5 comments about Danger Close.

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



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



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



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



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

5 comments about Operatives, Spies, and Saboteurs: The Unknown Story of the Men and Women of World War II's OSS.

1. It is a very valuable piece of historic mosaic.
   
   E.g. one of many fascinating parts is how blatant were Soviet spies in the State Department when they torpedoed any effort by OSS to obtain intelligence on the Soviet Union.
   
   However, the presentation is too dry and too fragmented in my view.



2. This book was not only entertaining it was also informative. The book discusses an area of WWII that has not been fully covered. The descriptive stories and tales almost make you feel you were there.



3. Where are they now?
   
   Where are people like 'Wild Bill' Donovan, Corporal Drake, Elizabeth Pack, Moe Berg today? We need them in the 'War on Terror.' Instead we have the 'Keystone Cops.' Today we spy on Americans, perhaps because don't have enough intelligence agents who speak Arabic.
   
   In early August, 2001 - a month before Sept. 11, the Keystone Cops of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. were offered intelligence that Osama bin Laden and Al Queda were planning `something.' They turned a blind eye and deaf ear. After Sept 11 they said "Figure out how Saddam did this."
   
   This book is criticized by other reviewers for offering the facts but little context and less analysis. However, you could also say that it provides the facts, as remembered by the men and women of the OSS, and invites us to draw our own conclusions.
   
   There are between the lines criticisms.
   
   "OSS's first African American operator, a Corporal Drake.... Drake's membership in the OSS was purely happenstance since OSS, like the rest of America's armed forces, had not been integrated."
   
   "Only 143 Americans died in the line of duty.... However, hundreds of foreigners were killed while working for the OSS."
   
   And a singularly subtle reminder of who we fought.
   
   "German intelligence dismissed the group as `a perfect picture of the mixture of races and characters in that savage conglomeration called the United States.'"
   
   O'Donnell's book is a good read for a plane, beach, or weekend. The anecdotal style makes it easy to put down. The pace and content make you pick it up again and again to read thru and review.



4. This book has a wealth of information. With so much, the author managed to organize everything in a sensible manner. The information builds on previous chapters. It can be hard to remember, but the author does manage to add some reminders.



5. This book is not "War and Peace", nor is it a comprehensive book on spies, but rather it is a collection of stories using first hand testimony of the participants in the OSS in WWII. In that context the book is different from most of what must now be a 1000 books on WWII. The strength of this book is the excellent writing and the series of interesting characters and their stories, all involving ordinary men that do heroic things. Thankfully their stories have been recorded by the author since many of these men are now many in the 80's and their first hand recollections will soon be lost. In any case the book is better that one might expect.
   
   I first heard about this book on WABC where John Bachelor has interviewed a series of the living subjects or "spies" on air on his late daily show at 10:00 PM. The guys are ordinary but the stories are often riveting. They put themselves in tremendous danger with their patriotic actions. In many ways this book is like the recent Tim Russert book - a sleeper. The book seems okay from what you have heard from others and from interviews on the radio, but the book is actually a much better read. In many ways the both books (Russert and this book) are on subjects that when properly presented become compelling page turning reads. This is a great value and a good book.

5 comments about The Soldiers' Tale: Bearing Witness to a Modern War.

1. Having looked at this book with my primary interest in the experiences of the common soldier in mind, I am struck with the many interesting personal narratives herein. That said, I was disappointed to some extent that there were not any narratives from opponents or from other allies whose native tongue is not English. Perhaps this was the author's purpose, perhaps he did not have source permissions, or perhaps the publisher did not want to acquire rights to other stories.
   That said, although this is therefore a one sided view, it has much literary merit and deserves a place in the personal narrative collection.
   I would also recommend the author's own personal narrative of service as an aviator. Flights of Passage (c.f.)



2. Reads like a very long, tedious history term paper. He wrote his outline, he did the required reading, and he slogs through everything he read. For a short book I found it very very hard to finish, but it's a good source for other books that sound interesting, some of the ones he is writing about.

   The concept of "war in the head" being formed by the books and movies soldiers watched growing up is useful.

