5 comments about The Pursuit of Victory: The Life and Achievement of Horatio Nelson.

1. EXLENT HISTORY OF LORD NELSON AND CONFLICT OF THEIR WORLD,WITH A PERSONAL TOUCH OF FAMILY, FRIENDS AND NOBILITY



2. I think this book is way too thick. I would recommend this biography(?)as a reference book when looking up facts about Lord Nelson, but not for learning about his life. I seriously doubt all the 'reviewers' with raving compliments on the back cover of the book read from start to the last page...
   
   I am giving 3 stars for the credit of compiling all the facts. However, the author could have done much better job at writing a "biography."



3. I highly recommend The Pursuit of Victory: The Life And Achievement of Horatio Nelson, a new biography of England's greatest warfighting admiral, Horatio Nelson.
   
   This biography does a superb job of providing context and background for Nelson's astonishing rise to fame and his equally astonishing victories at sea--and lesser known defeats, which always occurred on territory unfamilar to Nelson, i.e. land. We find that the extreme risks of Britain's war with Napoleonic France created a brief window of opportunity for commoners such as Nelson to rise within the class-conscious and peerage-dominated Admiralty. Merit was so essential to victory that the Admiralty could not afford to advance captains by favoritism alone.
   
   Equally interesting is the author's careful descriptions of the role of mentors in Nelson's career arc--captains and admirals above him in the bureaucratic Royal Navy who guided, aided and promoted him, not so much to benefit themselves but in recognition of his talents. Without these mentors--several of whom he maintained as close personal friends until death--his rise from the ranks of hundreds of junior captains to admiral at a young age would not have happened.
   
   Not that Nelson enjoyed a perfect career. A gross political miscalculation--falling under the influence of the King's ne'er do well son, who had been given a position as Admiral not on talent but on birthright--caused Nelson's career to falter at a critical juncture. Having fallen out of favor for his destructive sycophancy, Nelson was sent home without a command, where he languished for seven long years as a poor gentleman landowner.
   
   A renewal of the war with France gave him one more chance, and with the aid of his mentors, he assumed command of the Mediterranean Fleet (bypassing many jealous senior admirals), enabling him to score his first great strategic victory in the Battle of the Nile.
   
   Life at sea was not easy, and Nelson was often ill and exhausted. Having lost an eye and an arm in two land engagements (he was deployed twice to joint Army-Navy commands, both of which ended badly, partly due to Nelson's ignorance of land warfare), he was often in pain. he also had to make judicious political decisions regarding allies, harrass the Admiralty for supplies, maintain discipline on a huge fleet of wooden ships in poor weather, and a host of other challenges which would have ground down by sheer workload alone a lesser commander.
   
   This engaging, masterly paced work covers not just Nelson's life but the political context of the Royal Navy and the role of senior commanders in his rise to the highest levels of command. It is a portrait of one man's life set within a detailed account of his family, era, superiors and comrades.



4. Noted Nelson scholar Roger Knight has written an elegant biography of Great Britain's greatest fighting admiral, Vice Admiral Horatio Nelson, which was published shortly after the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar; both Nelson's greatest victory and the scene of his tragic, yet heroic, death. But is it the definitive biography devoted to Admiral Nelson's life and career? Although it does come close, regrettably, the answer is "no", since another eminent Nelson scholar, John Sugden, is currently at work on the second volume of his Nelson biography, which will cover Nelson's exploits from late 1797 to the Battle of Traflagar, which occurred on October 21, 1805 (This review is being published here at Amazon.com one day prior to the 201st anniversary of this battle.).
   
   Knight covers Nelson's life and career in a massive tome of more than 800 pages, breaking it down into five sections. Much to my amazement, Knight has successfully covered Nelson's life and career from his birth in 1758 to his appointment as captain of HMS Agamemnon in January, 1793 in slightly more than a hundred pages, "I Youth and Disappointment 1758-1793" (Readers who think they are missing important aspects of Nelson's career should turn instead to the first volume in John Sugden's Nelson biography, "Nelson: A Dream of Glory", which emphasizes the young Nelson's rapid rise through officer ranks to becoming among the Royal Navy's youngest post captains.). Here Knight demonstrates how Nelson relied upon patronage from well-connected relatives like his uncle Captain Maurice Suckling and substantial exposure to good seamanship and officer conduct, which allowed him to secure rapid promotion to Post Captain and command of a frigate during the American Revolution. We also get our first glimpse of the heroic Nelson through his participation in an ill-fated joint Royal Navy and Army invasion to seize Nicaragua from the Spanish, which will not only cost him his command of a heavily armored frigate, but also his good health, and indeed, almost his life. Knight covers succinctly Nelson's two tours of duty in the British West Indies, devoting substantial coverage to Nelson's adulation of the mediocre Prince William Henry, later, Duke of Clarence, and eventually, King William IV, assigned to Nelson's command as a junior Royal Navy frigate captain (Here we see Nelson's unabashed admiration for royalty emerge unexpectedly, which will have serious consequences for his career in the late 1790s.).
   
   The biography's second section, "II Maturation and Triumph 1793 - 1798" covers Nelson's early career during the French revolutionary wars, chronicling his eventual rise to Rear Admiral and his hard-fought victories at the battles of Cape Saint Vincent and the Nile. Nelson learns how to command a squadron at sea, cultivating friendships with many of the Royal Navy officers who would become his celebrated "Band of Brothers"; distinguished captains such as Thomas Troubridge, Samuel Hood, Benjamin Hallowell and Thomas Masterman Hardy. Knight also discusses Nelson's complex relationships with his superiors, most notably Admiral Sir John Jervis, later Earl Saint Vincent, his commanding officer at the Battle of Cape Saint Vincent. We also witness the disastrous attack on Tenerife, Santa Cruz, in the Canary Islands, which nearly costs him his life.
   
