   McClellan lost the 1864 election to Lincoln, thank God. Had he won the world would not have been the same: maybe America would still be split in two countries: the USA and the CSA, or the Civil War would have restarted and be contested with even more bitterness and more ruinous consequences for the nations after his presidential term, or even terms.
   Why he was not impeached, tried or court-martialled after his inept campaign in september and october 1862 is a question I ask myself. Surely others must have too?
   
   Lincoln should have made McClellan Quartermaster-General in Chief of the Union army and put him in charge of supply, armament, recruitment, equipment and training. That was what he was good at. He would have been the Union's Lazare Carnot: "the Organizer of Victory" of the French Revolution. There is litle doubt in my mind he would have done a very good job.
   
   A solid biography on this remarkable man. Well done Stephen W. Sears!!! Keep 'em coming.



5. I'd like to knock some sense into this little brat General.
   
   Lee rules Dixie! Long Live the South.

3 comments about Through Blood & Fire: Selected Civil War Papers of Major General Joshua Chamberlain.

1. This book depicts a true American soldier. Joshua Chamberlain's letters and the narrative given by Mark Nesbitt give great insight into JLC's political, personal and military thought. It is a well organized work.



2. Mark Nesbitt does a wonderful job of organizing the personal letters of Joshua Chamberlain into an informative and enjoyable read. Through the letters, Chamberlain's motives to join the army, his accounts of battles and day-to-day affairs of a soldier's life, and his personal insights bring a new perspective on a man usually know only for his role at Gettysburg. This book allows the reader to get to know many of Chamberlain's other accomplishments in life: his family, his career, and his achievements throughout the war.



3. I am a great fan of Chamberlain, but found this book hard to digest. It is a compilation of his civil war letters strung together with a little back- ground information (that is mostly confusing, occasionally helpful). Most of the letters are quite boring and tactical in nature (If you find that interesting---sorry---you'll love it!) There are a few really good ones, however that can stand on their own and speak to the true character of the man. I cried twice while reading these, but at other times found myself dreading picking up the book. I'm glad I finished it---and it was worthwhile reading. Trulock is much better!

5 comments about Jefferson and the Indians: The Tragic Fate of the First Americans.

1. The detailed review by Robin Friedman (below) gives a fair and ample account of this book's content and quality. I'm afraid Thomas Jefferson does not escape with his reputation intact, but I doubt that AFC Wallace intended to besmirch or belittle him for any political agenda. Jefferson was my hero in high school, but almost nothing I've learned about him since then has polished his image. John Quincy Adams, who knew him well, slowly came to regard him as hypocritical, cunning, self-absorbed, given to magnifying his own exploits... what today might be called "narcissistic". Wahington detested him in his later years and cut off communication. Obviously, Jefferson can't be blamed for the uses later generations have made of him to justify secession, states-rights conservatism, racist forms of populism, etc, but history does provide a lens for interpreting his ideologies and for finding that aside from the noble rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson's legacy is mostly pernicious.
   This is, however, a very well-written and readable book, superbly researched, and not at all tendentious. Don't read it alone! (Of course, if you read it at all, you've probably read other books on Jefferson and on the 18th C). Take a look at FORCED FOUNDERS as a counterweight.



2. While I found the book, on the whole, to be an interesting entry in a historical space that is lightly populated; meaning that few books are written about the Indian culture during Colonial times and the impact of expansionism on their culture, I felt there were aspects of the book that adversely affected its quality:
   
   1. The detail surrounding the land, colonial speculation (including Jefferson's holdings) and the treaties to expand the colonies' territory to be excessive and ineffective in their attempt to connect Jefferson's said holdings with an overall strategic conspiracy.
   2. The book's focus on Jefferson's interest and approach to the American Indian, while interesting and keeping with the title, limited the potential of the book which, I believe, would have been better served if the premise focused more on the colonies' overall perspective and dealings with the Indians. This would have included a more extensive overview of the interaction of the specific tribes, the impact of the six nations and how this interaction diluted or enhanced the Indian culture.
   3. I don't believe that it is contradictory for a man of science (based on Jefferson's interest in language and culture correlations and origin), to suggest that certain tribes represented a real threat to the safety of citizens that were, technically, the responsibility of Virginia and,eventually,the United States. Decisions to support eradication of "bad" elements versus those tribes that were cooperative seems logical given the reports that were received and magnitude of the violence that was observed.
   
   Having said that, the chapters regarding the tracking of language patterns, formulating questions that would uncover additional information about tribal history and Jefferson's desire and passion to explore the role of the Native American and determine whether there were connections with the Welsch were fascinating and were great reading.
   
