5 comments about Call of Duty: My Life Before, During and After the Band of Brothers.

1. I looked forward to reading the autobiography of "Buck" Compton, one of the officers of easy company in the now famous Band of Brothers. There are already several very good autobiographies out by some of the surviving members of E company of the 506 PIR of the 101st Airborne division but they are almost exclusively by what are called `Taccoa men,' that is men who were part of the original members of the company when it was formed. Compton was not a Taccoa man. He joined the regiment before it entered combat but after it had been forged into a close knit unit. The insight he might bring to this, I thought, would be fascinating.
   
   Unfortunately, while other books by members of E company are well written, this is not. Personally I blame the editors at "Berkley Caliber" who should have seen the problems and addressed them before this went to print. Some details are organizational and some do reflect Compton's style but both are things the editors should have looked to.
   
   For example it is common with these books to start with some dangerous event and then after wondering `how did I get here?" you go back to the start of the life that led you to that point. Buck starts this way, talking about the first time he jumped from a plane, but then with shaky starts you are moved to Normandy and then his first fight where his gun jambs and then, after 20 pages and multiple false starts do you go back to his youth. The editor should have seen this for the mess it is and sorted it out.
   
   At barely 250 pages this is a fairly short book, most of the others are around 300 pages but that is less my concern than how much, or rather how little, focuses on his time in Easy company. In a 250 page book Mr. Compton Joined easy company on page 90 and by page 152 the war is over. Yes we want to know what happened to him before and after. What events shaped him and how to he got on after the war, but the war experiences should make up the bulk of this book. People bought it because of Band of Brothers.
   
   What he does recount is often strangely at odds with what others remember. For example he talks about walking into Carentan without firing a shot while others have written about a fight to get into the town, most notably all other sources talk of Mr. winters, the company commander moving around on a road swept with enemy fire, urging his men forward. 33 days in action are glossed over very quickly by Compton, in about 2 pages. What are life forming moments for others seem to have become only a blur to him, given as much space in the book at his participation in the 1942 Rose bowl.
   
   At some point the editors should have stepped in and said something like "Uh ,Buck, can you thicken this up a bit, it's awful short on this stuff." Then again, maybe they did. Compton is a shameless name dropper. He wants you to know all the famous people he knew and some of it is relevant but some of it is gratuitous. It's cute that he palled around with a young Mickey Rooney or that he played college ball with Jackie Robinson. I appreciate the story of an exchange they have on a train ride, talking about a loose woman, but Buck then goes on to spend nearly a page detailing the very public history of Jackie Robinson in major league baseball. Then he spends almost 2/3rds of a page is about how a guy he knew in ROTC went on to be a big wheel in the CIA. Maybe this was his padding. His way of making the book thicker but by the time he tells you how he went through jump school with the brother of the CHiP's commander you just want to tell him to drop it or tell their stories instead of his own..
   
   Strangely events that could have been fun, escorting the glamorous Roslyn Russell to a dance, are glossed over.
   
   To be fair Buck did not get on well with some of the other officers in Easy company, and it may be that this is being reflected in his writing. One wonders why he wrote the book. He says he spoke to Stephen Ambrose for only 30 minutes and most of the stories about him are anecdotal from others and he needs to set the record straight but the overall effect is weak, and disorganized and for that I blame the editors who are supposed to see this sort of problem and fix it before the public shells out good money. Mr. compton dedicated his life to public service and beyond being commendable this is an example for all americans. compton, liek all true heros, denies he was a hero and peopel should not laud him for what he did but those who died in the war. But people who bought this book were looking for the story of one of the "Band of Brothers" not the prosecutor who put away Surhan-Surhan. Mr. compton, in telling your story, in remembering those who never came back to tell their tales, that is how you could have best honored them.
   
   Please do not take this that I am belittling Lt. compton's service. The man could have sat out the war in a safe state side job but he wanted to serve his country. He joined and led some of the finest light infantry this nation has ever produced. He fought in Normandy, Holland and Belgium and saw his closest friends reduced to hamburger. Along the way he was awarded the Silver Star and 2 combat stars on his jump wings and left his blood spilled in the soil of Europe to help free the world and defend his home. That is the resume of a hero in my book. My complaint is with the way his book is presented.



2. As the Title states this is about Before, During, and After WWII. I never did consider these guys ''The Greatest Generation'' because they won a Popular War that our Government wanted to win. Americans could win any war that We Were Allowed to Win. These guys did, however, go through the Great Depression as kids and most had developed a sense of responsability in their early years. As a child Compton worked as an extra on movie sets. He gave his earnings to his parents to help support the family. He went to UCLA on a football scholarship but had to work on campus four hours a day. When he finally got in the Army,,he could have stayed in the states and played regimental baseball but chose to be a paratrooper.
   He hits the high spots of his time spent in the war. If you want to say he was ''Defensive'' ...he probably had some good reasons. I believe that Compton, among others, got shafted in the Mini-series. From reading his book and other little tid-bits that I have picked up, he left the line at Bastogne from a serious case of trenchfoot. When he was trying to get back to the unit from the hospital he ran into an old friend that got him a job in Paris for the rest of the war. I didn;t notice any other officers turning down chances to get promoted to Headquarters or rear-eschelon jobs. The mini-series made it sound like he spent the rest of the war in a padded cell or some such thing. Whatever the truth is,,,Compton spent more time on the Line than most of the Officers in and around Easy Company He couldn't have told much that hasn't been told several times in the other BOB books.
   When a person comes home from a War it's easy to have some self-pity and get an attitude. You just left a bunch of guys that you loved and had everything in common with and now you are all alone with a bunch of people that don't even have a clue.
   Compton hit the ground running. This guy worked full time as a policeman and went to Law School full time as well. He excelled at everything he did,,,not because it was dropped in his lap but because he worked his tail off. This should serve as an example for the returning servicemen of today. Compton's depth of character was what impressed me about his life. As a paratrooper, myself, jumping out of an airplane is no big deal,,, dealing with life,,day after day, year after year is what's tough.
   He talks about some of his more interesting cases from his days as a Prosecutor,,, especially the RFK assasination case.
   I highly recommend this book. The Americans that went to war in WWII were mostly Citizen Soldiers. This is a story of one citizen that helped win the war and the kind of citizen that makes this country great.
   War changes a person. That should be evident from reading Ambrose's book or watching the Mini-Series. These guys had all varied lives before, during, and after the war. From that point of view this book goes into more detail than most. I've read them all. I really can't pick one book and say it was the Best or Worst. I can say that this book certainly adds a lot to the Band of Brothers Reading List and is a Must-Read for the Serious BOB Buff.



3. Lynn Buck Compton is a well deserved member of the "Greatest Generation". His book is, as Paul Harvey would say, "the rest of the story". The four words that jump out at me are "I did my job" in reference to WW2. My father said the same thing. This generation saw their role in saving the world for freedom as simply a job. Each person did his or her job to the best of their ability. Buck Compton explains to us how these same attributes were carried on after the war. His life is a great commentary on the making of the "right stuff" in America. Only in America would the sequence of events in his life lead to the life he led. I think Buck would agree "God Bless America" and keep her forever free!



4. Buck Compton's biography covers his life before and the exciting life after "Band of Brothers"
   Although I would have liked to have read more about the WWII portion of his life, I still found his life exciting.
   Buck points out the inaccuracies of the miniseries and this helps to fill out the picture of the men of E company.
   Maybe it is not the best "Band of Brothers" biography but it still is a good read.



5. Congratulations to Buck Compton and thank you for telling us your inspiring story! Thank you for showing us the similarity between the Nazis you fought in WWII and today's terrorists. I can hardly go a day without thinking of the men of the 506th PIR. Your experiences in WWII have become a metaphor of life for me - I liken the Germans you encountered hiding behind the bushes in Europe to the challenges and troubles that life throws at all of us and try to face them with the same steely determination that you did. I sent this book to my son who recently graduated from college for several reasons - one being that it shows young people how careers are shaped by a combination of opportunity, chance and hard work!