   The biography's third section, "III Passion and Discredit 1798- 1801", is devoted to the most controversial period of Nelson's career; his service as Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean, in which he finds himself supporting unabashedly the Bourbon royal dynasty of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Knight demonstrates clearly that Nelson's actions in "liberating" Naples following a French-supported popular insurrection, were motivated solely by his notions of loyalty and duty to a royal family in dire need of both, and though quite critical of them, he does not agree with Terry Coleman, author of "The Nelson Touch: The Life and Legend of Horatio Nelson", that these acts amounted to war crimes. Moreover, he demolishes completely the myth that Nelson fell immediately in love with Emma Hamilton, the young wife of Britain's ambassador to the Bourbon court at Naples, showing that it blossomed months later. And Knight, while sympathetic to Nelson, does show that Nelson's actions immediately before and after the Battle of Copenhagen, left much to be desired for someone serving as a fleet commander.
   
   In "IV Adulation and Death" Knight opens with Nelson, now living openly with Emma Hamilton, enjoying nearly 18 months of peace, finding time to take a leisurely journey through Wales and serving in the House of Lords. With the resumption of hostilities between Great Britain and Napoleonic France, Nelson, now a vice admiral, returns to the Mediterranean Sea as the Royal Navy's Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean, hoisting his broad pendant aboard HMS Victory. Some of Knight's finest prose is devoted to the long chase across the Atlantic Ocean to the West Indies in search of French admiral Pierre Villeneuve's fleet, culminating of course in the bloody Battle of Trafalgar. In "V Transfiguration", Knight describes not only Nelson's funeral in London, but also takes stock of the admiral's character, yielding a sympathetic, yet highly nuanced, appraisal of Nelson's life and career.
   
   "The Pursuit of Victory: The Life And Achievement of Horatio Nelson" includes several appendices, of which the most important ones are the brief chronologies of the major events in Nelson's life and career, and of world events during Nelson's life, especially with regard to the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. There is also a chronological recounting of Nelson's service aboard various Royal Navy warships, which, regrettably, isn't nearly as succinct as both chronological outlines. Less successful, but still quite useful, are the brief biographical sketches devoted to Nelson's family, friends, and associates, both in the British government, and of course, in the Royal Navy itself.



5. As others have noted, there are many biographies of Nelson, and almost all of them suffer from the same problem: that a man so brilliant, talented, contradictory, demented, jealous, generous, gracious, foolish, naive and clear-thinking is very hard to understand. The fact that his death at the triumphant British naval victory of Trafalgar in 1805 immediately turned his life into legend, means that from first to last it's been hard to get a handle on Nelson the flawed but unique human being.
   
   I've read many biographies of the man, and I was shocked to find that many second-hand truths fine biographers have relied on in prior biographies are incorrect. Knight's meticulous scholarship, his lifetime of study of the age of fighting sail in Britain and France, means that his careful analysis of sources in this book is stunning and irrefutable. No book I have ever read on Nelson is so thorough in finding every possible source to illuminate the daily life at sea, as well as by land, of this remarkable leader. That he quietly sets the record straight on innumerable myths and errors of past biographies with grace is simply another pleasure of the book. The fact that Knight deals tautly with the fairly disastrous consequences of Nelson's affair with Emma, Lady Hamilton, without letting it swallow his book, is a fine achievement. The heart of Nelson's importance in English history lies in his life at sea, and there Knight's study is especially enlightening.
   
   Although not a book for everyone - you need to want to learn about both Nelson and the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic Wars - I tend to agree with the dust jacket blurb, that this book will be THE definitive factual study of Nelson. But as Knight himself admits - in the end, the whole of the man is greater than the sum of his parts, and probably always will be.

5 comments about Charlie Rangers.

1. CHARLIE RANGERS is a very entertaining grounds-eye view of life in an elite Army Ranger unit during the height of the Vietnam War, told by two of its former members, Don Ericson and John L. Rotundo. It's an adventure story which also proves that America was perfectly capable of adapting to jungle warfare and could have operated much more successfully in Vietnam if the Pentagon East brass had shown a little more common sense and mental flexibility.
   
   Like hundreds of thousands of other young guys vacuumed into the draft, Ericson and Rotundo, ordinary apple-pie Americans, ended up in "the Nam" and, for reasons that had to do as much with a desire to stay alive as for the challenge of trying, transferred from their parent unit, the 173rd Airborne Brigade, to an elite company in the 75th Ranger Infantry Regiment known as "Charlie Rangers." Charlie Rangers was known throughout the land as a unit that fought the VC and NVA on their own turf and using their own tactics - infiltration, stealth, and ambush - and racked up a kill ratio of 27 enemy dead for every one American killed in action. Only the toughest, most disciplined, independent-minded and frankly, craziest people were permitted to join this outfit, and only after a seemingly endless rigamorole of training designed to separate the rams from the sheep. Hunter-killer teams of five or six men were choppered deep into the Vietnamese or Cambodian jungles and prowled the trails, hunting for enemy soldiers - who were often as not hunting for them.
   
   Told firsthand from alternating points of view, RANGERS differs somewhat from many firsthand Vietnam accounts. C/75 was an elite unit made up of very aggressive soldiers ("killers", they referred to themselves as) and so a lot of the bitterness, soul-searching and remorse which mark other "grunt's-eye view" books is absent here. In fact, the authors are brutally frank about the rush they experienced from hunting the most dangerous game in the world - other armed men - and express zero remorse, and indeed, some pleasure, in killing and sometimes even mutilating enemy soldiers. After describing how he blew away an NVA grunt and then casually knocked his skull apart with a rifle butt while his comrades laughed, one of the authors pointedly remarks in a footnote, "What tragedy exists in this story is that the [expletive] was dead. War isn't pretty, and if you don't want things like this to happen, don't then don't send people to war." His counterpart, after a bit of honest self-examination about whether America should have been in Vietnam at all, concludes, "If I had it all to do over again I'd ride into battle playing `Born in the USA' from the helicopter." He also points out that after the Kent State shootings, the Rangers joked that it was "National Guard 4, Kent State 0." (They also sent a petition to John Lindsay, mayor of New York, telling him to "GET F'D!" after Lindsay remarked that the real heroes of their generation were the antiwar protesters.) Statements like that aren't going to sit well with some readers, but I don't imagine the authors care. They are relating war as they experienced it physically and emotionally and, I imagine, pointing out the hyporisy of the unspoken but all-prevading view held by civilian society, which seems to be, "kill the enemy, but feel bad afterwards." (Remember the scandal after the Gulf War, when American A-10 pilots were feted for their exploits but ordered to remove the "kill tallies" on their fuselages so not to upset civilians?)
   