   Overall, while I enjoyed the book, I sensed too much intent to discredit Jefferson and too little effort to suggest the overall importance of Jefferson's desire and approach to collecting and preserving data on the American Indian.



3. Part of the Jeffersonian fascination involves the many facets, ambiguities and paradoxes he presents: the libertarian who owned slaves; the budget-slashing, small-government advocate who was a personal spendthrift, perpetually teetering at the brink of financial ruin; the shy and ineffective public speaker who was one of the most ruthless and scheming of backroom political operatives; the reclusive scholar and intellectual who spent two hours a day on horseback, and apparently indulged surreptitious passions in the slave quarters. Professor Wallace gives us a little known side of Jefferson: the student of Native American culture, history and language, who took quite deliberate measures to destroy them. Jefferson, who apparently was sincerely fascinated with the Indians, and sympathetic to their plight as they vanished under the burdens of disease, debt, whiskey and the murderous encroachments of frontiersmen, did little to protect them and their way of life, which was incompatible with Jefferson's expansionist, egalitarian vision of a nation of white protestant yeoman farmers. At best, Jefferson hoped that the Indians could be assimilated into white society, as were the Cherokee before Jefferson's successors allowed them to be dispossessed. A fascinating book with some great sidelights (for example, I had no idea that Siouxian tribes at one time lived in Virginia).



4. Many works on early United States history tend to give Indian affairs less attention than it deserves. There are two recent books with which I am familiar that help correct this situation. The first is Robert Remini's study of Jacksonian American, "Andrew Jackson and his Indian Wars". The second is Professor Wallace's book on Jefferson's relationship to the Indians, which I am discussing here.

   Remini's and Wallace's book can be read together because both tell parts of the same sad story. Expansionist pressures from settlers and the fear of the United States of Indian attacks, particularly when incited by hostile European nations led to a policy of land cessions, wars, and forced removal westward of the Indian tribes. The process culminated with Andrew Jackson's Indian wars and presidency, the subject of Remini's book, but it was effectively put in place by Thomas Jefferson, as shown by Wallace.

   Jefferson and his Indian policy, however, seem to me to present a more complex case than Jackson. As Wallace's book shows, Jefferson was indeed a polymath, a scholar and intellectual as well as a, paradoxically, man of power and position. Jefferson took a genuine interest in Indian archaeology, culture and language and made himself or encouraged others to make, scholarly and enthnological contributions that are still important towards understanding the Indians.

   Jefferson, even on Professor Wallace's account, had compassion for the Indian tribes and an interest in their well-being, even if this interest was overshadowed, as it was, by his desire to obtain Indian land for the new nation and even though his view of Indian interests was misguided and partial.

   Wallace's book traces Jefferson's early relationship with Indians beginning before the revolution when Jefferson was a land speculator in the then Western United States. He explores in detail Jefferson's writing on Indians, particularly his writing on the Indian chief Logan in his "Notes on the State of Virginia." Jefferson's partial reading of the fate of this "Noble Savage", according to Wallace, shows the ambivalent character of Jefferson's approach to the Indians.

   Wallace describes in detail Jefferson the politician approaching Indian affairs in the original United States territory and in the Louisiana purchase, which doubled the size of the United States. The announced goals of the policy were peace, land cessions and civilization for the Indians. Too often, these policies became simply the means for tribal destruction and deprivation and for the removal policy, for both the southern and the northern tribes, that culminated in the administration of Andrew Jackson. (again, see the Remini book.)

   There are some fascinating quotations in the book that illustrate Wallace's points that are set aside and emphasized in blocked-type and quotes. It is a good way of gaining focus. The book has a wealth of documentation and is not simply a political history. As I indicated Jefferson was a complex individual and this book shows him, focusing on Indian affairs, in all his personal and political variety.

   Wallace has a clear feeling for the tragedy of the American Indian. Yet his book is balanced in tone and does not degenerate into ideological or special pleading. His opinions are stated clearly and eloquently in his introduction and conclusion and in his discussions of the events described in the text. The book has the measure of a scholar and encourages the reader to reflect for him or herself on the record.

   There are those who are skeptical of the public's recent interest in American History, as shown by the success of McCollough's John Adams as well as other popular historical works, on grounds that it is a new attempt to promote American exceptionalism and to avoid considering the tragedies of our past. I disagree. I think, this interest in history shows a renewed love and interest in our country with no desire to minimize its failings. Wallace's book to me shows both love of our country and a sense of one of its major tragedies.