5 comments about Mein Kampf.

1. AN AUTOBIGRAPHICAL BOOK OF HITLER.
   A PRICELESS MANUSCRIPT OF A MANS DESIRE TO CREATE A WORLD IN WHICH HE ALONE WILL RULE,A MILLION MAD MEN WILL HAVE WRITTEN BOOKS LIKE THIS AN NO ONE WILL TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY YET HE CAME CLOSE TO ACHIEVEING HIS VISION,HOW EVER DELUDED HE WAS, HOWEVER EVIL HE WAS ,THIS BOOK IS A TEMPLATE OF HIS VISION AND VIEWS.



2. From my point of view this is probably one of the most important books written. This is one of those books that changes history. Yes, this means I completely disagree with what Hitler said about books. He mentioned that books don't change history, but a good speaker/leader does. While this is very true, books usually exist in conjunction with this. I think you need both because the book is far more timeless than the speaker and often times a book precedes a major turning point for a movement. Look at texts like "The Bible", "The Principia," or Euclid's "The Thirteen Elements". All these texts were turning points in history and changed the way we look at the world. "Mein Kampf" would forever change the way we looked at the world as well. It literally moved nations to act... in opposition of such a major power struggle.
   
   I do not advocate Hitler's methodology in what he did, but I do acknowledge the profound impact it has left on the world and the major advancements we were all forced to make in realms such as technology. Now that this book is part of history you can't help but think of the "what if..." scenarios as I read through this massive text, I'll play into these concepts as I touch upon specific areas. Now I'm not a World War II or World War I historian by any means, so it was a hard book for me to read some of the more minute details Hitler referenced in this book. However, I read it more for the prospects in philosophy.
   
   This particular edition is split into two different volumes with an excellent introduction by the translator. Volume I was printed in 1925 and then Volume II came out in the year 1926, so they were written very close together. The first was mostly philosophical and recounts his childhood growing up. The second was more a general history of the political party and how to deal with foreign nations. It's interesting that Hitler didn't put out any other books after these two and I assume it's because his involvement in politics took up much more of his time and no longer had the free time to write. However, they did find another book he was working on after the fall of the Reich and is now published as "Hitler's Second Book". This edition is great because it compared the first printing with the second printing and footnotes the discrepancies. It also adds in details on the people Hitler named specifically in this book who would be relatively unknown to the rest of the world outside Nazi Germany and especially helpful to me because I haven't read that much about this period in history to know the extreme details. In Volume's I and II Hitler specifically references incidents in World War I that really helped shape the beliefs he has here.
   
   Anyway the introduction that prefaces this edition is rather lengthy, but well worth the read. It adds more of the historical background into the text you are about to dig into. It has interesting anecdotes about Hitler's involvement with the party, like in the text he states he was the seventh member of the DAP, but later it was found out he was 555th and this was corroborated with an unsent letter from Drexler, one of the founders. In fact when historian's looked at the membership items that were left behind after the war they could see that Hitler's had been altered physically. Also the introduction has an excellent overview of the printing of this book. Such as how it is not allowed to be printed in certain countries. Luckily in my country no such restrictions apply to any printed document, so I am free to read and review whatever I wish, regardless of how inaccurate a printed document is. I'm definitely glad there was an introduction even though it added another twenty pages onto an already daunting read. The introduction also forewarns us that Hitler can have a tendency to ramble in forms that eventually make little sense. I'm glad this warning was stated because when reading this book it was quite clear when Hitler felt particularly passionate about the subject he started to go off on these ridiculous tangents and tirades, often times in run on sentence form.
   
   In the spirit of this book, I will review Volume I separately from Volume II. So first we discuss Hitler's philosophy and growing up. Personally, I think Hitler should have stuck with the philosophical approach and left politics to the politicians (regardless of the fact this didn't mesh with his philosophy). Hitler's main point in doing the things he believed in was to change society for the better. It's very clear that he truly thought he would be saving the world and putting Germany in the forefront of being that savior. Hitler's conclusion was that it would most easily be changed through moving into the political realm. He specifically outlined his plan for getting access to the political realm and the backing of the people through propaganda. He even spells out that the propaganda doesn't always have to be true; it just needs to draw a person's attention. Realistically, when we look back on what he was planning on doing and how he did it, none of the world should have been shocked that this is what would happen. He pretty clearly outlines where his prejudices are and why he has them.
   
   Hitler starts his story as a young boy growing up and becoming disillusioned with the world around him. His father wouldn't let him do what he really wanted to do, which was art. He doesn't seem like the over confident Hitler that history portrays today. In fact I would say the movie "Max" starring Noah Taylor as Hitler did a pretty good portrayal of that possibility, only that movie was not about Hitler in his High School years, so it was a little unrealistic. When World War I started Hitler joined the military and I think this is where his confidence in himself really started to take root. This is also where he became convinced that propaganda was the key to winning the war because upon viewing the enemy's propaganda it was better than what Germany was putting out. It would appear his assumption was correct; since via propaganda he got many crowds gathered to listen to him speak.
   
   Probably the most well known facet of his beliefs is the anti-Semitism that brought on the Holocaust. He eventually ended up in Vienna and I think this is where his prejudice became firm. You can see where his theory turns into some sort of paranoid dementia, because before you knew it he was calling everyone on the street a Jew in disgust. This was mostly based on looking at the person and guessing. He believed they had penetrated the newspaper industry and were completely lying to everyone in the world. As Volume I continues you find that eventually this belief grows into him thinking that they also controlled the governments. I think a lot of this stemmed from one other text, which he mentions in this book "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." This is a hoax that has existed for a while and first started getting published in 1897. I believe the global conspiracy outlined in that book only solidified what Hitler suspected with his newspaper theory. I was surprised that Hitler had originally wanted to start out as an artist and actually held a few gallery viewings of his work. I wonder at this point if there is any Hitler original art around. If I remember correctly I heard actually wasn't a very good artist. It's interesting to note that as Hitler continues with his tirades I this book, you can tell he has a special soft spot for art because he wants more of that industries presence in Germany.
   
   Overall I was surprised at how little anti-Semitism there was in the book in comparison to the length of the text. I was actually expecting a lot more. Don't mistake me, he took jabs wherever he possibly could and there was an entire chapter dedicated to the subject. However, I felt like in the first volume he spent more time criticizing the Slavs and the Austrians as being a much more immediate problem. It's almost as if the first and foremost problem was his own government and Austria; the issue of the Jewish population was a more of a global problem and probably seemed to be less immediate. You get a wholly different feel by the time we reach Volume II though.
   
   I was also very surprised at the countries he referenced as being respectable, specifically England and America. He must have been greatly disappointed in England when they refused to side with him during World War II and he must have felt doubly wrong about his initial assessment of America when we funded a lot of his enemies. Being an American I found some of his comments curious since it seems he felt we had a dominant German aspect of our country. I found this odd since it was essentially founded by England and France mostly. I couldn't help but think that Hitler was misinterpreting his history or the books he was reading were just plain wrong.
   
   For the most part Hitler is a pretty good writer. I found that he appears very intelligent and very well read, also very arrogant. He has sections that discuss the part of his life where he was looking into the political arena and when he came across the German Workers' Party. He doesn't hesitate to point out how superior his ideas were or how much better things worked when done his way. From the point of view of a leader, this seems counter to what you would want. Since his ability to elevate his own status seems to be his main underlying motive rather than helping his people, despite what he actually says. There is one instance when he was recounting the first speeches given for the party and how the first speaker was rather boring, but when he spoke the crowd became excited and into the words, they stood up and cheered even. History recounts Hitler as a very excellent speaker and I have no doubt this is true, but it's curious to see that he puts himself over his own party members constantly in this book. There were also sections where he got very passionate about a topic that became very confusing, as I explained above. I don't think this speaks to his inability to write, but rather his inability to write clearly when he is really trying to get his point across on a topic he believes as a core problem.
   