   RANGERS is not a perfect book. The transitioning between Ericson and Rotundo blur together very quickly, and there are some boring stretches when the team can't seem to "make contact" with the enemy to save its life, which probably should have been edited down a bit to spare the reader this mundane reality. But viewed as a whole, CHARLIE RANGERS is an enjoyable and ruthlessly honest look at the mentality of ordinary men who did what their country told them was their patriotic duty - and refuse to be ashamed of it.



2. There is nothing fictional in this book. The stories are written much as would tell our stories to each other, which is the highest rating I can give. John - Thank you for writing "Charlie Rangers" (I've already thanked Don personally).



3. This book is interesting enough, and a page-turner, but I thought it read more like a silly movie that glorifies war rather than a serious memoir. Although I know these men were there, and it provides some real insight into what they went through and the bond between the men there, it really did not stand out to me as a very good book.



4. This book is a page turner describing the experience of the two authors' tour in Vietnam as members of a Rangers company. It's full of detailed missions where they were inserted right behind enemy lines inside the Vietnamese jungle, sometimes as members and other times as leaders of small 6 persons hunter-killer teams that specialized in ambushing and killing the North Vietnamese guerrillas.
   
   This book is almost up there with others great LRPs(long range patrol) books like "SOG: The Secret Wars of America's Commandos in Vietnam", I totally recommend it if you like non-fiction special forces books.



5. Don Ericson and John L. Rotundo are truly American heroes. They served their country for 3 years with tenacity and courage. This book provides a realistic and heart felt story of the 75th Rangers, (LRPS) in the VIETNAM WAR. From the carnage of a jungle ambush to the love the men shared for one another, CHARLIE RANGERS is the best war book any person can read. It tells of the lives and war experiences of the authors, including their training. These men displayed acts of courage, bravery, and often pure hatred for the enemy. This book is not for the peace loving hippie I might add. The soldiers in CHARLIE RANGERS often mutilated bodies, cut off ears, and showed signs of slight insanity. One must understand that this is what happens in war, because war isn't a happy thing. "WAR IS DELIGHTFUL AND EXITING TO THOSE WHO HAVE NOT EXPERIENCED IT"

5 comments about Ulysses S. Grant: The Unlikely Hero (Eminent Lives).

1. This is a tiny book that one can easily read in a few hours, apparently intended for those (90%) of the current US population for whom the name of Ulysses Grant is unrecognizable. And as usual for a British author writing about American history, many of the facts are wrong and he feels compelled to compare Grant and his other American examples to British figures like Churchill, Wellington and Montgomery.
   
   That being said, this would be a reasonable book to give a 8th grader to hopefully interest him in American history. The writing is crisp and the prose flows easily.
   
   Author Korda essentially relies on two (count 'em, TWO) sources for most of his work; the highly controversial McFeely with its many errors and the 1928 work by Woodward. It does not seem as though Korda read Grant's superb autobiography, but he presents a very sympathetic portrait of Grant that might inspire further interest in his subject.
   
   The best parts of the book are the author's depiction of Grant's childhood, his personal bravery, rock-solid marriage, liberal attitudes (at a time when the Republicans were liberal and the Democrats conservative), and the close of his life when he wrote his autobiography. It is well-known that Grant was an abject business failure, putting the interests of others over his own, and showing a great deal of undeserved trust and loyalty. Although Grant was an extreme example of a military man unable to function as a civilian businessman, one should remember that others such as Patton, Eisenhower, Pershing, Lee etc, were never so tested. An uncommonly brave man, Grant saw and understood the tragedies of war and in spite of personal feelings was able to do his duty to the best of his abilities.
   
   Author Korda mentions one of Grant's problems that has been overlooked by almost all historians and needs reinforcement. Grant suffered frequently from debilitating migraine headaches, even almost missing Appromattox as a result. Grant needed his wife or Rawlins when he was incapacitated by a headache, and they kept him isolated in a darkened tent or room until the headache ran its course. Literally all of these episodes were recorded as Grant being drunk or sleeping off a hangover. The incidence of Grant's drinking was probably a small fraction of what was reported, if at all. It must be remembered that at the time, drinking was not considered as bad as having a mental disorder (like having frequent migraine headaches) and Grant himself apparently used drunkenness as a reason for his incapacitation rather than mentioning his headaches.
   
   As far as judging Grant as a military commander or President, this book is simply inadaquate in scope to support the author's conclusions. Nonetheless, he does not miss a reasoned and defensible scholarly analysis by far. Grant did very well in the Civil War, displaying excellent strategic and tactical sense, and a firm understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of his opponents. At Belmont he was only forced to withdraw when his green troops fell away to plunder the Confederate camp, and his campaigns against Fort Donelson and Vicksburg did not offer much opportunity for criticism. He avoided defeat at Shiloh, won easily at Chattanooga, and was the Federal General to finally bring Lee to bay.
   
   Historians have severely criticized his long casualty list in the 1864 campaign against Lee, but it must be remembered that Meade was in tactical command of the Army of the Potomac, not Grant. An often overlooked item was Grant's elimination of prisoner exchanges. Those exchanges worked to the disadvantage of the Federals due to their numerical superiority. Grant's decision was also more humane; as he said, otherwise the only way to deny the Confederates its soldiers would be to kill them (thus raising battle deaths on both sides.)
   
