5 comments about Fire in the Night: Wingate of Burma, Ethiopia, and Zion.

1. My mother thought Orde reminded her of Stonewall Jackson of American Civil war fame. There are many similarities between the two, but I think Trevor Royle's book title nails his character right on the head. Both Jackson and Wingate were average military scholars, but brilliant field commanders. They had no equal on the field in terms of battle tactics. Both were deeply religious, both eccentric, though in very different ways. Both were Gideons of the supreme, heavenly order. I am convinced if Stonewall were alive today, he would be an ardent zionist as Orde became when his command led him to palestine in pre-WWII years. Orde's first assignment was in the Sudan where he became fluent in Arabic. His Hebrew which he tried to learn was terrible according to Moshe Dayan. His few days in palestine, however, bore much fruit in that he taught the jews of palestine tactics which would help transform the IDF into the amazing fighting force today and which served them extremely well in the immediate days and years following.
   
   Orde's success in restoring the Ethiopian empire to Haile Selassie was definitely Stonewallian. How he routed the entire Italian fascist force residing in Ethiopia with a small force was little short of miraculous.
   
   I don't think Stonewall was as outspoken as Orde and was a bit surprised at how Orde got by with some of his very strong opinions which he was not afraid to voice. That for me was the biggest contrast between the two.
   
   Most important, I think, about Wingate was what he had accomplished in the jungles of the far east where he died in a tragic aviation accident during WWII.
   
   This book was thoroughly enjoyable, is well written, but I defer to the better judgement of one of my favorite Amazon friends and recommend Royle's book as being most accurate as to Orde's views of the jews and palestine. This book was a good prelude to me, a good introduction into the life and character of this most remarkable of British soldiers, Orde Wingate.



2. Like Lawrence of Arabia, Orde Wingate is a perennially fascinating figure of the later British Empire and era of World Wars I and II. Unlike Lawrence, Wingate was not a literary artist who immortalized his own career, so we rely on biographies to understand him. This work is thorough if not definitive, using a wide array of sources to describe his military/political adventures in Palestine, Ethiopia, and finally Burma where his long-range penetration strategy was most publicized and problematic, but at least partly successful. Such a forceful, idiosyncratic figure will always stimulate controversy, and the authors explore the disagreements well enough, though they cannot satisfy all readers. Why marginal? Wingate's and Lawrence's successes, and failures, occurred in peripheral theaters of both wars. Scholars debate whether such operations significantly influenced the outcome of campaigns in Africa, Southwest and Southeast Asia, or primarily served to expand or protect the Empire. But major (and costly) sea, air and especially land campaigns were essential to winning world wars; the character of 20th century total war effectively marginalized the efforts and the theaters where romantic individualists fought, though they remain dashing, compelling figures. "Fire in the Night" is exciting and deserves 4-5 stars taken on its own terms, but excess attention given to special ops ultimately obscures the nature of Allied triumphs. A. Mockler, "Haile Selassie's War" narrates the 1935-41 Ethiopian conflict. In "Defeat Into Victory" William Slim recounts the inspiring reconquest of Burma, with pointed critiques but general praise for his difficult subordinate. (The authors seem overly hard on Slim in this respect.) J. Nunneley, "Tales from the King's African Rifles" captures well the brutal, unglamorous experience of most Burma veterans.



3. Like many sources, this book praises wingate without enough
   careful examination of his flaws. The book focuses mostly
   on three chapters in Wingate's life. It starts with his
   service in palestine in 1936.
   
   Driven by religious fanaticism and his contempt for what
   he saw as uncivilized peoples (arabs or any non-europeans
   really), he attached himself to Zionism and zionist politicians.
   In the process he exceeded or ignored his orders, then after
   politically compromised himself in open alliance with zionist
   groups to a point where he could not possibly serve there.
   His great "vision" for the region was for a "sub-empire"
   with Zionists serving as a sort of spartan military elite
   to subdue and westernize those considered lesser humans. All
   as part of some sort of twisted fanatical vision of christianity.
   