   Some peculiar opinions make it interesting and memorable, for example, he mentions twice that World War I is "our favorite war." News to me. Also, that all the dope-smoking in Viet Nam is a myth traceable to some articles in Esquire Magazine. Who knew?

   At least two typographical errors in the text.




3. Who best can describe war but the men who fought them? True, all personal accounts of war are highly focused, confined as they are to the tight little theater of each writer's involvement. Or involvements as in the case of that German officer's memorable account of his entire career, "Soldat."

   Here, Hynes zooms out, assembling with great skill personal micro-views that together are a broad picture of war. His narrative weaves the recollections into a whole fabric.

   Some sage once observed that old men start wars and young men fight them. Old men write glorious and expansive military histories, the young men who fought the battles write about the miseries of the battlefields -- and, occasionally the humor -- and the miseries of captivity. Soldiers who were unlucky enough to be prisoners of the Japanese became the real experts on the miseries of captivity.

   This excellent book is marred at the end by an almost apologetic discussion of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That kind of warfare was unique, says Hynes, and so it was, being the only uses of nuclear bombs in world history. But what was the alternative? An invasion of a nation that had demonstrated repeatedly that every soldier would fight to the death? And at what cost, another several hundred thousand allied dead? Hynes writes:

   "And although [the bombing] was an attack not on a specific military target but on a city, that was not new in August 1945; many cities were in ashes by then. But it was a strange, unique act of war; an action without a battle, without armies, without a visible enemy, in which neither courage nor cowardice mattered; an action for which there was no possible retaliation; an action so far outside the capabilities of armies up to then that it seemed like some catastrophic natural disaster -- only it was UNnatural. That was what was most disturbing about it, and still is. . . . So it was different from other bombed, burned-out cities, where there were guns and fighter planes to oppose the attack. . . It is more entirely a victim war than Auschwitz, where resistance was just barely possible and survival might be an act of will; more than the prisoner-of-war camps, helpless though those captives sometimes were. It was a unique event in the history of man's capacity to destroy his species."

   By demonstrating that the U.S. DID have the capacity to level the entire island nation of Japan -- if not the ability to destroy the species of man -- a beaten but still ferocious warring nation was brought to the table.

   The casualties in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined were perhaps less than the deaths in that single massacre in Nanking, China, where Japanese soldiers systematically killed between 100,000 and 300,000 men, women and children. Shot them one by one. But somehow, in Hynes's view, that kind of killing is war, where the unprecedented atomic explosions were not war, but something else, something UNnatural. I don't agree. Was the barbarism of the Japanese military during WWII natural? I don't think so.

   Regardless of this objection, I consider "The Soldiers' Tale" to be an outstanding contribution to war literature.




4. Samuel Hynes background as a Marine bomber pilot in World war II helped intensify his focus in bringing "Soldier's Tale" to life. His keen eye for detail and brilliant anaylsis of human experiecnce makes this a fascinating read.

   The accounts bear witness to the difficulties men faced in World War II and Vietnam and is a discovery of mankind and how they act and react during times of intense struggle.

   The accounts, filled with fear, anger, frustration and courage must be remembered and not just stored away on some dusty shelf. Within these pages you stare face to face into the brutal reality of survival versus death, and walk away with a glimpse into what it was like for those who were there.




5. Along with the three great books on war by Paul Fussell, Samuel Hynes' book will stand as a landmark. Hynes, like Fussell, as a veteran of World War II writes with a deep personal as well as a literary insight. Unlike Fussell he also participated in the Korean war. Both men became professors of literature at major universities, and both men write with skill and feeling. This work exhibits a very special form of literary criticism. No doubt other books will be written about the effects of the 20th Century's wars on the men who fought them, but there will be none that is better conceived or better executed. By examining the extensive literature of the century's wars, particularly the literature of the wars' participants, he comes closer than any writer I have read to date, with the possible exception of Paul Fussell, to understanding and explicating its effects. Hynes tells the truth by citing from and describing the works of war's participants. The excellent notes and an extensive bibliography of personal narratives of modern war add immeasurably to the book's value.