   As President, Grant was a calming influence, and he did forestall another war with England over Canada. This is an episode overlooked by historians, but Palmerston had once thought of offering Canada to the US in return for recognizing the Confederacy and Canada was definitely in play. Following the Civil War there was a great deal resentment against England for aiding the Confederacy and meddling in US internal affairs, and war over Canada could have easily resulted. Yes, financial scandals rocked Grant's terms of office, but there were also many positive things that Grant contributed. Unfortunately, scandals are much more popular among writers wishing to sell books. A modern reader must surely understand that.
   
   There are many mistakes in the book that are jarring. George B. McClellan is repeatedly given as McClennan and the author makes statements such as; "No American ex-president had ever fallen so low, and except for Harding and Nixon, none would ever again." Well, sorry to say, Harding died in office and would never become an ex-president. Also saying that "...MacArthur can be thought of as a latter-day McClellan,..." is simply ludicrous. And finally, is it required for a writer to include a criticism of Bush "(...a sentiment that might usefully have been followed 133 years later by President George W. Bush)" to get good reviews from the media? Ok, I get it!! You hate Bush! Now can we please produce a scholarly historical work of times and personnel before the 21th century without making negative comments about Bush?
   
   I finished the little book conflicted over this author's reasonable and sympathetic presentation of a much-loved American hero of the 19th century but containing his condescending British Empire attitude and contemporary political opinions. In short, the author lost my good offices at the end. I can readily see why this book is rated from 1 to 5 stars. It all depends on the reader, so I compromised with three.



2. Factually deficient. Some errors have been cited in earlier reviews here on Amazon. I will only point out that Korda repeatedly referred to Gen. McClellan as Gen. Mckennen. It gives one no confidence if the author cannot even remember the correct name of such a prominent person. Oddly, Korda seems to remember that Grant once remarked that he often wore a private soldier's jacket with stars on the shoulders so that the army might know who their general is. But then Korda triumphantly points to photos of Grant wearing a full general's frock coat in his meetings with Lincoln. Is this supposed to prove Grant was dishonest? Doesn't it occur to Korda that even Grant might think it appropriate to dress up a bit for a meeting with the President of the United States or for a photo? Some analysis! Korda's commentary on Grant's military decisions is on a par with his remarks on Grant's uniform: not worthy of a high school paper. Finally, it was annoying to see the author dip into academic hippy analysis of major events. Somehow, in a biography of Grant, we are to be dragged into Korda's hatred of President Bush. Aren't we sick of this yet? I couldn't--wouldn't--finish this pathetic book. It's in the garbage can. If the rest of the biographies in this series are this deficient, the publisher would do well to abandon the project.



3. The only books I've previously read about the civil war are All For The Union and Company Aytch. I recommend both if you want to read the memoirs of soldiers. Mr. Grant is a fascinating person and Michael Korda tries to capture his complexity of character. I can't say that I learned much more than I already knew from various Discovery Channel shows or visiting the home of U.S. Grant in Galena. As noted in previous reviews, some of the historical data is questionable. For example, is Mr. Korda correct about the position of forces on a battlefield or the several maps and writings I found on the internet that say otherwise? One thing I could do without is Mr. Kordas need to bring in his obvious dislike of president George Bush and anything whatsoever that has any connection to him. Mr. Korda, if you feel a need to vent your Bush-hatred get a job with the New York Times or Washington Post. I don't know about other folks but when I sit down with a book about U.S. Grant I don't expect to be hammered with the non-too-subtle neo-liberal desire to tie everything to George Bush.



4. These amazon reviews have done their job, in convincing me not to bother reading this book. There are two excellent studies of Grant as a politician and president, both by Brooks Simpson: LET US HAVE PEACE and THE RECONSTRUCTION PRESIDENTS. I highly recommend them.



5. 
   
   
   Military history is often a tragedy the first time around and a farce when it repeats, as this perceptive book makes abundantly clear in outlining and assessing the career of America's greatest general.
   
   Fans of Robert E. Lee may well argue about the "greatest", the blunt fact is that Grant understood Lee better than Lee understood Grant. Korda makes the point again and again that Grant, except on rare occasions, was able to correctly assess battlefield conditions and quickly exploit every indication of weakness.
   
   Grant was bitterly criticized as a butcher, similar to Gen. George "Blood and Guts" Patton in World War II. Veterans of Patton's armies have told me Patton's success was based on "his guts, our blood". But I've yet to meet anyone who regrets having served with Patton. The same is true of Grant; good soldiers always praise a general who wins, dead soldiers don't complain.
   
   Grant understood that victory meant killing enough soldiers to make the Confederate states quit. He understood the war was won at Gettysburg; just as Gen. Dwight Eisenhower knew World War II was won in Normandy. The tragic legacy of Grant is that too many generals since then have copied his "butcher" qualities without understanding his tactical brilliance; thus the appalling slaughter of World War I.
   
   Grant was the perfect American success story; literally a "barefoot" buy who rose to command the armies of the nation and then serve two terms in the White House. He was also the "perfect" American because of his absolute trust in the essential goodness, decency and honesty of others; politicians and business people took cynical and unlimited advantage of these qualities, which left his administration mired in the deep stink of scandal.
   
   In war, Gen. Grant faced one massive task -- victory. Everything was directed to one goal. In peace, President Grant as a politician faced a thousand simultaneous large and petty challenges, something he was never able to handle. His astounding successes were two great single-minded challenges; the war, and writing his autobiography as he was dying of cancer. Facing these two great challenges, he succeeded brilliantly.
   
   The contrast with today's politicians could not be more dramatic. Grant was instinctively drawn to the sound of the guns fired in anger; too many of today's politicians, who blithely send others to war which they cleverly avoid themselves, have never hear a shot fired in anger let alone a voice raised in anger in the White House.
   
   This book, and the story of Grant, is vividly relevant in today's politics. Everyone who reads it will understand at least some of the fundamentals of success, of America's greatest general and the current military incompetence that has led to another quagmire.

5 comments about Love My Rifle More Than You: Young and Female in the U.S. Army.

1. I skipped a lot of pages because I was bored. I found her lack of empathy for her fellow soldiers sad. I enjoyed Meichelbock's female perspective book much more. It was honest, endearing, and a whole lot more fun to read.