   After having been booted out of Palestine, he eventually ended
   up in Ethiopia where he again ignored his orders. His goal
   this time was to force a royal government on Ethiopia regardless
   of what anyone else thought and in spite of serious reservations
   on the part of politicians and his superiors. His campaign
   was a wonderful "boys adventure" sort of a affair, but in the
   end it was army won the campaign. Wingate's great accomplishment
   was saddling Ethiopia with an unstable and territorially
   aggressive monarchy that eventually collapsed in a bloodbath
   in the 1970s.
   
   After, he went into open revolt against the entire leadership
   of the army in the area. He openly insulted them and held them
   in utter contempt. In his mind, though he had never held
   a position of high responsiblity in the army, he saw himself
   as being some sort of grand illustrious figure. And when
   his campaign of alination, insults and personal attacks failed
   to get him recognition, he attempted suicide. Contrary to the
   book, his megolmania and self-destructive behavior would indicate
   someone with serious problems rather than a great leader.
   
   He was rescued from career oblivion by a friend in India. He
   was sent into Burma in 1942 to see what could be done in the
   way of irregular warfare. For all his bluster, he did nothing.
   And beyond that, while other men were suffering and dying
   on the march back to India, Wingate arranged to be flown out.
   
   Back in India, he was given a brigade to test out his theories
   with. He whined about what he was given in terms of men. He
   only wanted british soldiers. He threw the men into jungle
   camps during the monsoon with the idea that by inflicting the
   maximum amount of suffering and disease, that british men
   who had his opinion been weakened by access to health care
   and doctors in britain would be made strong again. When the
   casualty rate reached over 50%, he moved the men into regular
   housing and they recovered. The book presents the self-serving
   fiction that the casulaty rate declined due to weeding out
   "bad men" when in reality it only improved because the monsoon
   ended and the worst of the camps was abandoned.
   
   Wingate's first mission into Burma served no real purpose. It
   was originally to be part of a broader plan, but when the
   broader plan was cancelled, wingate demanded that the operation
   go ahead anyway as a training exercise. He led the men into
   Burma, put a railway out of operation for a few weeks and
   then led his men deep into Burma where they accomplished nothing.
   Eventually, Wingate executed one of his brilliant strategies
   to solve the situation. He broke up his command and effectively
   gave the order every man for himself. The force or more
   properly what survived of the force returned in small parties
   to India.
   
   Once back, Wingate ignored his men in favor of launching a
   press and publicity campaign on his achivements. He wrote
   a self-serving account of operations and when his commanders
   raised objects to it, he arranged for a copy to be given
   directly to Churchill and the cabinet. Wingate decided to
   bypass the entire army and come under the patronage of
   politicians. The politicans heard about the brilliant victory,
   but they did not hear about the officer running naked in the
   jungle or of the man who believed bringing back flogging was
   necessary for real dicipline.
   
   When he returned to India in the fall of 1943, he fell ill
   because he had recklessly drank contaminated water in north
   africa on the way back. He had been given a blank cheque
   for any resources he wanted for operations in Burma.
   
   However, due to a combination of him being out of the country
   and ill, his operational role in developing the second chindit
   force wasn't very large. Eventually, an plan was thrown
   together for operations in 1944. Rather than being an evolution
   of his supposed theories, it mostly involved a new idea of
   fighting a special operations war with a division-sized formation
   operating from large bases in enemy controlled territory.
   
   Wingate died early on during the operation so its impossible to
   know what would have been the result if he had lived. However,
   the only other time his 1944 strategy was used was by the
   French in Vietnam where it led to total disaster.
   
   Wingate has a number of followers. Obviously, Israelis are
   greatful for the help he provided in forming what eventually
   became their army. There are also those who, like wingate,
   who see the british army as a failed institution and somehow
   see innovation in the form of a man who cut his own throat,
   ran around naked in camp, wanted to bring back flogging and
   credited broader access to good health care in civilian life
   as being responsible for weakening the british soldier.
   
   A good work on Wingate has to deal with the positive aspects
   and the negative ones. Too many draw a one-sided portrait
   (including this one) while sweeping the not so nice parts of
   the story under the rug.



4. Having been brought up on stories from my early years about the brave and often forgotten exploits of the Chindits I was very enthused to tuck into this book. Orde Wingate has been the hero of many, not so much because he was a military successful warrior, but because he was wildly unconventional at a time when staid ethics and methods of war were leading to defeats of the western allies on all fronts.