5 comments about Napoleon.

1. I don't know what Felix Markham was contemplating when he decided not to write more about Napoleon's relationship with Josephine. Relegating her to a mere footnote in Napoleon's life was inexcusable.
   Moreover, one has to beg to differ and ask the question as to why Markham took it upon himself not to dramatize the wars that were fought, the socio-economic situations that developed, Napoleon's personal life, or his psychological makeup?
   
   Unfortunately, there just isn't any attention to detail in this book, and a historically charismatic figure such as Napoleon, whose lead a sophisticated yet complex lifestyle needs his story to be detailed in the utmost capacity.
   So, in adhering to this argument, it becomes difficult to fathom that Markham managed to skip to one event after another with no rhyme or reason, which made his lethargic literary attempt very difficult to ascertain, nevermind follow.
   
   Markham also drops many names of so-called main players in the story, but manages not to tell you anything about them.
   I couldn't fathom how Markham had the audacity to write a 304-page book that should have been well over a thousand pages, or several volumes so people who are unfamiliar with Napoleon's exploits can envisage who these historical figures were and their part in shaping history.
   
   There wasn't any background information on the secondary players in Markham's account. And insofar as "the Battle of Waterloo." Why wasn't there any mention of Nathan Rothschild's banking/insider trading fraud, which gave him controlling interest of the Bank of England? Nathan Rothschild lied to market speculators about the outcome of the battle, promulgating that Napoleon won the war, which caused the speculators to dump their stocks and assets,leaving Rothschild to purchase their assets for pennies on the dollar, making him one of the wealthest entrepreneur in Europe. Also, Napoleon was in debt to the Rothschilds and he ran out of money and that's why he ended up losing the war. Anyone with half a brain knows you need money to win, and Markham left all of this key information out of his account.
   
   So, in conclusion, Felix Markham is indeed one of the worst chroniclers of history I've ever come across, and he had no business writing about Bonaparte. It is painfully apparent that he wrote this book for people who are already pretty savvy when it comes to the Napoleonic Wars, and no one (including Markham) can successfully write a historical account of warfare without exploring the causes, the effects, and motivative passions.
   So I reiterate that this was a lazy/sad attempt, and I strongly recommend reading something else more detailed.



2. I enjoyed this quick tour through the life of Buonaparte but thought that the number of names and name places within short proximity and also that of annoying italicized nomenclature scattered on every page was suited for a fellow historian but not a lover of literature. Because this book seeks to encompass all of napoleonic history (including in part, military technology, European industry, politics, etc.)inside relatively few pages, the ride jolts quite a bit. There is not a great deal of smooth transition. I believe the author intended that those who would read his work begin at a mutual level of common knowledge about the subject matter.
   
   On a positive note, it is a good introduction at a critical assessment of Napolean. It is from at least my limited point of view on the subject, still a grand story. But despite the historical method and criticism, however erudite, there still remains a charm and mystery and one appreciates the extraordinary force of Napolean's personality and his enduring legend all the more. So in the end, it seems almost impossible to write a bad version of an incredible tale. But I suggest starting another place if you are into polished literature. If a beginner historian--a perfect place.



3. Markham's book on Napolean is incredibly fast paced. Napolean's life could (and often does) fill volumes, but Markham fits it all in a surprisingly small book. I bought this book on a recommendation from a history professor with the intention of quickly filling in a gap of history that I was less informed about. Essentially, it did just that. You could almost compare the book to a large encyclopedia entry. Not that it's bland or dry, but it is informative and sans literary fluff.
   
   Overall, however, I enjoyed the book and would definitely would recommend it to anyone seeking to quickly grasp who Napolean was and how his life shaped Europe. A great introduction to this overwritten topic.



4. If you're looking for a complete account of post revolutionary Europe or of Napoleon's life, this is not the right book.
   
   If what you're looking for is a summary of major events in the life of Napoleon, then this is the right book. It does not go into detail and leaves out particularly interesting passages of Bonaparte's carreer, such as some of the battles and in particular Auterlitz.
   