   Either way you looked at it, I couldn't help but think by the end of Volume I that Hitler would have been one of the world's most celebrated leaders if he had just put his prejudice aside. This was the case... at least until I read Volume II. Through Volume I he seems to genuinely want to help his people and the world around him. The one major crux in his argument is that he believed in some overly prejudice driven conspiracy. I think Hitler really had to start struggling in the end when it was becoming even clearer that the Jews weren't as well off in Germany as he believed they were, especially during the great depression. I was surprised at his focus on helping the middle class and a seemingly focal point on intelligence and action. It appeared his main push to change the nation was centered on elevating the knowledge of the German peoples as well as moving them to the desire for action to help their nation. I think this is a great point and he's most certainly not wrong about it being needed. However, my interpretation of this concept would be dashed by Volume II...
   
   Volume II made it incredibly clear to me that Hitler had no place in becoming a leader and especially no place on deciding education reform. Shortly into Volume II he has a lengthy chapter on what he plans to do with education to bolster a more national spirit for young Germans and to create what he refers to as a "folkish state". The concept of the "folkish state" is discussed in great length throughout Volume II and seems to be the main focus. One of the first things he was going to do was decrease the amount of time in classrooms and increase the amount of time for exercise. Following this he would decrease the amount of subjects being taught in school. This completely conflicts with his desire for an intelligent Germany, and he also discusses at length how the intelligentsia of the area are all weaklings and spineless. He notes that many students learn quite a bit of frivolous subjects in High School, which is true, but I personally believe that being a well rounded student is far better. I do agree that people need more exercise, this is painfully clear to me living in America, but to sacrifice the access to knowledge is not a viable solution! He complains at length that too many people complain about certain political actions, but being spineless professors they never actually do anything about it. Hitler sought to change this and part of this included that right after High School the population (men) would go directly into the military. Hitler being a Veteran clearly thought his experience taught him strength, so he thought that what was good for him would be good for everyone else. If only such things were true, this is clearly something that cannot be put into practice. A lot of these crazy ideas may have seemed plausible on paper, but realistically they are a fool's errand... an errand Hitler was intent on running! After a citizens completion of Army service they were then allowed into the community to pursue whatever higher level career they saw fit to pursue. His purpose in High School was to expose the students to enough generalities for them to make a choice, which is a good idea, but his plan of execution was fairly far fetched and unrealistic. Personally, in 2008, I don't think High Schools are teaching students enough to prepare them for college or to perform in the working world. So it would seem less education on academics is not the answer, but the world really does need to find some kind of a balance on this subject, even Hitler recognized that and he lived in a vastly different era from our own.
   
   Volume II also takes a drastic turn in terms of anti-Semitism and his foreign relations outlook. England seems to have been demoted into a nation that they could possibly not ally with due to the financial control of the Jewish empire. The United States was also seen as a victim of this disease, but his knowledge of American finance seems to have been quite limited. Granted there were some major firms in the U.S. that were founded by German Jews, namely Goldman Sachs, but what about firms like J.P. Morgan? In terms of the major American firms there was a balance and in the 1930's Goldman Sachs nearly went out of business in the Great Depression, so clearly this racial favoring of economic power was quite unfounded. I think Hitler spoke on these foreign nations rather out of turn because it was pretty clear he didn't know all that much about the nations and had gotten all of his knowledge from books, which may have been biased. For he terms Ford as one of the only free American business men, but in the second printing he no longer names Ford specifically, I felt this was curious. This was a drastic change from my perspective after reading Volume I, where he praised America. So even within his own book he is very contradictory. Also the focal point of being against the Slavs and Austrians has been replaced by Germany's mortal enemy... France. This sort of came out of nowhere, since in Volume I they were not "mortal enemies" just the regular kind. Hitler must have read a lot more on the subject and decided the French were far worse than they once appeared. I find all this curious because he prefaces Volume II, with saying that it's going to be about the party history and formation. The above topics have nothing to do with the party history or its formation, rather Hitler's own pet peeves about the problems that he saw after World War I.
   
   Most of this Volume is spent complaining about current (1920's) Bourgeoisie decision making and discussing what Hitler plans to do to fix that. I personally wasn't buying it, but then again, his book is so long that I doubt many of the general workers ever actually read what he wrote. He did spell out in Volume I that he was essentially going to dupe the masses into following him by creating the best propaganda to get people to go to the meetings. At that point he probably understood the concept of mob madness and let that do the rest for him. He recounts his early involvement with the party as becoming the head of propaganda, which is what he wanted because he believed propaganda, first and foremost, was the fulcrum to a party's success. Hitler even points out that it doesn't matter if the party is well organized at that time if the propaganda doesn't bring the masses in, they will have nothing to organize in the first place. He also discusses at length the rarity of a man who can organize and lead well; I couldn't help but feel that he thought himself to be such a man. He was a brilliant strategist and acutely aware of the power of the threat of violence on the general populace, especially after a major war that was still fresh in peoples memories. One of his main points was that he believed that it didn't matter what the people knew as long as an intelligent leader was looking out for them, and it's clear he believed that he was the person that could truly help the most and should be leader. This is regardless of the violence he would have to inflict; besides he only wanted strong people to be German anyway, so a show of strength went a long way with him.
   
   It's interesting to also note that he clearly wanted to rewrite some of the annals of history to favor the German people. In his long winded explanation of the Folkish State he points out that he believes the Aryan's are the only ones who could ever develop culture. No, he wasn't referring to the peoples belonging to the nation of India, but rather the Germanic peoples. See, the term Aryan comes from India, and I have no idea if Hitler knew this or not, but that's its origin. Indians clearly wouldn't have been high on his list, and certainly didn't qualify as those being able to create culture despite their history of creating that vast nation. Rather, it appears the legend and concept of the Aryan survived and came down to Hitler as the superior race. For some reason he equated that with the Germanic peoples. His whole concept of the white population being the only force intelligent enough to create culture is clearly unfounded. He gets even more contradictory in this concept since he was well aware that Germany was vastly tribal up until the Roman invasions. He states the reason was that "we were a young people". This is just foolishness because it was trade in technology that eventually brought what we call "civilization" today to the Germanic tribes. It has nothing to do with them being the only creative force in the world. He completely ignores the fact that Egypt existed long before as a civilization. I question whether he knew of the Arab city-states of Sumer, but it doesn't explain Egypt. I think Hitler merely viewed them as "uncivilized" or "not a cultured" or whatever other twisted elaboration he wanted to thrust upon them. Either way, he does not explain his reasoning in detail, and just states matter of factly that only Aryans harbor the creative force to develop culture and no one else.
   
   Overall I walked away with reading a superb book, in my opinion. At times it was very hard to read and I will be the first to admit that not everyone will struggle through this thing. There are too many sections of rambling that don't drive home the main points. It all sounds very smart at first glance, but when you sit down and analyze what he's saying inherent contradictions come to the surface. Then it occurs to the reader that most of his language use is merely superfluous for the sake of sounding intelligent (much like this sentence). No one wants an incredibly inconsistent leader (however, I feel like that's all we get at times!). Despite the racial hatred, I am glad I read this book, it gives me a great historical perspective and I now understand where Hitler was coming from. On a philosophical note, it really makes me think of the concept of evil and how that plays into perspectives. From Hitler's perspective he thought he was saving his people. He thought he was actually saving the world from the greatest threat and he really thought the other nations would see the truth that he saw and back him up. Alas, for Hitler he was chasing after rumors and ghosts that didn't actually exist.
   