2. I have been in the Army for just over a decade. I have been deployed to Iraq and I'm sure I'll deploy at at least a couple more times before I retire. Personally, I found this book completely infuriating! Williams made money by fueling stereotypes that put woman back into the stone age. Contrary to what she would have you believe, not all male soldiers are trying to get into the pants of any willing female. Not that it never happens, but I would not consider it the norm. The majority of soldiers...men and women... are hardworking, self sacrificing individuals. The men I deployed with were very protective of the females, almost the the point of being annoying.
   
   This book went back and forth between Williams bragging about how eduacated and wonderful she thinks she is, and making a mockery of women in the Armed Forces.
   
   Please don't waste your time getting this book! If you do...please remember not to believe everything you read.



3. I just checked and there happen to be two recent reviews of Clint Eastwood's "Heartbreak Ridge", NEITHER of which sees fit to mention the sub-plot, that occasionally macho-leader is seen reading Womens' Magazines somewhat clandestinely, trying to get inside the head of his semi-estranged partner.
   While I have to agree with the military reviewers that maybe the character thus revealed is not ideally what you'd want, the way it's told, even SHE had "I am not worthy" episodes at times. The most arrogant passages are about incompetent superiors. Of the incidents described, two of them just make you cringe, they are so egregious that they would not make it into a movie plot, it would not seem credible. Since many lives depend on their orders, there ought to be better procedures for challenging such officers - this was of course also an issue in the fictional "Heartbreak Ridge".



4. I actually sought out writing a review on this book -- something I rarely do.
   
   I picked this book up one day and barely was able to put it down. It is gripping and honest, and it helped me to get a better idea about the war and our soldiers' experience and that of civilians as well. My husband is reading it now and appreciates it as much as I did.
   
   Do yourself a favor and read it. I learned about it from [...], where I bought an autographed copy, by the way.



5. I served with some of her former comrades...they said she's full of B.S....just proves they'll print anything nowadays. Sad...so sad.

5 comments about America's First Frogman: The Draper Kauffman Story.

1. 
   A wonderful story of a man's life in the United States Navy during World
   War II. When men of courage and strength were needed, they stepped forward. Draper Kauffman knew the task before them and trained them to meet every possible hardship the seas and the enemy could throw at them. I doubt he would wanted to be called a hero, but I do think he would want those who served with him and died during those war years to be called hero's! Exceptionally well written by a loving sister, and a story Hollywood should tell, as written. Many thanks go to Elizabeth Kauffman Bush



2. I was on Admiral Kauffman's staff at the 9th Naval District and present at his retirement, so I have long been aware of his amazing biography. Such a book is long overdue and tells the story of his heroic WWII service -- a life with details that you thought ony happened "in the movies".



3. We have three sons, all of whom have decided to serve their country, and Draper Kauffman is one of their heroes. What an exciting story! And it's more engaging because it's told by his sister, who has the unique insight to blend his military experiences with his family life. It's a well-rounded account of a man who served our country with honor and distinction.
   
   The title is unfortunate, because younger people have no idea what a "frogman" is. It would have been better to refer to the Navy Seals.



4. BOOK REVIEW OF: America's First Frogman, a biography of Admiral Draper Laurence Kauffman by his sister Elizabeth Kauffman Bush. Released by Naval Institute Press 2004
   
   America's First Frogman is an exciting war story of one of America's great heroes, Rear Admiral Draper Laurence Kauffman, the flamboyant young "father" of America's famous Underwater Demolition Units, now called the Navy Seals or frogmen.
   
   As told by his sister, the aunt of Jeb and George Bush and God Daughter of the former Duchess of Windsor, the biography spans the "heroic age...of individual prowess and fantastic risks" through several World War II battlefields and back home in the US. It is the colorful Homeric odyssey of a young Annapolis graduate who persists, despite bad eyesight, to prove his courage and ability to serve his country and follow his father, Vice Admiral James Laurence Kauffman, into the US Navy.
   
   Vividly the author reports how her brother, after initially failing the Navy's eye test, continues to successfully "test his nerve... from one nasty job to another" (from ambulance driving in northern France and bomb disposing in London's blitz) to return to the US and slowly prove his genius at pioneering and implementing new ideas and strategies. Quoting from his own letters, as well as those of other contemporaries, the author reports how Kauffman gains the respect from all for his contagious courage and leadership, especially in attracting and training volunteer "frogmen" to join him in their exceedingly demanding work preparing battlefields, often by swimming miles at night under enemy fire, supporting enormous backpacks full of ammunition.
   
   Although the book focuses on Kaufman's founding of the first US Naval Bomb Disposal and Combat Demolition schools, it also follows him through his very significant post war period acting as captain of several ships and chief of many pivotal naval offices including the Defense and Protection Section of the Atomic Warfare Division and Aide to Secretary of the Navy Thomas S. Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington DC. Ironically, in 1965 he also became Superintendent of the place where he first began his naval career, Annapolis.
   
   The well researched and colorfully depicted battle scenes are taken from his own letters to his father whom he sensitively cautions to hide from his worried mother and sister back home. This stateside backdrop of glamour and courage in the lives of both the Kauffman and Bush families adds to the dramatic scope of the book. Photographs portray both Admiral Kauffmans, as well as many other famous military, political and family personalities. The forward is written by the author's brother in law, former President George H.W.Bush.
   
   The reader will grow to admire the mischievous and bold, but sensitive, hero even as his sister does. Watch for this newly released biography to become a very exciting movie all of us can enjoy. Young and old can learn self disciplined focus, wisdom, wit and service from reading America's First Frogman.
   
   TerryAnn Reed, former history teacher, Sarasota, Florida, January 30, 2005



5. Written by Draper Kauffman's sister Elizabeth Kauffman Bush, and featuring a foreword by President George H. W. Bush, America's First Frogman: The Draper Kauffman Story is the biography of the father of the American Navy SEALs. From surviving his time as a prisoner of the Germans, to his acclaimed wartime service disarming enemy bombs and establishing bomb disposal schools, to the underwater demolition teams he led at Saipan, Tinian, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, America's First Frogman is an amazing true story of skill, courage, dedication, high standards, and excellence under extreme pressure. A handful of black-and-white photographs illustrate this fascinating story of a great man's life and resolute determination.