   As can be expected, if you have read about Napoleon before, you will be left with a sense of emptiness, as some critical and crucial events are covered in a single paragraph.
   
   The only major shortcomming of the book is that it practically ignores Napoleon's relationship with women (Josephine, Marie-Louise)which as we all know is key to understanding Napoleonic history.
   
   The book is very well documented and overall presents a very nice introduction to Napoleon. Also, it is easy to read....



5. Concise look at Napoleon and his exploits. This essay is best used as an introduction to be followed up by Schom, Asprey and Horne.

No comments about On Her Majesty's Service: My Incredible Life in the World's Most Dangerous Close Protection Squad.

1 comments about Living the Dream: Sailing the South Pacific and Southeast Asia.

1. Hard work, sleepless nights, a little terror - then, you lose sight of shore. This book offers nuts and bolts (pun intended) reportage of the hard journey of retirees Vern & Connie from the U.S. Pacific Northwest to and through the South Pacific. Romantics and idealists be warned. Exactly how much work is involved in do-it-yourself sailing across the world? Read this and find out, but if you're interested only in star-gazing and spine-tingling adventure, this won't be the book for you. The clear descriptions of their route and obscure landing points - which now, thanks to Google Earth, can be tracked visually - provide a solid South Pacific geography lesson.
   
   The authors reveal what an amazing feat and test of courage it is to go that distance in a 35-foot sailboat. Just don't forget your screwdriver, engine manual, washers, fuses, and extra light bulbs.
   
   After reading it, you might wish you could sit down and chat with Vern and Connie. Your first question would probably be "Would you do it over, knowing what you know now?"

3 comments about CIA SpyMaster.

1. Former CIA analyst Ashley here offers an account,vetted and approved by the CIA, of his conversations with Agency legend George Kisevalter, an informal, rumpled operator of Russian heritage who was the case officer for three of the CIA's biggest catches during the Cold War: Pyotr Popov,Oleg Penkovsky, and Yuri Nosenko. While Kisevalter was in his last illness, he shared his thoughts and impressions on the three cases with Ashley.
   
   Of these, I found the Nosenko case to be the most interesting. Earlier this year, the CIA published the previously classified 'Family Jewels' documents -- an over 700-pp. study commissioned by DCI Schlesinger in 1973 of CIA violations of the CIA charter and both U.S. and international law. One of the Family Jewels documents (p. 522 in the study) blandly states that "the Soviet defector YURIY NOSENKO was confined at a CIA facility from April 1964 to September 1967 while efforts were being made to establish whether he was a bona fide defector. Although his present attitude toward the Agency is quite satisfactory, the possibility exists that the press could cause undesirable publicity if it were to uncover the story."
   
   Indeed. Here, the reader will find the inside story of how the CIA subjected defector Nosenko to solitary confinement and essentially torture for several years, on the Agency's "farm" in Virginia, because it suspected him of being a KGB agent planted to dispel U.S. suspicions that the Russian agency was behind President Kennedy's assassination. The result of the CIA's full-throttle investigation of Nosenko -- he was found to be a bona fide defector after 256 interrogations and eventually released -- is less interesting than the intimidating methods that were used to reach this conclusion. He was confined to a windowless cell for two years and subjected to sleep deprivation and, he suspected, involuntary ingestion of drugs and other techniques. There can be little doubt upon reading this account that what can only be called torture has been part of the Agency's toolkit for many years, which makes one wonder if the recently revealed human rights violations at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, and "extraordinary rendition" and other violations, have been aberrant or routine practices. (The KUBARK manual which outlines the scientific basis for coercive interrogation practices dates from around the time Nosenko defected). While Kisevalter was too much the Agency insider and loyalist to make waves over the Agency's treatment of Nosenko, the old operator's sadness and disgust about Nosenko's fate are evident in Ashley's account.
   