5. I felt that this was an excellent book on Thomas Jefferson's views toward the native people of North America. It illuminated many parts of his feelings toward native people and their place in the "American Republic." I felt that it also raised many questions about his participation in early land speculation with Henry, Washington, and Franklin as well as his role in the eventual displacement of native people. Anyone interested in early colonial policy toward natives will surely love this book.

3 comments about Combat Medic: World War II.

1. I am not a WWII buff and I normally do not read medical memoirs, perhaps because I was an ER nurse for many years. I read this book more or less for background information for a novel I am writing. But it immediately became more than research material for me. Dr. John Kerner's story is both poignant and unpretentious. As I read the book I found myself wanting to know this man and now, at the end I feel perhaps I do. As a writer I was impressed by his honesty and his natural voice. As a retired RN I was impressed by the doctor's humility. And as a woman I have to say I loved all the references to the women who were a part of his life (especially his brief affair with the Red Cross volunteer!)I recommend this book to any one of any age who enjoys candid accounts of real people who have done remarkable things.



2. An interesting look at WW2 from the inside by a man who unexpectedly was there. From the invasion on thru the battles, Kerner keeps your interest by relating his experiences as well as his observations. The section where he delivers the baby of a young French woman near the battle field will keep your interest right to the end. Should be on everyone's gift list.



3. Combat Medic: World War II is a fascinating memoir by John A. Kerner, M.D. His medical school training as an OB/GYN only in one instance stood him in good stead as a doctor whose ultimate assignment took him from D-Day plus 1 at Omaha Beach, through the Battle of the Bulge, finally ending with the Army of Occupation in Germany. When he signed up for the Army, he thought he'd be assigned to a stateside hospital delivering babies for Army dependents. He never even got as far back from the front as a field hospital. He was up with the troops for the whole time, and he has two Bronze Stars to show for it.
   
   I met John and his wife, Gwen, on a tour through Northern Spain in 2000. He's a fascinating man, although older than I. At the time he was thinking of writing his memoir. For posterity's sake I'm glad he did. While he's not a Stephan Ambrose, he tells it like it was, down and dirty, being there, a true hero of the greatest generation. I really enjoyed reading his book, having known the man. I wholeheartedly recommend this book to anyone interested in first person accounts of what it was really like trying to save lives while cold, wet, and in the mud with a lot of unfriendly German infantrymen trying keep you from doing your job by making you keep your head (and other parts) down.

2 comments about Four Years in the Stonewall Brigade (American Civil War Classics).

1. Casler's memoir is a mandatory source for anyone studying the war in the East. Many of the familiar Stonewall Brigade and Valley Campaign anecdotes quoted in secondary sources are found here. Casler spent part of the war detailed as a pioneer, and his description of the work he did, including burying bodies, is interesting. He gives quite a few details on the Valley Campaign, Gettysburg and Spotsylvania. From August 1864, unfortunately, he was unable to march and was not with his company, which in any case was virtually wiped out. He was a prisoner in Fort McHenry toward the end of the war and gives an interesting description of being very badly treated until the Confederate government threatened retaliation, upon which conditions improved. I found it interesting how much time Casler spent *not* with his company, sometimes detailed elsewhere, sometimes apparently AWOL, sometimes participating in presumably non-authorized raids on the Federals with a couple of friends. This shows how little real control the CSA (the USA was probably much the same) had over its individual soldiers, a deficiency which surely did not do them, as the outnumbered side, any good.



2. Although Casler wrote from memory late in life, his text has remarkably few errors of fact. His experiences are truly given without pretense or disguise, and are refreshingly human.

   I have read literally hundreds of personal accounts and diaries written by Confederate soldiers, and I rate " Four Years In The Stonewall Brigade " in my personal top five.

   This is a must read for anyone who wishes to experience the feel of life in the Confederate army, and to understand how service extracted its price for devotion to the southern belief in states rights.

   Casler is whimsical always, and downright hilarious at times.

   His devotion to the southern cause was unwavering, literally to the last as he was dubbed " The Last Of The Mohicans " by a Captain in his regiment. This because during the 1864 campaign, Casler was at one time, the only officer or private to be on active duty from his company.

   His use of " French Leave " on numerous occasions, I found personally surprising, but as written by Casler became perfectly understandable.

   A thoroughly enjoyable read.

   Gordon Boyer Lawrence

3 comments about Giap: The Victor in Vietnam.

1. It should be required reading for politicians and military leaders but especially politicians who get all our kids in harms way. Great book on the life of a great General regardless of which side you're on. It isnt politically correct but it does take you inside the mind of the guy behind the victory in Vietnam. As a vet of two tours in Nam with the Marines I found it fascinating to peer inside the strategy and the man. Great read.