5 comments about 1858: Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant and the War They Failed to See.

1. Others can comment on the book more thoroughly than I can. But I quote from page 3: "...controversy still raged over the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision ... in which the high court upheld the Fugitive Slave Act, reappealed the Missouri Compromise of 1850..." Dred Scott had nothing to do with the Fugitive Slave Act, the Missouri Compromise was in 1820, and the Compromise of 1850 was a separate act. And it's "repealed," not "reappealed." When I learn that I can't trust a historical author to get historical details right, I close the book. Too often I have found this is the sign of a dilletante, one who has read 6 to 12 books and decided to write a lengthy hardcover review of them, as opposed to a meticulous scholar who has reviewed all the literature, related topics, and gone to original sources. For reliable overviews of the critical years prior to the war, one may read the early sections of Shelby Foote's trilogy, or William Freehling's "Road to Disunion," volume 2. A fine legal summary of the execrable Dred Scott decision can be found in Peter Irons' history of the Supreme Court.



2. I will confess straight away that I have not read the book, but I find the title so misleading that I feel compelled to comment. None of these figures 'failed to see' that the Civil War was a great threat and possibly inevitable. See The Impending Crisis by David Potter, The Road to Disunion by Freehing, or Michael Holt's books.



3. "The year 1858 could not have started in a grander fashion than it did...in Washington, D.C." (p. 1), but subsequent events would prove the year's political events decisive as the nation moved toward civil war. The text considers these events primarily by presenting a series of vignettes focusing on the administration of President James Buchanan interspersed with extended biographical studies of individuals shortly to become famous, as well as in-depth studies of critical events transpiring during the year. Of necessity, events occurring outside of 1858 are reviewed to set the context as well as to place studied situations within their greater historical significance--but the text successfully balances the presentation of material to maintain a focus on 1858. The text presents Buchanan as an ineffectual and vindictive president out of touch with political reality and incapable of dealing with the polarized politics of the era. Buchanan, derisively known as "Old Public Functionary" (p. 4), was pro-slavery and erroneously believed the best way to lead the nation was by decree, not compromise. The general and widespread failure of his administration, more than anything else, is proposed in the text as the root cause of the Civil War.
   
   Biographical chapters include studies on Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Abraham Lincoln, William Seward, William Tecumseh Sherman, and John Brown. Each man is presented in a method befitting his legacy, and each is matched to the impending conflict. However, white the biographies on Lee and Sherman are instructive and fascinating, in 1858 they were essentially insignificant and this is felt in the text as their biographies to 1858 are largely disconnected from the remainder of the text. Davis, suffering from "herpes...in the form of neuralgia that incapacitated his left eye" (p. 29); Lincoln, stating "that the United States could not go on with half of the country condoning slavery" (p. 96); Seward, "one of the country's most spellbinding orators" (p. 173); and John Brown, "like a biblical figure" (p. 247) are period figures well-known to any student. Their biographies are fascinating though often marred by stereotypical portrayals. A concise biography is also presented for Stephen Douglas. In-depth studies of critical events include the infamous Dred Scott decision; the Lincoln-Douglas debates; The Buchanan-Forney feud; the anti-slavery activities transpiring in Oberlin, Ohio; and Brown's various compelling and divisive actions.
   
   The text does an excellent job of presenting a singular year in history and establishing it within the greater context of the Civil War while it suffers from a fairly unimaginative writing style with a preponderance of similarly-constructed sentences. Various kinds of typographical errors are unfortunately common. The compound effect of these defects renders the book's overall texture mechanical and uninviting: an editor's influence is conspicuously absent.



4. 1858: Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant and The War They Failed to See, Bruce Chadwick , Sourcebooks Inc., 355 pp., notes, bibliography, index, 2008, $24.95
   
   1858 offers clear and concise descriptions of key political and social events that shoved the states into rebellion and resistance. Adventurous and even compelling at times, 1858 moves the reader through twelve months of political and social turmoil. Chadwick explores not the mundane but the exceptional.
   
   Not familiar to most Civil War readers is Jefferson Davis' 1858 visit to Maine in order to recuperate from herpes and build a coalition of Northern Democrats in a bid to establish a presidential candidacy in 1860. The Southern press pilloried him to the point that when he returned he retracted his statements. Ironically, these retractions put him into a position where he would be offered a presidency in 1861, that of the Confederate States of America.
   
   In one six page chapter, Chadwick offers a cogent and balanced description of the Dred Scott Decision, one of the most important U.S. Supreme Court event in U.S. history. His ability to put into place the origins, personalities, issues, and outcomes of this event is exceptional. As a Advance Placement U.S. History test reader, CWL reflected that this chapter would be a fine contribution to student resources.
   
   Though CWL is quite familiar with the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the Oberlin Ohio Rescue and John Brown's escape with slaves from Missouri to Canada, Chadwick offers the essentials in a manner that captures the excitement and underscores their place in bringing the states to the brink of rebellion in 1860. After reading 1858, Civil War buffs may have a new appreciation for the events leading to the Secession Winter of 1860-1861. Some readers may need to keep in mind that all soldiers in the ranks had lived through and had argued over the events of 1858.
   
   Though a Pennsylvanian, CWL has not be able to work up any enthusiasm for James Buchanan, 15th president of the United States. Chadwick's 1858 covers the Buchanan presidency in nine chapters that fall between chapters on Davis, Lee, the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the Oberlin Rescue, Seward's Irrepressible Conflict speech, and John Brown's rescue of slaves from Missouri. Read consecutively the Buchanan White House chapters make the case for this Northern Democrat holding Southern Democrats' interest higher than his own section and possibly allowing the conflict to become truly irrepressible.
   