   A fierce Old Testament fear and learning of the bible bread in what would now be called a fundementalist christian family, he blended this with [...] eccentricities like, indifference to appearing nude before his collegues and newspapermen, a complete indifference to British Monarchy and the hierarchical class-bound society and way of thinking. An appreciator of new ideas and probably quite to the left of many of his superiors, he had no hestation in punishing and physically striking his recruits (no matter their colour), and could kill the enemy mercilessly, or order large groups knowingly to their death without a blink.

   Wingate pioneered unconventional warfare with his notion that large unit groups can function in the rear of the enemy for long periods of time if they were self-sufficient and well trained. He eschewed the entire idea of "special forces" as they are often called nowadays. In the end I do not think that he squared the circle large unit action and special forces --- he wanted both and got really neither. His tactics worked rather well against the Italians (but that was no surprise he realised), but they were problematic against the Japanese. The first operation, "Long Cloth" was an unmitigated disaster, with enough adventures from its many participants to fill an entire library (they still make some of the most heart thumping reads available). The entire operation broke down and became in some cases, every man for himself. Wingate himself giving the order.

   His second operation was more problematic. No doubt these operations had significant effect on the enemy and no doubt were very helpful in the taking of Myikyena and Mogang, but I really think that 14th Army would have rolled up the Japanese flank nicely anyway, as they did and win the Battle of Burma with overwhelming firepower and troops as well unmitigated air superiority.

   In the end the Japanese in Burma were beaten by traditional large unit engagements.

   That is not a defeat of the ideas of Orde Wingate, nor do they negate the incredible bravery of the men who served with him. What it does DO however is to put to rest the idea that Orde Wingate was a purveyor of "Truth" -- his ideas were worthy, but they were not the be-all end-all of jungle combat. His developments were prodigeous and his personal bravery never in doubt. But I think that, like Moses, he got involved too much in fanatical devotion to one idea and was willing to sacrifice a lot for an idea. In the case of Moses, his people --- in the case of Wingate, it was often his own troops.

   This books admirably chronicles the multifacted nature of Wingate. It is factual and comes across as neutral as possible, often citing critical sources and those men (also of incredible courage) that did not fall under his spell.

   The narrative is tight and WELL EDITED. Unlike your regular 1000 page biography Smith and Beirman are able to deal with the subject adequately in 400 pages with nothing substantive missing. Also there is just enough detail of almost all of his life. The final 150 pages deals with the Burma campaign the authors are very skillful in their use of detail. They include all of the crucial elements necessary of his many campaigns.

   I found the book to be a very admirable read. I think that it only deepened the questions I have about Wingate --- was he a daring experimenter or a madman? --- I think that one can add, bitterly-troubled person to the heap of other appelations surrounding this man.

   I still ask myself, if this man were my commander would I succumb and become a convert? Would I stand aloof and protest that something is terribly wrong? I do not know, and cannot judge because I was not born at the time these events transpired. I was not a part of this great crusade, the glory they gained or the horrors they endured.




5. This is actually three wonderful stories in one. Beginning with a short introduction of the `early years' the book quickly opens with Wingate in 1936 Palestine/Zion where is quickly discovers the passion that he will keep for the rest of his life, namely Zionism. Wingate, witnessing the anti-Semitic nature of the British officer corps, gravitates towards the Zionists due to his penchant for sticking out and backing underdog causes. This book tells the riveting story of Wingate's training and arming of the famous `night squads' which became the backbone of the Palmach who eventually led Israel to victory in the 1948 war.

   The second story is the story of Wingate in Africa. Exiled to Africa because of his deep connections to the Zionists Wingate once again latches onto a new cause, the 1941 liberation of Ethiopia, which had been the last free African state before the Italians invaded it.

   The third story is where Wingate once again shined, namely in Burma leading the Chindits who operated behind enemy lines fighting the Japanese. Once again Wingate's penchant for native causes and brilliant ability to adapt unorthodox fighting techniques helped prepare the way for British victory. Churchill called Wingate a genius and when you read this book you will wholeheartedly agree, this is truly the story of the man who was the `fire in the night' when the world was becoming dark with fascism.

   Seth J. Frantzman

2 comments about Rommel.