2. A detailed, balanced and often fascinating account of the life of one of the twentieth century's most successful and lesser known military commanders. It is written by a British Brigadier (that's a one-star general in the US).

   What makes this work different is that it doesn't pull punches in terms of 'political correctness'. It might therefore upset the odd Frenchman, the occasional American (or even some Japanese readers). Those that might have pre-conceived or ill-informed notions as to the role of their respective nations in the various wars in Vietnam during Giap's years as a commander.

   It should be required reading at Army Staff Colleges, such as Leavenworth (if it isn't already) and France's Ecole Militaire at St.Cyr, where it probably is not, although it seems that there is a french translation.

   In all, a thought provoking title, and well worth a read by those interested in the subject from whatever angle.




3. MacDonald, a Britisher, had easier access to the Vietnamese than an American or French writer would, as the Vietnamese judged he would be less biased in his approach. Their faith was rewarded; in a book which draws much on personal interviews with Vo Nguyen Giap and other veterans of the Vietnamese war, MacDonald has given us a clear, balanced, interesting portrait of one of the major military figures of the 20th Century.

   In a career spanning three decades, having only the resources of a small third-world country (though with powerful international friends), Vo Nguyen Giap managed to bring the armies of two major Western powers to their knees. MacDonald tells us the military and some of the political story of this remarkable leader.

   What is missing is the personal side. Except for a little information surrounding his first wife's death and his second marriage, the book is silent on Giap's private life. It would be fascinating to know more of this man as a person, but apparently Giap was unwilling to discuss personal matters with MacDonald. Perhaps this is just Vietnamese reticence, but there is no real insight into the man himself.

   The political Giap is only a little more fully drawn. The blank spots here are a function of Vietnamese and Communist ways of thinking. Giap was a member of a collective leadership which took the collective part very seriously; no policy or initiative is attributed to an individual, only to the complete Politburo. A few hints of personal positions, a vague suggestion of a possible difference of opinion, and the screen of the collective solid front descends again.

   Though primarily a biography of Giap, the book is also a history of the series of armed struggles in Indochina beginning in the late 1930s. The Japanese invasion, the French war (which MacDonald calls the Indochina war), and finally the war with the U. S. are all described tersely but clearly. It is refreshing and revealing to read an account which is designed neither to justify nor excoriate the U. S., but instead is a sober report on the facts.

   Especially as the U. S. and Vietnam approach normal relations and as U. S. investment and interest in Vietnam increase, this is a useful and valuable book.

4 comments about The Face Of The Third Reich: Portraits Of The Nazi Leadership.

1. Oversimplified and relentlessly negative. Filled with sweeping negative generalizations that ignore abundant evidence of positive characteristics of the Third Reich personalities. The caricatures painted of the key figures in the Third Reich are laughably unrealistic. As a serious history reference, this is a terrible book. It is so bad that it's actually worth reading: its sheer awfulness makes it a great example of how NOT to write a serious non-fiction book.



2. What you get in this book is pretty much what the title promises you. The author (J.Fest) plunges into a psycho-social analysis of the Nazi elite and attempts (succesufully) to shed some light on the people who moved the strings of Nazism in Germany.
   Admittedly, the author's heavy writting style will turn off a certain group of viewers. While his intentions on decoding the personas that played key roles of Nazism are honest and straightforward, the atmosphere of the book is rather characterised by abusing descriptions and verbal exagerations.
   Short biographies and psychological profiles are on offer here: Hitler, Goering, Hoess, Himmler, Hess, Ribbentrop, to name but a few.
   However, you'd be mistaken (in my view anyway) to assume that this book will help you understand what brought this fascistic movement to power. Before even deciding whether you should read this or not, start by reading "The rise and fall of the third Reich" or other books pertaining on fascism and the masses. What is absent here are the german people themselves. Fascism does not rise because of a few psychotic personalities , and, as was proven in Germany's example, it very often complicits the people themselves to grab the power mechanisms.
   But, if you are interested in blitz-biographies, and short "explanations" then the "Face of the third reich" will be a good choice. Then again, when it comes to the major players of Nazism there are far better individual biographies and character accounts out there (one of them by the author himself on Hitler).



3. This book was poorly translated and even in the original German, Fest is a heavy writer, turgid and hardly scintillating. This compilation is laden with errors, some major, some not, but the ultimate effect compromises the integrity of this book. It's absurd, for example, to make the statement that Hermann Goering's Nuremberg defense was anything but brilliant. One can loathe what Goering stood for and decry Nazism and its atrocities, but to deny that Goering stole the show at Nuremberg is historically inaccurate.

   There are many better summations of the Nazi leadership than here. This is as dry as timber and about as edifying.