   Some quibbles: The subtitle is unclear; nine of 17 chapters deal with the Buchanan White House, two deal with Lincoln and Douglas, and single chapters deal with Lee, Davis, Seward, Sherman, The Dred Scott Decision, John Brown's Raid on Missouri and the Slaveholder's raid on Nicaragua. Mysteriously, U.S. Grant is mentioned only on four pages in the book but is in the subtitle. Buchanan has nine chapters but has no mention in the title at all.
   
   CWL suggests that the subtitle be changed for the paperback edition: 1858--The Year the Civil War Became Inevitable for Davis, Lee, Douglas, Lincoln, Seward, Sherman and John Brown. Or 1858--Blood Before The Civil War's Dawn: The Men Who Pulled the Trigger on the War.
   
   Chadwick assumes the reader has no detailed understanding of the period; 1858 is written for the general audience. For the paperback edition, a chronology for the year should be added as well as a brief chronology of the 1846-1860 era. A list of characters would also be helpful for the general audience. Also, the index needs some attention. The entry--Forney, John--lists 6 pages with three subtopics. John Forney has a whole chapter, Number Nine, pages 135-140 but these pages are not listed under the entry--Forney, John--in the index. Some proofreading needs to be done. Notes 159, 160 and 161 are the same font size as the text font; these note number should be the superscript font size, just like the other 744 notes.



5. I have to admit that I can't quite place this book. I would say on the one hand I was disappointed because while it did a good job of portraying the year 1858 it could have just as easily been 1856 or 1860, both of which would have been more interesting. The book spent a lot of time focusing on personal rivalries to the detriment of painting the national picture. Also certain figures who would rise to prominence in the Civil War were given great exposure yet others were barely mentioned. (Like Grant)
   
   So all in all if you like the period, there are worse reads out there but I still think that James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom does a much better job at portraying the period.

5 comments about Indestructible: The Unforgettable Story of a Marine Hero at the Battle of Iwo Jima.

1. This book should be mandatory reading for Marines in training. Actually, it should be mandatory reading in history as well as ethics courses. This Marine WAS a true American in the full sense of the word. He had his faults, but we all have faults. Now, what he did was not something we are all capable of doing.



2. This book is full of self praise and a large ego. Not a humble word in it. The author talks of his buddies, roommates, and other people with barely mentioning a name or how they influenced his life. He does mention his family and the influence of his mother and deceased father. What he did on Iwo Jima was heroic and highly commendable but, he just keeps on about himself and his Medal of Honor. His claims of coming from a valiant military heritage are unsubstantiated. He should have something to back that he is the descendent of veterans of the American Revolution (fighting the British), the Civil War, and two awardees of the British Victoria Cross. There are two Irishman named Lucas who were awarded it but, both lived from the 1850's to the early 1900's in Ireland.
   It does seem that he writes the book as if he is the only Marine on Iwo Jima. There is little mention of the names of the Marines that he served with and his interactions with them. Every Marine has a history. You will receive the impression that he wasn't very well liked by his peers and was insubordinate to superiors. I believe that commanding officer that let him stay on the ship after deserting his unit in Hawaii had no choice but to attach him to a battalion and send him into the fight. It would have been an even bigger hassle to send him back to Hawaii. That unit was going to war and they were not going to think twice about giving that kid a rifle and putting him on that beach.
   His time in the brig and driving a trash truck leaves the reader to question: "Was he up to high standards of being a Marine that he says he was?" The sentence he received from a court marshal (yes, I said court marshal) seemed too hefty for just roughing up a guy. The recount of his first sexual experience just after he tells the story of shoving a broom handle into the "offending orifice" of a mule, named after a girl he was afraid to talk to, should have been left out. This book should have been written by a non-bias author that is willing to do some research. His reason for joining the Army almost sounds like an excuse. He submits to the reader that it was his undying desire and primary mission in life to be a Marine and kill the Japanese.



3. Despite what some other reviewers had to say, it should be noted at the outset that Jack Lucas didn't finish high school, and obviously didn't go to Columbia for a writing degree. He simply lied his way into enlisting in the Marine Corps at the age of 14, and ultimately conned his way into frontline units until he finally reached combat at Iwo Jima. Having wanted to be a Marine and fighting since he was 11, his dedicated pursuit of his goal seems impossible to believe, but it did happen, and this is his story.
   
   Having met Jack, he is exactly like what the story sounds like. He is proud, patriotic, and unabashed in his belief that his actions that day were less significant than those who never returned. I found the story of his life after the war to be interesting, especially what his own wife would attempt later.
   
   This is not going to tell the story of the whole war, and isn't a literary work that rivals Shakespeare, but it is one man's story, and well worth the time to read it.



4. Mr. Lucas has just spent 212 pages doing nothing more than patting himself on the back and telling the public how big a hero he is. He also spends a great amount of time in stating how he relishes the limelight he is in and will go to any length to exploit the Medal of Honor to his own use. From some of key phrases in the book, the reader would think he was the only Marine on Iwo Jima. While I highly respect him for the action for which the medal was awarded, I do not respect the idea of using it to ones advantage. The author also seems to think that what he cannot accomplish with the Medal of Honor around his neck, his two fist will get for him.



5. There can be little doubt that this book wouldn't have been written if this aging hero had not been singled out by President Clinton during his presidency in a nationally televised State-of-the-Union address. Mr. Lucas was the President's special guest for the occasion, and one can understand why. While Lucas is an unquestioned military hero, he was less of a hero to his children and his first wife. (Those who were on the receiving end of his quick and violent temper may not view him in the hero light either.) A self-described womanizer, Lucas was the perfect foil for the Clinton plot to bolster the President's image by profiling a man who is living proof that no matter how badly you conduct your private life, it doesn't have to interfere with your service to country. This book will read like a poem to Clintonites, but may blanch a bit to the few of who still believe personal morality matters to whatever task you set yourself to.
   
   Lucas is a hero, and his professions of faith in the Lord who protected him not only on Iwo Jima but in several other major life crisis redeems this book and makes it worthwhile. But if your looking for the ALL American hero, better look elsewhere for reading material.