   In reading this I also couldn't help but wonder about what the world is like today. Lots of "what if" questions come to mind. Despite the incredible tragedy that Hitler wrought on so many lives, it was really the need to ramp up production of war elements that brought the world out of the great depression. So Hitler really did end up helping the world in this sense by provoking everyone to action. He also motivated the world to increase production and research into massive amounts of technology. Atomic energy might not have come to us as soon as it has without this provocation. I can't deny this factor. Also, I have to look at the historical perspective that the country I now reside in is the major world power because of Hitler's actions against Europe! Many people will probably consider these horrible thoughts, but I can't deny the reality of the situation and it leaves me to wonder that if Hitler had become the artist he always wanted to be, would we be in the same situation? Would Israel exist today if he never came to power? After World War II the Cold War went quickly into effect and I wonder if I would even have the internet to relay my ideas if World War II had never taken place, since that also forced us to ramp up production and research in technology. As a philosophical perspective these are all very profound concepts and questions. Despite all the horror that was wrought in the war, if you step back with the utilitarian perspective of Mills and look at all that has come out of the war that has elevated our lives and the economy as a whole.
   
   On the reverse side, what if Hitler had actually succeeded in what he wanted to do? Israel surely wouldn't exist today. Would Christianity be the same? Since he seemed to respect Christianity and he was surely no atheist, so would his disdain for the Jewish people provoke him to edit the Bible down to just the New Testament? I've already said before that he clearly sought to rewrite history and I don't think anything would be out of his grasp. I do know one thing for sure though, I wouldn't have been able to read all the books I have under a reign like that, and I most surely would not have been able to criticize this book as I have in such a society. Thankfully his party was not in power for a long time, but apparently long enough to change the world.



3. Mein Kampf is an interesting and powerful book to be sure. The book is not solely about the Jews, but I am writing my review in reference to Hitler's assertions therein, mostly because I am extremely disturbed by the content of many of the previous reviews. Hitler was a powerful figure, and obviously powerful still.
   
   I was patently shocked how many reviewers were taken in by Hitler's ongoing method of argument. Throughout the book, he makes his points by randomly refering to various notions, texts and occurences to prove his own inaccurate points. Because he stipulates various references, he manages to appear educated and convincing. This is particluarly true the case in Hitler's discussion of the Jews where he randomly refers to Jewish ideals and texts for his own end. What I found most interesting was precisly how little Hitler understood Judaism (although one uneducated reviewer asserts the oppposite), a faith, a philosophy, and ethnicity but not a race. What I found most alarming about many of the reviews was that people, even after all that has happened, bought into his various lines of reasoning on so many subjects, even those outside Judaism. His assertions, particularly about the Talmud, are are vague and highly misconstrued. Judaism is a philosphical religion, an as such is open to ongoing debate at all times even in the 21st century. I was floored by one reviewer who uses Hitler's own tactics to his make outlandish statments about the work of Talmud and Maimonedes, a topic on which he has no keen undertanding.
   
   For sure, Hitler is right about the Talmud in one respect: it is about life today, this moment and how to live it respectfully and well (although Hitler interprets this as a defect). While Christianity focuses on resurrection, Judaism focuses on the now, for tomorrow is uncertain and may not exist; for Jews, the afterlife, at best, is a shadowy thing.
   
   The fact of the matter remains that Judaism is the only religion in which God accepts ALL people so long as they are good; Judaism does not define goodness by Jewishness, but by goodness itself; belief in Judaism is not required. You do not have to be one of "The Chosen," a term which Hitler throws around in incite his readers, to be worthy. (To be "Chosen" in Judaism actually means that you are one who has accepted the burden 613, often contradictory, laws. Those who are not "Chosen" must only accept 7, very easy and innately human laws of behavior.)
   
   Mein Kampf is an important book and is hard to rate because it's can't be subject to "good" or "bad;" it stands outside such clear distinctions. It simply IS. While reading Mein Kampf I can only suggest that you read critically and take his assertions on all subjects with a grain of salt. It is arduous, self-serving and covertly incomplete. If you are at all interested in Hitler mind, this book is an obvious go to. It has people repeating and thus validating his injustices even now.



4. Hitler was a grand socialist. He proposed state control (regulation) of industry, economic interventionism, universal healthcare, and:
   
   "We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. "
   
   Oh, wait, that is just good old fashioned welfare statism a la Paul Krugman and H. Clinton.
   
   The fact that we universally recognize Hitler's racism as evil, while adopting the same collectivist welfare statism, speaks to our ignorance.
   
   Until individualism replaced collectivism, we will continue to see injustices against the individual from both the Liberals and Conservatives.



5. It seams odd, VERRY odd to have purchased this book. I am neither a Nazi, Neo Nazi nor simpathiser of ANY sort or degree!!!! You have NO idea
   how much bull I have recieved for just haviiing it, especially from my jewish aquaintances, but I think it is IMPORTANT to learn from the past. "You Know Who" was a MONSTER, a mad MONSTER, undeniabely!!!!!!! He was, however unfortunately, also a genius!!!!!
   I felt compelled to read this book in an attempt to find some degree of understanding and insight into how ANYONE could be SOOOO TWISTED, even EVIL!!!! For one man to do such things to another, let alone hundreds of thousands. His existance was a tragedy on ALL of humanity, a scar which can never be erased!!!! If humanity doesn't learn from it's mistakes it will be condemned to repeat them!!!!!!! There is knowledge in ALL things, no matter how horable and/or tragic!!!!!! LEARN!!!!!!!

5 comments about Lincoln.

1. This is a biography of Lincoln. The problem in writing a biography of Lincoln, of course, is that so many thousands of books on Lincoln have already been written. How do you say anything new and useful about the man, about whom more words have been written than anyone else in American history?
   
   Donald deals with this problem by adopting an unusual biographic strategy. In most biographies, of course, the writer is writing both the life of the subject and at least to some degree larger history. To put the life into context, as a rule, the writer needs to explore the larger issues with which the person was concerned.
   
   Donald very deliberately does not do this. He says in his introduction that is not a general history of 19th century America and it is not. He says that he will focus only on Lincoln himself, and he does. He does not, for example, give us a detailed description of any of the Civil War battles. Lincoln was not present at those battles, so they are not described. His focus is exclusively on Lincoln, the people around him and the events in which he was directly invovled.
   
   The result is odd, but it works. You get very little about the overall strategy of the Civil War. You get next to nothing about Congressional politics in the Civil War. You get virtually nothing about the Confederacy. Instead, you get this kind of reality-TV approach, where you feel as if you were following Lincoln around.
   
   In line with this approach, Donald offers a minimum of interpretation. He presents no arguments about Lincoln's signifigance or role in history. The thesis of the book, if you can call it that, is a very understated argument that LIncoln saw himself as the passive instrument of events, rather than the active shaper of them. It is more a theme, a literary device, than an argument.
   
   The book, in short, takes a minimalist approach to the subject. It works, simply because there is so much written on LIncoln. Out of the vast oceans of material that one could cover, and out of the oceans of argument one could make, Donald sticks tight to the subject and lets events speak for themselves. The end result is that he is able to write a very full biography, on his own odd terms, and keep it just under 600 pages of text. I found the book kind of cold emotionally, but nonetheless very gripping and very informative. I would not call it a definitive biography of Lincoln -- it is too short and self-consciously limited for that -- but, as one volume biographies go, it is very, very good.



2. I have a read a lot of biographical works on Abraham Lincoln. I found this to be the best and most balanced view. If you read biographies or other works related to Abraham Lincoln, you must include this book. It is required reading and was written by one of the - if not the - preeminent scholar on Lincoln.
   
   I would also recommend you to other books, in addition to this one, if you desire to learn about Abraham Lincoln. Reading a variety of biographies about Abraham Lincoln will give you an overall and better picture than one book can alone.
   
   However, having said that, this is the best Lincoln biography. It is excellent.



3. David Donald's Lincoln is packed full of relevant (and irrelevent) facts. I was surprised that a biography of 600 pages on anybody, especially Abraham Lincoln, could contain so much information. It usually takes authors two or three volumes to say as much as Donald does in one.
   