   The Popov and Penkovsky cases are well-known, and while offering some color and intriguing anecdotes that illustrate Cold War espionage tradecraft at work, Ashley adds little to our knowledge of the results of these cases, other than to note that Penkovsky's revelations led to 10,000 pages of important data and Popov's led to over 1,000 pages. We are led to the conclusion that Popov and Penkovsky revealed much of importance without really being told what it was.
   
   An intriguing but not overly informative inside look at the shadow war of spies, double agents, and defectors during the Cold War.



2. George Kisevalter, one of 50 men awarded the CIA's Trailblazer Award, was by all accounts including this one "one of the good guys", a loyal devoted case officer who managed to get along with everyone by steering clear of agency politics and some of the more wacky individuals and schemes this era brought forth. The author is also a former CIA agent and the book obviously has been vetted and sanctioned, but this second-person memoir, readable and rich with detail, helps fill in important gaps alluded to in such classics as David Martin's "Wilderness of Mirrors" and Tom Mangold's "Cold Warrior" about the rise and fall of famed DCI James Jesus Angleton. Kisevalter at least gives passing reference and acknowledgement to the damage done by Angleton in his relentness mole witchhunts and is modest about his own critical role in finally securing the release and redemption of KGB defector Yuri Nosenko, who was secretly incarcerated for about three years because previous defector Anatoly Golitsyn convinced Angleton that Nosenko was a Russian provocateur or plant. About all he has to say about William King Harvey was that he too like everyone else in their circle drank copiously, and there is also some material about King's famous Berlin tunnel the Russians all along knew was being built, due to their English mole George Blake. Most of the book centers on how Kisevalter, of Russian descent, earlier had "handled" two of the most significant Russian defectors, the KGB's Petr Popov and Oleg Penkovsky, who mainly through their own carelessness were caught and executed by the Russians (the author comments on rumors they both were cremated alive as a warning to their cohorts, although Kisevalter tends to discount this.) This is a most significant text in Cold War espionage history, not to be missed.



3. It's only when the books come out that you can begin to understand what's been happening in our Government. And this is an excellent example. Here a knowledgeable insider writes a biography of the ultimate insider. The author Clarence Ashley was an analyst for the CIA working on Soviet strategic missile capabilities and preparing national intelligence estimates.
   
   George Kisevalter was a top case officer who ran two of the most important spy operations in the Soviet Union. He began working in intelligence activities during World War II and continued until his retirement in 1970, during this time he became as espionage genius. This book provides a behind-the-scenes look at spycraft in action, from dead drops and cutoffs to multilayered ciphers, the KGB's secret "spydust," and everything in between. It should become one of the classic books on the US-Soviet rivalry during the Cold War.

2 comments about 33 Months As A POW In Stalag Luft III: A WWII Airman Tells His Story.

1. For readers knowledgeable about the Great Escape, most of the content of this book is familiar. A unique feature of this book, apart from the undercover photos taken within the camp and during the evacuation on the heels of the Red Army, is the Christmas card sent by Glemnitz to Clark in 1980 (p. 106). Clark also sheds light on the surveying error that led to tunnel Harry coming up short of the treeline. Buildings had stood in the way, making accurate triangulation impossible (73). He also discusses his experiences in the construction of fly-proof latrines, and how he put this practical skill to use in order to solve the insect-latrine problems at Stalag Luft III--to the approval of the Germans (pp. 47-48).
   
   Clark was not directly involved in the Great Escape, as he was in a different compound at the time. But he heard the 5 AM shot that ended the escape. His version of events differs from those of others. He speaks of 50-60 men being forced to crawl back in the tunnel Harry (p. 116). The other works on the Great Escape all describe the use of trolleys to ferry men and equipment through the tunnel, with no more than several men being in the tunnel at any one time. Furthermore, at the time of the Germans' discovery of the tunnel, it was already first dawn, and, for this reason, no more than several additional men were then scheduled to escape out of the tunnel anyway. It would have been 83 total instead of the 76.
   