2 comments about MANNOCK: The Life and Death of Major Edward Mannock VC, DSO, MC, RAF.

1. I have a fairly extensive library of WW1 aviation references, including several biographical references on Edward 'Mick' Mannock. I was unsure that this volume would be worth purchasing, fearing that nothing new and informative would be included. I am delighted to say that my fears were groundless.
   
   This book is less biographical than most others, focusing instead on the service career of Mick Mannock. In particular, it brings Mannock's victory total more in line with current research, rather than inflating this aspect of his career for the authors' personal agendas.
   
   Lest it be thought that the biographical elements of this book have been given short shrift, there are a number of fascinating insights into Mannock the man which more comprehensive biographical works have omitted.
   
   The book concludes with an orderly analysis of the controversy over the location of Mannock's gravesite, and a review of the citations covering his several decorations.
   
   All in all, this book includes something for both veteran researchers, and those just discovering the world of aviation in the Great War. Not only that, but it reads well.



2. The 'King of the Air Fighters,' Edward Corringham 'Mick' Mannock, was killed in action on 26 July 1918. In the intervening years various articles and biographies have appeared, many of which have muddied the historical waters regarding Britain's WWI ace of aces. Now, at last, we have a definitive account of the life and times of this extraordinary fighter pilot and combat leader, courtesy of two top-notch authors, Norman Franks and Andy Saunders.
   
   MANNOCK is a wonderfully-researched and engagingly-written book. Though a fairly slim volume - 192 pages - it packs more factual information on him than most of the other Mannock biographies combined. Not only does MANNOCK create a vivid portrait of the great fighter ace, it also sets the record straight regarding many of the myths that have arisen since 1918.
   
   For example: Mannock downed 73 aircraft. False: He never claimed anywhere near 70. Taffy Jones, who flew with him and wrote a biography of Mick, put his score at 73 to displace Billy Bishop, who Jones hated, as top British ace. (Bishop claimed 72*).
   Item: Mannock was blind in one eye. False: Mannock had slight vision problems in one eye but he wasn't blind.
   Item: Mannock hated Germans with a passion. Exaggerated: Mannock often used anti-German tirades and "sizzle, sizzle, wonk" gallows humor to install in his pilots the killer instinct and to buck up his own failing morale.
   Item: Mannock was suffering from combat fatigue in mid-1917 and should have been sent on leave rather than being made CO of 85 Squadron. True: Though Mannock successfully hid his nervous fatigue from the medico and some 74 Squadron pilots, he was clearly in need of rest. Being a patriot he refused to ask for such leave and did his duty.
   Item: Mannock's body was never found. False: The authors make a convincing case for where Mannock's body is buried and why the mix-up occurred.
   
   Along with many vivid, first-hand reminiscences of Mannock the man and the warrior, the Franks/Saunders books features over 70 evocative photographs of Mick, his squadronmates, their aircraft, squadron life scenes and their German opponents and the aircraft they flew. Several maps are also included.
   
   In short, MANNOCK is aviation history at its best. It deserves six stars and then some! Highly recommended.
   
   *******
   *Since the authors credit Mannock with 61 victories, readers might assume Billy Bishop then becomes top dog since he claimed 72. However the veracity of Bishop's claims has been widely questioned, many aviation historians now discounting almost all his kills. See THE MAKING OF BILLY BISHOP for details.

1 comments about Civil War Battles and Leaders.

1. REVIEWED BY: Wayne Walker
   
   This past year, our younger son Jeremy, now age twelve, did an in depth study of the American War Between the States. We used several good resources, such as Fields of Fury by James M. McPherson and the Scholastic Encyclopedia of the Civil War edited by Catherine Clinton. Another one that really helped to put the events and people of that major period in our nation's history together in an understandable way was the Civil War volume of the DK Publishing's "Battles and Leaders" series, which is a guide to the battles and leading figures of the war that tore America apart. As with all other Dorling Kindersley books, there is a wealth of visual images, including pictures of artifacts, portraits of important people, battlefield paintings, and numerous maps, all of which complement the very lucid and easy to read text which chronicles year by year the important events of that era. It is a great book for both children and adults who want to study more about the Civil War.

5 comments about Mary Surratt: An American Tragedy.

1. this book did its best to introduce doubt about her involvement in the plot against lincoln, but the facts are simply too compelling against her.i thought her background was well researched, but when it came to the matter of her guilt and trial, it was all sentimentality, supposition and pity. the old woman was up to her neck in it.



2. The author did a great job in researching this book. Also presented the facts well. It does look like maybe Mary Surratt was not involved in the planning or discussions about Lincoln's assassination. Very sad.



3. This is an excellent book. Anyone who is interested in the Civil War era and Abraham Lincoln, will really enjoy this book. Also anyone who studies the law will also find this book fascinating. This book touches on our constitutional rights and how they can be overlooked when a horrible crime has been committed and the government and the people want someone to pay for the crime. Anybody. This is just an excellent book!!!



4. This book has some great strengths and a few weaknesses. The research is very thorough and it shows. It also makes it a fine reference sourse for scholars of the subject. However some of the stuff included should have been edited out.
   
   I find fault the writing style, though this is a personal thing. While loaded with gems of information, the writing is a bit repetitive, even turgid in places as if the writer had an agenda of her own. This is a pity because she did all the hard work. The writing style should have made more of it. Other readers may like the writing style.
   
   The other fault I find is that two key pieces in information presented have no reference sourse. If prosecution witnesses were paid money to perjure themselves we should know what is the sourse of this information. This would have added so much more to the storyline and to the case.
   
   For all of that the book is persuasive in making the case that Mary Surratt did not recieve a fair trial. The fact that her son walked free after his trial before a civilian jury makes the case stronger. A good read with a solid information that might have been a really great read.
   
   L. Power, Ireland.



5. Having grown up in the town whre all of this occured, I am glad that there are those that still hold an interest in this part of history, however sad it may be. I look forward to reading this book again.