   Just like life on the western frontier, this biography begins slowly. This provides a good place for those interested in getting the author's take on Lincoln as a person. A portion of other people's lives that is usually covered in two to three pages is covered in great depth. In approximately 150+ pages, Donald gives us a look into Lincoln's early life, his time as a moderately successful Lawyer in Illinois, and his unsuccessful political career. For those looking to learn more about Lincoln's Administration, I would recommend skipping to Chapter Eight, where the book gets much more exciting.
   
   Once begun, Donald sets an exciting (and still fact-filled) pace that does not let up until the end.
   
   While this is a great biography, the subject will always be fiercely debated. Lincoln's Administration led during the greatest upheaval our nation has ever seen. Therefore the literature will vary immensely. For some (like Mr. Donald) Lincoln was mostly passive, and reacted to events as they came; for others he was a great leader with some less than great subordinates; and to still others he was a usurper who limited individual rights and constantly ignored the constitution.
   
   Mr. Donald does an excellent job of providing a balanced review of Lincoln, both as a person and as President. Too many biographers prefer to keep out negative aspects of their subjects, hurting the overall integrity of their work, but Mr. Donald is willing to admit fault in his man.
   
   I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the American Civil War era. I must again warn the reader that this is a hotly debated subject, and taking one opinion is not sufficient. I strongly suggest looking at other writers' take on the subject as well.



4. Well written book with great detail. The depth of research must have been great to give this reader a special feel for each progression of Lincoln's amazing journey though life. I'm really enjoying this book.



5. After hearing all of the hype about this Lincoln bio I finally got around to reading it. OK, I am spoiled, I read Sandburg's bio and it is hard to find anything close to that-certainly not in this book. To sum up my feelings, I don't know Lincoln any better after reading this than before. Prof. Donald misses the mark and I think he is somewhat awestruck that he can't seem to get any deeper. It is well researched and well written, but a bio needs much more.
   Here was a man with barely any formal education, not particularly succesful as a politician, elected over many who who knew they could do better and then the nation splits apart into Civil War. Not only did he face the undaunted task of trying to hold the nation together, but learn to be a general of sort, let alone his home life. Other bios show how Lincoln rose to the challenge to hold our nation together and finally find the right general, Grant, and become probably our greatest president.
   Somehow, Donald's book does not do it for me.

5 comments about Now the Hell Will Start: One Soldier's Flight from the Greatest Manhunt of World War II.

1. Crafting narrative non-fiction, especially in an historical context, is extremely challenging. Novelists can make up facts, but the non-fiction writer must make do with what he or she has. Yet Brendan Koerner has managed to produce a disturbing yet fascinating portrayal of a WWII soldier who kills an officer and goes native in the jungles of Burma. Koerner himself traveled to Burma to retrace some of his protagonist's steps, offering juicy gems and observations from people he interviewed. It's a powerful work, rare in this age of cookie-cutter narratives and celebrity obsession. (Full disclosure: I am a colleague and friend of Brendan's, so don't take my word for it. See the Washington Post review, as well as many others, which also give him kudos.)



2. S. T. Chisam, Jr. says:
   Ledo Road Legend "Now the Hell Will Start"
   Brendan Koerner has done a great service to the black troops who served in the China-Burma India theater during WWII. His meticulous research has provided an accurate and gripping recounting of the life of Herman Perry, a black soldier who murdered a white officer and led his pursuers on a desperate and riveting chase. He has done a marvelous job of melding Perry's story into a history of the building of the Ledo Road and the war to reclaim Burma from the Japanese. His efforts have captured the true conditions endured by American troops in this far-off and nearly forgotten theater of war, the very essence of what it was like to live in that miserable climate. I can attest to his accuracy because I was there as a member of the 502nd. Military Police battallion, working as a motorcycle rider and truck driver. I hasten to add that our Headquarters Company was not connected with running the infamous Ledo stockade and as soon as the road was pushed into Shingbwiyang we were relocated there.
   Koerner has a great gift for storytelling, his book reads fast and you won't be able to put it down.



3. I was unaware of this particular contribution of Black Soldiers in the building of the road and trials and tribulations that they had to endure in Jim Crow rules while overseas in WW II.



4. I first heard of this book when I read a small blurb about it in Newsweek. Being an armchair World War II historian, I have read many books about the war, but knew very little beyond the basics of the war in the China/India/Burma theater. I was interested to know more. However, the main reason I read this book is because I love a good adventure story, especially a true one. Truth is almost always stranger than fiction, and this book illustrates that perfectly.
   
   The author paints a colorful portrait of Perry, his mind-set, and the colliding factors of war, poverty, crime, and racial discrimination that land Perry in the worst situation possible. Though Perry suffered more than most people could imagine and perhaps was justified in his crime, the author does not paint Perry as a saint. Perry had big problems and made some wrong decisions. The reader is left to wonder how he would react in the same situation.
   
   The other character in this book is the jungle itself. The jungle is so real, so tangible, so deadly that it becomes almost a sentient being. The jungle is unstoppable in its ability to grind machines and equipment to rust and rubble and suck the life out of the men who came to work there. It shows no mercy and exists without pity. Contending with the Japanese was preferrable than contending with the jungle. The author treats the jungle not just as the setting of the story, but as one of the cast.
   
   
   Make no mistake; this book is the story of a tragedy. Nobody wins, except the jungle.
   
   There were some elements of writing style which bothered me a bit. At times, some of the language seems like it has a bit too much pop culture infused into it. The book doesn't suffer much from it, but it is something that I noticed at times. This was also one of the first military history/adventure books I've read where the author explains in the footnotes what a given weapon is (M1 Garand, for example). I wondered at times if the author was doing that to remind himself, because he didn't come across as a big weapons expert to me. However, after thinking about it, I decided it was good to do that. By including small explanations, the author is recognizing that not everybody who reads his book is a historian or weapons aficionado.
   
   If you have an interest in forgotten stories of World War II, jungle survival, African American history, raw adventure stories, justice gone horribly wrong, or ever imagined quitting your day job and running off to the jungle, you'll like this book.



5. A very interesting book about a little known chapter of WWII history. Brendan Koerner tells the story of a man who was pushed to his limits. A man whose story deserved to be remembered. A man who was a member of the "Greatest Generation" too. - Ray Charlton

5 comments about Warrior King: The Triumph and Betrayal of an American Commander in Iraq.

1. This is certainly a passionate book about one Soldier and officer/s experience in war. My role in this war was the director of plans for the commander of land forces in 2002/03. My feeling on reading this book is that the truth is somewhere in the middle. I do not know LTC Sassaman. I do know now BG Rudesheim. He is a good man and a good Soldier. I was not there in theater when these incidents occured. what this book points out is that war is a cruel business and not to be taken lightly. We citizens should consider the cost of war and ask questions of our leaders before and during war. If there are questions or incosistencies in the rationale for war we are obligated tobring these up. Many people accept the assertion that there was no planning for what to do after our forces got to Baghdad. I assure you that there was a plan. The question is why was there no follow through. Sassaman does a credible job in presenting his version of the events in one area during one period during the on going war. I urge peple to read MORE about this tough war and about the Soldiers Marines Sailors and Airmen who are fighting it. Remember though that one man or woman/s experience in this war cannot be THE definitive work on it.



2. LTC Sassaman's book, The Warrior King, was an insightful book that was helpful to our family to see a picture of what is really going on in the Iraq War. Just watching the news and reading the newspaper does not portray the real story. It is a shame that LTC Sassaman's career was ruined by the combination of the administration's failure to set forth proper goals for winning the war, failure to set rational policies for rebuilding Iraq, the Army's willingness to sacrifice one of it's top soldiers in an effort to have better public relations regarding detainee abuse and Colonel Rudesheim's policies of appeasement and "offend no Iraqi's" in the midst of the supposed war.
   
   It saddens me that someone with the character and heart of a Warrior, like LTC Sassaman , isn't being honored. He should be a General by now.
   
   The Bush Administration and the military's complete lack of planning regarding the occupation, rebuilding and departure from Iraq is appalling.
   