4. Fest provides the reader with a well-written summary of the high-ranking and crucial members of Nazi Germany. This book is a good background for the general reader on the Third Reich and is an essential first-step in any investigation into the period.

2 comments about Custer And His Wolverines: The Michigan Cavalry Brigade, 1861-1865.

1. As a history of the Michigan Brigade and its famous commander, this is a worthwhile addition to the library of Civil War and military history enthusiasts. It is well-written, engaging, and makes solid use of primary sources. Coverage of the formation of and early service of the various regiments is quite good.
   My only two serious complaints are: Inadequate maps - a real flaw for a military history; A terrible index - undoubtedly not the author's fault, but the index is useless in that the vast majority of people, places and events described in the text are nowhere to be found in the index. This is the book's main problem and it handicaps the reader.
   All that said, certainly a good item to have on your Civil War shelf.



2. The Michigan Cavalry Brigade achieved its' greatest triumphs under the command of George Armstrong Custer. The troops were greatly disappointed when he eventually moved on to higher command. Under his impetuous leadership the Brigade gained respect for the Union Cavalry and its' famous red ties, emulating Custer, were a badge of pride and honor. Books by members of the Michigan brigade make it clear that the youthful Custer was greatly respected by his troops. The book is a useful tome describing the times and experiences of this unit. Like most Civil War books it bypasses the hardships, disease and despondency of the troops in favor of describing the battle related history. The book is worthwhile reading for students of the war, cavalry and Custer.

5 comments about Into the Tiger's Jaw : America's First Black Marine Aviator - The Autobiography of Lt. Gen. Frank E. Petersen.

1. This book should be required reading on college campuses thru-out America. My opinion. I was fortunate enough to meet the General also on the "rock" in '83. I was busy working in the pharmacy(Hospital Corpsman) at the flight-line clinic and turn around to see this tall General standing there. He ask me for some aspirins for his bad hip. I guess he'd just finished flying. I have never forgot that meeting. I could see how he could succeed against any odds, he had a presence that could not be denied. Truly an American treasure.



2. Into the Tigers Jaw is a very impressive account of Lt. General Frank Petersen's life in the Marine Corps. J Alfred Phelps does a splendid job here depicting the determination and perserverance of a highly decorated Marine who paved the way for today's generation of Black Marine Officers. Petersen's strong will and devotion to duty enabled him to succeed in a organization at a time when Black American's represented such a minute percentage of the ranks in the Armed Forces. There is never a dull moment in this book, it grips your attention from beginning to end.
   I borrowed the book from the library, after reading it I bought it, and today it's part of my private library.



3. As a black Marine (1961-1965) I found the book to answer a lot of my questions, and to help me understand what was going on in my world at the time. That's because I had a very good relationship with the others members of my team who were all white. The only person I had a problem with was my Lt. and I know he just didn't like black folk. His book said the things that needed to be said, he told the truth about the times and what he had to do to overcome things. I felt that in many ways his story was mine, although I only spent 4 years in the corps. Again thanks for your work. Once a Marine always a Marine.



4. It's one thing to hear about how great someone is; it's something totally different to have met that person and to KNOW how great that person is. Lt. Gen. Petersen was my Wing Commander while I was stationed in Okinawa (Headquarters, G-3) during my '83-'84 tour of "The Rock." Though we chatted briefly on a few occasions after his afternoon workouts (yes, he ran daily with that bad hip), he helped me forge an extremely strong sense of duty and honor, and he has been a very positive influence in my life that carries on even today. What's great about the book is that it grabs you and dives right in, taking you on a spellbinding trip that explores the heart and soul of a true battle-hardened, no-nonsense warrior. It could also serve as a seminal work on the history of race relations in the military over the past 50 years. Readers will be thrilled, fascinated, and even brought to tears as they become one with the words which flow so well that it's almost as if General Petersen has a direct link to your brain. There is high drama on all fronts, whether it's in the cockpit of an F-4 Phantom sustaining 37mm anti-aircraft fire, or in the military courtroom showcasing some of the world's most notorious people. The story of Lt. Gen. Petersen's personal life and his career in the Corps will be very inspirational and highly motivating for anyone who reads it. What else would you expect from a Marine?

   Semper Fidelis.




5. INTO THE TIGER'S JAW has been an inspiration to my students and to me. In Lt. General Petersen we met a courageous man who was not afraid to stand up for what he felt was just and honorable---a man of integrity who overcame obstacles that would have defeated a lesser man. We felt shame at the injustices that he often endured and pride in his accomplishments. Thank you General Petersen and J. Alfred Phelps for this magnificent book and for introducing us to another American hero and role model.