   The Allied POWs housed in Stalag Luft III included those who were openly Jewish (p. 114). Yet the Germans did not kill them. (This adds refutation to the argument that the Holocaust was unique in that the Nazis sought to kill all known Jews in their grasp.) Clark elaborates on the horrible treatment of the Polish and Russian untermenschen at the hands of the Germans. (p. 49, 178) It is sobering to realize that an American or British Jewish POW had a greater right to live than a Russian gentile POW (of whom 2 million--some sources say 3 million--died in German captivity).
   
   There are only a few obvious errors in this work. Clark repeats the myth of the Polish Air Force getting destroyed on the ground (p. 36) and confuses the city of Lubin with Lublin (p. 102). In general, however, this is a good all-around book.



2. Before this book, I had no idea what it meant to be a prisoner of war in WWII. I was astonished at the things this man and his comrades survived and endured. Crammed into these camps for months (or years, in most cases), they created a community and did their best to keep their bodies and souls alive. I had no idea that the camps were this big or this intricate. 33 Months is an amazing piece of history that makes the reader feel grateful for the creature comforts we all take for granted, as well as for the efforts of the many soldiers who have sacrificed so much for our country.
   Reading this book, I realized that most of the veterans of the big, historic wars are all almost gone from this earth, and that with them a huge piece of history will become less real to us. General Clark is obviously a very honorable man with a good heart, and I'm grateful that he shared his story with the rest of us.

5 comments about At the Right Hand of Longstreet: Recollections of a Confederate Staff Officer.

1. Moxley Sorrel was one of the best staff officers in the Confederate army. He served as one of the key staff officers in the service of Gen. James Longstreet's First Corps. This book, in his own words, is one of the more insightful books by an "insider" from the Civil War.
   
   The book provides some brief background, prior to Sorrel joining Longstreet's staff (which, by the way, appears to have been one of the better corps staffs on the Confederate side--east or west or trans-Mississippi).
   
   His career was distinguished and he had a rare opportunity to observe Longstreet and other major Confederate officers. The book portrays Sorrel's views on major battles of the war--from the Peninsula to Seven Pines to the Seven Days to Second Manassas and on to Gettysburg. Then, an examination of the First Corps' movement to the western theatre, where it played a key role at Chickamauga.
   
   Sorrel became a battlefield figure at the Wilderness, as he led a flanking attack on Union General Winfield Scott Hancock. He finished the war as a battlefield commander rather than a staff officer.
   
   What is best about this book, though, is his careful and thoughtful analysis of events and officers. A very nice work indeed.



2. maybe it was because Longstreet wasn't a very talkable sort I don't know but this book does provide some interesting insights and seldom bogs down.



3. VERY GOOD BOOK, I ENJOYED IT VERY MUCH, WROTE VERY WELL



4. This late memoir seems to have been one of the most heavily used sources for scholars of Lee, Longstreet and other generals and the Gettysburg campaign in particular.
   
   As a memoir, it's not very personable, with the author's personal experiences and even his serious injury told in a distant manner, which is not uncommon for works of this kind. It is interesting as an account of Longstreet and others around him, although it shouldn't be taken as absolute gospel; Sorrel's opinion on the Gettysburg campaign in particular seems calculated to deflect any possible criticism from his erstwhile chief.
   
   There are some interesting and unexpected tidbits here -- for one, the role of the spy Harrison, whose very existence has been questioned by some writers. Far from appearing only once on the eve of Gettysburg, he appears in Sorrel's memoir as a regular contact of Longstreet's and one who was still living when the memoir was written. This would seem to strengthen the argument that Harrison's information about Federal activities in the Gettysburg campaign would have been useful to the Confederate command.
   
   It's also interesting (and refreshing) to see how non-teetotal Sorrel's Army of Northern Virginia is -- whiskey everywhere, and even a priceless scene of Longstreet and other officers singing arias while standing on a table.



5. General Gilbert Moxley Sorrell's memoir of the War Between the States is a must-read for any serious student of the War and a fascinating historical account of soldierly life and experiences. Sorrell served in Longstreet's Brigade beginning at Manassas and as his staff officer until his promotion to Brigadier-General in 1864. He paints a vivid picture of camp life and of the political climate of the times that is often overlooked in military accounts. Highly recommend

2 comments about Rickover: The Struggle for Excellence.