   This book should be required reading for all high school students!!! Kudos to you Nathan Sassaman, for sharing your story. Can't wait to see it on the Big Screen!!



3. In another war, Nate Sassaman's aggressive leadership would have merited a statue somewhere. Instead, as "the right warrior for the wrong war," his career was sacrificed to satisfy the needs of an army obsessed with appearances instead of winning. His is a story of brave men faced with hardship and hostility, having to make snap decisions in the heat of combat, only to be second-guessed by careerist officers sitting in the air-conditioned comfort of their offices. The parallel to big city police forces does not go unnoticed - "there is no war right now," he writes. "It's law enforcement, and we're losing ten, fifteen soldiers a week to law enforcement." If you oppose the war, you need to read the book to appreciate the sort of people we send over to fight it; if you support the war, you need to read it to understand why LTC Sassaman, a true warrior, writes, "Bring the soldiers home - now. Start today."



4. The U.S. military is often viewed by many people that have never served as being a monolithic organization. This couldn't be further from the truth. Because in reality it's nothing more then a beauracratic leviathon. LTC Sassaman does an excellent job of showing the reader how having this sad reality naturally present can become a grave achilles heel in a nation's larger foreign policy when it's combined with a disengenious political idealogy.



5. I could not put the book down...It captured my heart and gave me a new perspective on the war,the people in Iraq,and our military.I think it takes great courage to speak the truth and share an experience such as this. Nate has done it in a profound way and has obviously put his heart and soul into this book. My heart goes out to every soldier serving in Iraq and I think every American needs to read this book.
   I have to make a comment about the fallen soldiers,first my heart and prayers are with the families(I can only imagine the heartache).Second,I know Nate personally and I know his intent for dedicating his book to them was for no other reason than to give respect and honor where it is due.I think people need to understand that many lives and families have experienced great pain from this war.If you can some how use it to help others through their pain, then it becomes a labor of love and hopefully great healing. I believe that not only every American needs to read this book but also every leader in our government.

5 comments about Beyond Band of Brothers: The War Memoirs of Major Dick Winters.

1. A wonderful companion to the HBO "Band of Brothers" miniseries. The book fills in some gaps and details to give you a more complete picture of Easy Company's trek through the war in Europe. Highly recommended!



2. The moral character of Maj. Winters is impecable and unimpeachable. His book is one every kid in school chould read to learn what it is to stand fast in the face of fear and the enemy wether foreign or domestic. This is important now because we may be facing a time when we must once again face a enemy that is domestic. I would hope we would have leadership similar to that given by Maj. Winers.



3. I am hooked on the mini-series and can almost quote the dialogue. This book fills in a lot of the the missing parts and solidifies a lot of the truths of the film. A well written and very good reading book that is filled with facts and great memories. Probably should be read after seeing the series.



4. This is a great book .. if we had a country full of men like this it would be the greatest country in history.



5. True insight through the eyes of a great combat leader inspiring men to fight under difficult circumstances to protect each other on a none forgiving battlefield. Major Dick Winters is a man who understands the art of war and making the right decisions under pressure. A true warrior and a great American.

5 comments about A Rumor of War.

1. I thought this book was the best book on Vietnam that I have ever read. Its a facinating look into life as a line officer in a front line Marine Infantry batallion during the early part of the war. Caputo holds nothing back when it comes to describing life on the front line and what goes through the minds of these young, too young Marines who fought on the front line. An excellent read and I highly reccomend it.



2. Its a page turner from start to finish. A very unique view of the war.



3. Caputo wasn't much of a marine. He started complaining about Vietnam before he arrived. Every page is filled with criticism, cynicism, griping, complaining, and self-serving tripe. He wanted to be a hero, but he didn't have what it took to be anything but a whining wimp. Certainly he writes well. But writing well and living well are entirely different. He doesn't understand honor or duty. Sure the war was politicized, but so is every war. Sure the rules of engagement were stupid, but a soldier serves. Caputo did not serve; rather he whined. Many of us who served in Vietnam believed there were many things that made no sense. But we didn't turn tail and run. We served. For those who want to understand what is was like to be a soldier in Vietnam, read "We Were Soldiers Once... and Young" or "Steel My Soldiers' Hearts". If you want to know what is was like to be useless in Vietnam, read this book.



4. I assigned this book to my college students for a closer glimpse of the Vietnam Conflict. I had not read it before, but had done research and study on the subject. I found Caputo's book to be insightful, controversial and thought provoking. He doesn't glamorize the war but explains how it effected soldiers and one of the many reasons it was such a mess. Throughout the book, Caputo shows how the conditions changed the average American teenager into a robotic killer and how their experiences stayed with them. In the end, he speaks against the war, but not in the normal Jane Fonda version of bashing the military and labeling them rapists and baby killer. Caputo talks about how the government was at fault and created the situations that lead to PTSD and other issues for returning soldiers.
   
   A must read to understand the war and its effects on our soldiers.



5. In keeping with the theme of this Memorial Day weekend, I would like to offer my thoughts on "A Rumor of War," a classic tale of Vietnam. Philip Caputo has crafted one of the most moving and disturbing testaments to the men who fought and died in that far away land. When the book was first published in 1977, the New York Times called it "The troubled conscience of America speaking passionately, truthfully, finally." I became aware of this classic memoir when my friend, Capt. Kyle Kalkwarf, West Point Class of 2002, told me that it was one of the best books about war he had ever read. He recommended that I add it to my reading list. He was right in doing so.
   
   Caputo's recollections of his time as a Marine in Vietnam are filled with anger and sorrow at the misbegotten policies promulgated in Washington and carried out with disastrous results by General Westmorland and his subordinates. The author makes it clear in his introductory remarks how he felt and feels about that war and the impact that it had upon him and his comrades in arms:
   
   "Beyond adding a few more corpses to the weekly body count, none of these encounters achieved anything; none will ever appear in military histories or be studied by cadets at West Point. Still, they changed us and taught us, the men who fought in them; in those obscure skirmishes we learned the old lessons about fear, cowardice, courage, suffering, cruelty and comradeship. Most of all, we learned about death at an age when it is common to think of oneself as immortal. Everyone loses that illusion eventually, but in civilian life it is lost in installments over the years. We lost it all at once, and in the span of months, passed from boyhood through manhood to a premature middle age. The knowledge of death, of the implacable limits placed on a man's existence, severed us from our youth as irrevocably as a surgeon's scissors had once severed us from the womb. And yet, few of us were past twenty-five. We left Vietnam peculiar creatures, with young shoulders that bore rather old heads. . .
   
   This book is partly an attempt to capture something of its [the war's] ambivalent realities. Anyone who fought in Vietnam, if he is honest about himself, will have to admit he enjoyed the compelling attractiveness of combat. It was a peculiar enjoyment because it was mixed with a commensurate pain. Under fire, a man's powers of life heightened in proportion to the proximity of death, so that he felt an elation as extreme as his dread. His senses quickened, and he attained an acuity of consciousness at once pleasurable and excruciating. It was something like the elevated state of awareness induced by drugs. And it could be just as addictive, for it made whatever else life offered in the way of delights or torments see pedestrian." (Pages xv-xvii)
   
   Caputo's last comments in the section just quoted seem to be eerily in keeping with the themes of the stunning films, "The Deer Hunter" and "Apocalypse Now."
   