1. Just like the majority of those new to WWII, years ago, I thought that Rommel was an excellent commander, tactician, strategist, etc. It was only when I began to delve into details and talking with authors that I realized the myths built up around Rommel, and many other Generals, were finally coming down. This book actually does an excellent job in showing Rommel's tactical knowledge and expertise and puts it into context with what actually was the reason for his achievements in France and North Africa.
   
   I have to point out that what I wanted to read the most about was the British addition to propaganda in regards to Rommel. The author shows that since the British were pushed off the continent, after the fall of France, Norway, the Balkans, etc, their only field of battle against Nazi Germany (aside from the Battle of Britain) was the North African theatre. This meant that their only 'claim to fame', so to speak, in showing that they had taken a part in taking down the German land Army was showing what odds they were able to overcome. Thus, Rommel became a 'superman' and the 'Desert Fox' and Montgomery, the commander who eventually defeated him, became THAT much better than Rommel himself.
   
   A lot of detail is given to Rommel's involvement with the assassination attempt on Hitler (or non-involvement). I wasn't surprised to see that Rommel was ignorant of what was going on around him in terms of German policies and strategy. He was a talented tactician, to a point, but the fact is he was sent to North Africa to help the Italians hold back the British, not wage war toward the Suez Canal and beyond, which is something he hoped to do. He never had the man-power for such an offensive and even so decided to go through with it, letting logistics sort themselves out. The end result was a sea-saw of battles that eventually led to the demise of the Afrika Armee.
   
   A recommended read for those interested in seeing Rommel's achievements in an objective light, his victories and losses, as well as how BOTH the Germans and British used Rommel for their own needs (the most photographed German general, it should be noted). Also, how even after the war he served as a token tool for, once more, both the Germans and British in propagating their respective causes. Lastly, I would agree with the previous reviewer who said that much was still left out in regards to both what Rommel achieved and lacked but this book is at least a step in the right direction, and for that I believe it deserves 5 stars.



2. I am not impressed by this book. The account of Rommel was rather sketchy, and the arguments were not laid out in details for the reader to judge for themselves. This book could certainly do more with its analysis of Rommel and his achievements - or lack thereof. In particular, much more could be said about Rommel's accomplishments and failings as Afrika Korp commander and as a commander in Normandy. There is much to be said about the 'Rommel' myth which was not discussed in this book.
   
   A reasonable read for those being introduced to Rommel, but not adequate for more informed and thoughtful readers.

5 comments about Into the Mouth of the Cat: The Story of Lance Sijan, Hero of Vietnam.

1. I read this book many years ago and it really hit me hard. I was a Navy Aircrewman who had been through SERE school. The courage and determination of LT Lance Sijan was incredible. I believe you can only relate to his story if you have in the Military and the sacrifices we make every day or have family or a loved one who has been in. I recommend this book for any Military Aviator.



2. I was a young Air Weapons Controller stationed in Southeast Asia during the time of Lt. Sijan's shootdown. However , it wasn't until much later, when I read "Into the mouth of the Cat", that I came to understand what a truly amazing person Lance P. Sijan was. I have since given each of my son's copies of the book, so that they, too, could read about what the definition of an american hero really is. Some of the comment's logged in this forum question his motivation for continuing to try to escape...they need to read the Code of Conduct that those of us in the military tried very hard to live by. Many of the POW's found it almost impossible to abide by every code, and understandably so. Some of the torture tactics that were administered by the enemy, no mortal could withstand. Lance P. Sijan came as close as any human being could, and ultimately died from it. If one longs to find someone that truly lives up to the definition of "Hero", they should look no further than Lance P. Sijan. He has been my hero for many years. Mike Carbonneau, Firebase Sharana, Afghanistan, Aug. 2008



3. The story moves along quickly. Its not a book you are going to struggle to finish. It will hold your attention and is a great motivational story as far as will and mental toughness are concerned.