1. I was quite surprised after reading this book. It is an excellent history of Rickover and US Navy Nuclear propulsion. I had always wondered why nuclear power was always so safe for the Navy but the public utilities had so much trouble with it. This is an interesting history of moving up the ranks in the Navy and how you can advance. I was surprised at all the people who seemed to hate Rickover because he wanted to have his way and never to go below his specifications. This is why Rickover was never on the biography channel was because he was contriversial. The story really makes you want to know more and more about Nuclear submarines especially the times at Oak Ridge and when they were building the Nautilus. It's hard to think of a time when all the subs before that ran on the surface most of the time. I was glad that Rickover just took over and got the job done. The only part I did not like was that they were not specific enough about the design of the subs. I do not mean engineering drawings or national secrets but at least some general layouts of the submarines and the propulsion system in a layman's terms to have a better understanding of this. Richard Rhodes did a good job of this in his book "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" explaining the first nuclear reactor that went critical in Chicago. I would like to also know more about that light water breeder reactor that ran on thorium instead of uranium at Shippingport. Why haven't we made more of those instead of depending on fossil fuels? Rickover was in on the most exciting technology of the 20th century, how exciting must that have been.



2. Many biographies have been written over the past 40 years about the impact that the life of Admiral H.G. Rickover has had on the United States Navy ý one in which redefined the role of the Navy in the post World II era. All of these works have focused on his many accomplishments and the controversies that surrounded him, which often conflicted with the executive branch of the Federal government, naval shipbuilders, and the U.S. Navy itself. Few, if any, clearly demonstrate who Rickover was, and how his principles evolved. No doubt, the author of ýRickover: The Struggle for Excellence,ý Francis Duncan, is the only biographer afforded enough access to the Rickover as an outsider to the Navy and its Naval Reactors program, to know him well enough to accomplish a detailed account of what shaped the man. This book, the third in a series by Duncan, tells the stories from birth till his death, remarking on events that shaped his priorities and principles, and addresses many of the unanswered questions or mysteries that readers of other biographers may have found in the story of Rickoverýs career. Some of the misconceptions about Rickover that Duncanýs work clears up are concerns such that Rickover had lied about his age or that Rickover had been for the most part unsuccessful and out of place in the Navy prior to his work with Naval Reactors. Unlike the Polmar and Allen ýRickoverý biography, which often appears lengthy and intimidating as an all encompassing view of Rickoverýs life, Duncanýs work is very readable and pleasant. I assume that Duncan knew that the larger than life Rickover story could never be captured in single volume, and separated his works, which describes his evolution; ýNuclear Navy, 1946-1962ý which deals with the influence of Atomic Energy on the modern U.S. Navy,ý and the ýRickover and the Nuclear Navy: The Discipline of Technology,ý describing the founding and management of Rickoverýs technical program.
   
   Although the emphasis of most Rickover biographies has been his impact on the Navy, his story serves two other main purposes. First, from a management and organizational behavior perspective Rickover seems to break all the rules and still maintain a highly committed program that integrated safety, reliability and high-performance He embedded principles and expectations that continue to exist today, and are the core of the Naval Nuclear program. This is the ultimate measure of a founderýs success, for an organization to remain relatively static around what principles and values drive its core mission. The second of course, is Rickoverýs influence on the operation of civilian nuclear power plants, an accomplishment that Rickover thought he was unlikely to achieve when he was forced to withdraw from Shippingport. However, his influence and principles have filtered down through the personnel he trained through ýNR,ý and have subsequently redefined nuclear power operations in the Post-TMI era of nuclear power, and forced a paradigm shift in nuclear power operations and realigned the thinking about the discipline required to operate high-risk technologies.

   My only criticism of Duncan is perhaps his fondness of Rickover, which comes through in his writing. Considering all of the negative stories of Rickover, I would expect more negatives in his depiction of Rickover as well. However, biographies are written about the life and accomplishments of great men, and gossip and scandals best left for supermarket tabloids.