   In one of the most gripping passages in the book, Caputo recaptures the spectrum of emotions he felt during a helicopter assault - running the gamut from fear to courage:
   
   "A helicopter assault on a hot landing zone creates emotional pressures far more intense than a conventional ground assault. It is the enclosed space, the noise, the speed, and, above all, the sense of total helplessness. There is a certain excitement to it the first time, but after that it is one of the more unpleasant experiences offered by modern war. On the ground, an infantryman has some control over his destiny, or at least the illusion of it. In a helicopter under fire, he hasn't even the illusion. Confronted by the indifferent forces of gravity, ballistics and machinery, he is himself pulled in several directions at once by a range of extreme, conflicting emotions. Claustrophobia plagues him in the small space: the sense of being trapped and powerless in a machine in unbearable, and yet he has to bear it. Bearing it, he begins to feel a blind fury toward the forces that made him powerless, but has to control his fury until he is out of the helicopter and on the ground again. He yearns to be on the ground, but the desire is countered by the danger he knows is there. Yet, he is also attracted by the danger, for he knows he can only overcome his fear by facing it. His blind rage then begins to focus on the men who are the source of the danger - and of his fear. It concentrates inside him, and through some chemistry is transformed into a fierce resolve to fight until the danger ceases to exist. But this resolve, which is sometimes called courage, cannot be separated from the fear that has aroused it. Its very measure is the measure of that fear. It is, in fact, a powerful urge not to be afraid anymore, to rid himself of fear by eliminating the source of it. This inner, emotional war produces tension almost sexual in its intensity. It is too painful to endure for long. All a soldier can think about is the moment when he can escape his impotent confinement and release this tension. All other considerations, the rights and wrongs of what he is doing, the chances for victory or defeat in the battle, the battle's purpose or lack of it, become so absurd as to be less than irrelevant. Nothing matters except the final, critical instant when he leaps out into the violent catharsis he both seeks and dreads." (Pages 277-8)
   
   Caputo's thoughtful and passionate recounting of the growing up that he did in the cauldron of Vietnam added to my understanding of what many of my generation experienced as they fought in Southeast Asia and returned to a country that had grown sick of the fighting. As our nation once again wrestles with combat fatigue and the questions of when to withdraw and how to withdraw from Iraq, I am grateful that this time around - unlike the situation that existed in the late `60's and 70's - even those who oppose the war have not showered those returning from the Gulf with opprobrium. They desire our admiration and our gratitude.
   
   Thanks Kyle, for recommending this book, and for your continuing service to our nation.
   
   Al

5 comments about Flags of Our Fathers.

1. I'd read "Flags of Our Fathers" after the superb "Flyboys," and perhaps it was only too easy to be disappointed. "Flyboys" is an amazing book, both focused on the immediate and on the greater picture; even for people who've read plenty of history, there are fresh revelations on every page.
   
   "Flags of our Fathers," on the other hand, is a much more conventional history book, much more narrowly focused. Bradley does do a good job of reaching beyond his father, as he didn't have to do; but he doesn't do a particularly good job of bringing readers into the moment, or of putting them into the greater context.
   
   The story of the men in the famous -- almost ignored -- photo is one that could be told, and should have been told, and was told well enough in "Flags of our Fathers." It's just hard not to wish for something a bit more, as when the author caught his voice in "Flyboys."



2. 
   This book is the story of the the amphibious landing, the battle for Mount Suribachi, the three airstrips, Nishi Ridge and finally Kitano Point. Sixteen of three hundred and 82 pages tells briefly of the stateside Bond Drive.
   
   Nothing in this book, approaches the moral ambiguity shown in the film of the same title, which shows only the amphibious landing as far as battles for the critical features of the island. With Bradley's book, there is only a respectful tone, and the heroism of the men is never brought into question. This is one of the great military histories concerning a critical battle in the South pacific.
   
   /



3. I'm so glad to have read this book. It created so much discussion among my social circles because I was amazed by the information. I learned more about WWII than I did in my history classes in high school and college because I was drawn into the book through learning about the lives of the 6 flagraisers at Iwo Jima. The book introduces you to each character, how they "joined" the war, their experience at the flagraising and their life after their service in the military. A GREAT read!



4. I am glad I saw the movie first. The book and its story of the real life men who raised the flags over Iwo Jima is far superior. Better yet is that the book focuses more attention on the Battle of Iwo Jima itself, whereas the film devoted a inordinate attention to the bond drive.
   
   FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS is not just one story, but multiple tales about the Marines who stormed ashore on the black sands of Iwo Jima and raised the second flag over the pork-chop-shaped volcanic isle. Through the book we follow them through their very unremarkable varied beginnings through the survivor's post war battles with their fame. Author James Bradley had particular interest in the subject matter as his father, Navy Corpsman John Bradley, was one of the flag raisers.
   
   John Bradley rarely spoke to his son about his part in the flag raising. Indeed Bradley's method of coping with his horrific wartime experiences was to be a loving husband, good father, successful businessman and contributor to his community. James Bradley's search for his father's wartime experiences found his dad's story linked to that of that great battle and the Marines. Of the three surviving flag raisers John Bradley was the only one who was able to pull his life together and move on, albeit with occasional nightmares that left him sobbing.
   
   The book does a great job contrasting the lives of the surviors. Bradley's veteran years contrast sharply with that of fellow flag raiser and Pima Indian Ira Hayes. In the book we find the beginning of Hayes' downward spiral months before he even set foot on Iwo Jima. Hayes eventually sought post war refuge through alcoholism and inability to rise above anything other than living a hard life. Bradley's narrative highlights some intersting parallels in both men's lives. John Bradley harbored the true fate of his horribly tortured close friend Ralph Ignatowski, while Ira Hayes carried the truth about the misidentification of one of the flag raisers. Both men made their own pilgrimages to the families of the dead Marines to unburden their souls.
   
   A large portion of the book covers the battle itself. Twenty-two thousand Japanese defenders fought from caves, concrete blockhouses, and miles of tunnels carved through the volcanic tuff. For many Marines, supported by numerous quotes in the book, Iwo was Hell itself.
   
   There are very few good contemporary books written about Iwo Jima. Although FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS leans heavily on actions directly related to the flag raisers, it includes numerous vignettes representative of the overall battle. FLAGS is much better than Bradley's subsequentwork FLYBOYS. Where FLYBOYS straddles a potpourri of seemingly unrelated topics, FLAGS remains focused on the flagraisers.
   
   This book is available in several different editions, sizes, and print formats.



5. I'm an amateur World War II historian, a huge fan of the USMC, and I love the country of my birth, the United States of America. So please don't think this review is meant to be anti-soldier or anti-American.
   
   What's funny about this book is that the son/author TOTALLY misses the big points that his father/warrior tried to teach. Namely: (1.) if you have to serve your country in wartime, you do it AND THEN YOU SHUT UP, and (2.) the heroes of conflict are THOSE WHO DIED FIGHTING, not the ones who acted bravely and were lucky enough to survive. And I'm not making this up out of spite: I have read the book, and that's the understanding I derived from the description of the father/warrior.
   
   Yet in "Flags of Our Fathers," the flag-raisers of Iwo Jima are somehow superior to the thousands of GI's who died fighting on that island because the former were in an iconic photograph, and the ones who died weren't. The author of the book both milks that photograph (i.e., no photograph = no book entitled "Flags of Our Fathers") for personal glory and simultaneously shames the federal government of 1945 for cashing in on that iconic image.
   
   Throughout the whole book, there is some sort of "you-can-have-it-both-ways" fog. For example (and I cite this example from another Amazon citizen reviewer), why is it BAD for the Iwo Jima flag-raiser Rene Gagnon to have tried to make money off his experience, and OKAY for James Bradley (who wasn't even born in 1945) to write a book and make money off the same event?
   
   Why is it commended in "Flags of Our Fathers" that the Marines are all about teamwork and brotherhood, but also okay for the Bradley family of suburban Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to arrange a VIP trip for themselves to Iwo Jima in the 1990's to deposit a plaque on Mount Suribachi that mentions and honors ONLY their relative, and NONE of the other flag-raisers?
   
   This is a GREAT book about The Greatest Generation, and a great honor to a small group of brave, very young men who raised the flag over Iwo Jima on that hellacious day. No doubt! But this text is limned in insincerity, contradiction, and (what must be unintended) irony.

5 comments about The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave (Barnes & Noble Classics Series): An American Slave (Barnes & Noble Classics).

1. This is one of the most violent books (an autobiography!) I ever read. It illustrates horrifyingly `that crime of crimes: making man the property of his fellow man.' It shows the horrendous `playing' field of blood and blasphemy, of flogging and callous skins, of hunger and nakedness, and even premeditated murder. `It was a common saying that it was worth a half-cent to kill a n.gger, and a half-cent to bury one.'
   
   system: mental darkness, hypocritical religion
   Forcing them to live in appalling living conditions (`nothing but a coarse tow linen shirt, reaching only to my knees, sleeping on a cold, damp, clay floor.'), the aim of the white man was to keep his slaves in mental darkness: `to make a contented slave, it is necessary to make a thoughtless one. It is necessary to darken his moral and mental vision and to annihilate the power of reason.'
   The white man's barbaric behavior was justified by unacceptable religious Phariseism: `the religion of the south is a mere covering for the most horrid crimes, a dark shelter under which the darkest, foulest, grossest, and most infernal deeds of slaveholders find the strongest protection.'
   F. Douglass poses the right question: `Does a righteous God govern the universe?' `He who proclaims it a religious duty to read the Bible denies me the right to read the name of God.'
   
   freedom
   All slaves dreamed of escaping to the free north, even at the risk of their lives, in order to earn a salary for themselves, to learn writing and reading and to live in decent living conditions.
   
   This story, of which certain aspects are still very actual, reminds us of one of the darkest chapters in the history of mankind. It is told with unforgettable emotional lucidity and visualized with violent realistic scenes.
   A must read.



2. This is more than an intellectual reading about slavery in America. It is a book that challenges the most basic assumptions we hold about justice, liberty, freedom, living out our faith, respect for human life and dignity. If the reader is honest, they will have to question their own prejudices as Douglass narrates his quest for freedom. Written well over a century ago, it is still essential reading if a white person is to be an educated American citizen. I recommend this book be read along with "Bullwhip Days: The Slaves Remember, An Oral History," by James Mellon.



3. PUCHASED THIS BOOK FOR CLASS BUT IT TURNED OUT TO BE A REAALY INTERESTING READ..



4. This book helped me to see the freedoms that I now have. It also taught me to follow my dreams with all my heart. "Give me liberty or give me death" What a true blessing to read about this great man of GOD.



5. I needed this book for an 11th grade summer assignment so I decided to purchase this version of the book. I loved how the price was good, and I loved the extra bits of information at the beginning of the book (like the timeline). I suggest anyone intrested in reading this book purchase this version...it definately was worth it!

3 comments about Dinner with Mugabe: The Untold Story of a Freedom Fighter who Became a Tyrant.

1. This is a very interesting book and a poignant reminder of how Zimbabwe could have been a success story. The author is familiar with the history through her life as a radical and supporter of black rule in Rhodesia when she, and her husband a surgeon, lived in Ian Smith's outlaw colony. She interviews people who knew Mugabe well and then corrects their misrepresentations from her own knowledge. This is a very valuable technique and, with a man as private as Mugabe has always been, is as close as we will get to the inside story.
   
   Robert Mugabe was a studious child, educated by Jesuits and abandoned by his father at an early age. His mother, something of a mystic, was always convinced that he had a special destiny. The author describes Mugabe's mother, Bona, as "a cold, stern nun of a mother."(page 7) He has been emotionally crippled all his life although, with his first wife Sally, a flamboyant and colorful Ghanaian teacher, he had a loving and loyal marriage. She is described by some of the interviewees as warm but by others as imperious and corrupt.
   
   There is a very interesting interview with Mary Churchill Soames, Winston Churchill's younger daughter and wife of the last colonial governor of Rhodesia. Lord Soames became very close to Mugabe who, in a moment of truth just before the election of 1980, which put him in power, asked Soames to stay on for a lengthy transition period to help rule the country. "And Mugabe then said, 'I want you to stay because I need to be able to talk to somebody. I don't know anything about governing a country and none of my people do either.'" Soames told him that it would be impossible and Mugabe was on his own. When Lord Soames died, Mugabe and his wife arrived at Lady Soames' home uninvited to attend his funeral. This was an example of the rare personal empathy that Mugabe could establish with certain people.
   
   There is also a chapter on Denis Norman, a wealthy white farmer who had no interest in politics but who was prevailed upon by Mugabe to take several ministries to solve problems created by incompetent members of his cabinet. Here was another white man trusted by Mugabe, who insisted on European dress by all his ministers and who emulated English manners and education. In fact, the author comments that his education policies (similar to those in India, in my opinion) left the country with too many white collar workers clamoring for government jobs and not enough auto mechanics and other technical trades.
   
   Unfortunately, in another of the disastrous mistakes made by almost everyone in Zimbabwe, the white voters supported former dictator Ian Smith's party in the legislature, enraging Mugabe who had actually treated them quite fairly, even allowing Smith, who had imprisoned him, to live freely in the country and to seek office and serve in parliament. This was a serious mistake, compounded by Mugabe who then dismissed Denis Norman from his post as Agriculture Minister. He told Norman that the whites had chosen to treat him as a black and he would reciprocate, although he later called on Norman again and again to solve problems.
   
   The story continues to 2000, when Mugabe was losing his power to a new generation and was besieged by "war veterans" while he watched white farmers donate checks to his political opponent on television. The result was the disastrous occupation of the commercial farms and the descent of Zimbabwe to ruin. It seems to me, after reading this book, that Mugabe is no more in control of his country than is Assad of Syria. Both are basically run by warlords and secret police.
   
   The book is excellent and the lesson to me is that there were many opportunities for a happy, or at least happier, ending. Mugabe is an educated man, if emotionally stunted, and he did reach out to some of his white opponents for help early on. Some helped him and became friends. Many of the white residents foolishly voted for his enemies and fed his paranoia. I don't know what the chances for success in Zimbabwe were originally, but it seems that everything that could go wrong, did so. This is a very well written account of what happened. He is a monster now, but he wasn't always.



2. Although Heidi Holland met Mugabe only a couple of times, she still provides some good interviews and insights into Mugabe. He has unfortunately proved to be one of the worst leaders of the past couple of decades. Look at the results of his presidency--100,000% inflation, massive food shortages and an 80% unemployment rate. Zimbabwe is an embarrassment to Africa and it didn't have to be that way. Here's a detailed critique of what went wrong, where it went wrong and who is responsible. Mugabe is an intriguing figure because he began his career largely heralded by everyone as a freedom fighter like Nelson Mandela. To see how tragically it turned out, leaves many questions; it's a void Holland is clearly trying to fill.
   
   Holland writes well--the words are fluid and vivid and so it's easy to see how her years of reporting for the BBC, the Guardian and many other reputable news organizations has helped. The book is broken into 15 chapters with an index and bibliography for further reading. I do have one complaint, that I wish this were written by someone who had spent more time with Mugabe instead of relying mostly on interviews and a couple of brief encounters with him.
   
   However, I am glad this book was written and even more glad that it was published in America! I heard Heidi interviewed on the BBC and was dismayed that the book was available for sale only in South Africa. (Note: The book was rushed into production here so the British grammar remains. IE: magnetised instead of magnetized.) Yes, we are interested in the subject here too and are horrified by the still unfolding tragedy of Zimbabwe. If only there was something more we could do to help, but what?



3. "Dinner with Mugabe: The untold story of a freedom fighter who became a tyrant", is a wonderful read that describes acurately why Mugabe is so angry and pushed into his current situation. My complaint is the subtitle of the book that Amazon advertises, " the man behind the monster". The real subtitle is on the front of the book. This other thing is a heading for an inside flap note. The average American has no idea about how England and the United States have colluded to destabalize The Zimbabwe nation state primarily because of Land Reform differences. Heidi Holland is trying to teach us how Mugabe got to this point in time, and Amazon's mangling of the subtitle of her book does not help people approach this book in a positive way. Please use the real subtitle which is plainly written on the front of the dust jacket.
   Marion W. Sykes