4. While in the USAF, back in 1987, I had first read this book. This is the type of book, that, when you begin to read it, you cannot put it down until it is finished. The author writes in a very easy to read style, no "big" words, but, is very descriptive and detail orientated in his telling of Sijan's heroism. Although, this is a war "related" story, I feel that it is not a "War Story". Malcolm McConnell, through his attention to detail, chronicles the extremely brave and selfless actions of an otherwise ordinary man from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. After I had originally read this, 1987, I was so overwhelmed by the author's accurate depiction of what had been "Folk Lore" in the Bay View area of Milwaukee. Because of this book, I have always thought of Sijan, and all that he had endured, whenever an obstacle or challenge is placed before me. This is a very inspirational book. As I was driving on Kinnickinnic Avenue in Bay View, I passed by a Flag that is displayed right next to the road, in a little ballpark that is named Lance Sijan Field. And, every time that I pass it, I instinctively Salute. But, this time, I also bought this book, actually, four, one for my Father, two for my Brothers, and, of course, one for myself. By the way, this time, again, I had also read it in one sitting!



5. I read this story years ago and remember being inspired by the courage of this young man. One reviewer stated that his plane was shot down, I thought that the bombs he was dropping detonated prematurely and caused the crash. Regardless, it's a great story about a guy who never gave up.

4 comments about Vietnam's Forgotten Army: Heroism and Betrayal in the ARVN.

1. This 303-page book is not a comprehensive history of our involvement in Vietnam. Also, it is not about the Army of the Republic of Vietnam ("ARVN"). It is about two Vietnamese army officers, Pham Van Dinh ("Dinh") and Tran Ngoc Hue ("Harry"), whose military careers closely paralleled each other up until the time that each was ordered to fight to the death in the face of insuperable enemy forces.
   
   Dinh is the elder of the two by nearly five years. Both men were from the Hue City area of central Vietnam. Dinh immediately built a reputation for aggressive leadership and was given command of the elite Black Panther Company ("Hac Bao"). Harry graduated from Vietnam's military school and before long, he was given command of the Hac Bao. Following impressive leadership exploits, both rose in the ranks of the ARVN, Dinh to the command of a regiment and Harry to the command of a battalion. Both men proved to be outstanding leaders in combat.
   
   In March 1971, the North Vietnamese army overran Harry's battalion in Laos and, badly wounded, Harry was taken to a prison in Hanoi. In April 1972, Dinh was in command of a regiment that was about to be overrun by a superior enemy force. Dinh surrendered his command to the enemy. About one month later, Dinh accepted an offer from his captors and switched sides, becoming an officer of the North Vietnamese army. In contrast, Harry refused all such offers and remained a prisoner for thirteen years before being released. Thereafter, he worked his way to the U.S. and became a U.S. citizen.
   
   The book provides interesting accounts of the Battles for Hue City, Hamburger Hill, Lam Son 719, and the final breakthrough of the North Vietnamese army at the demilitarized zone. The book mentions the "forgotten" ARVN only in the introduction and in its conclusion.
   
   While this book is interesting and informative, there are several aspects that detract from it value.
   
   > The time-frame of the U.S.-Vietnam relationship is unclear because the text shifts in such references, often focusing on a beginning date of 1965 when the U.S. committed substantial ground troops to the effort. However, the fact is that the U.S. began providing military assistance in the late 1950s. Vietnam had about 20 years to develop an effective government and an effective military.
   
   > The reasonable expectations of the two nations are not discussed. How long could the U.S. be expected to fight another country's war; what reciprocal action is reasonably expected from Vietnam?
   
   > The tone of the book is often professorial in that many conclusions are stated in ex cathedra fashion without any facts being presented to support those conclusions. For example, one wonders at the many assertions that it was the U.S. fault that Vietnam's army was organized and controlled by self-interested politicians and incompetent military leaders. Similarly, references to a "U.S./ARVN symbiosis" leave this reader cold.
   
   > There is no clear analysis of the state of mind of Dinh, nor any distinction made between the surrendering of his command and his defection to the enemy. These were two different actions and should be analyzed separately. Surely, a commander can opt for surrender; defection is another story entirely.
   
   All told, it is an interesting book. It is unlikely that one will find these facts in the run-of-the-mill histories that we usually encounter.



2. This a great story too long left untold. In addition to telling a wonderful but tragic tale of two men sharing similar histories whose lives take radically different courses, it is also a story about the betrayal of South Vietnam by this country. Mind you,I opposed the Vietnam War at the time, but it has become abundantly clear to me that it was a war that could have been won.
   This is no whitewash. Wiest makes it clear that the Army of S. Vietnam had a lot of problems, but he also makes it clear that many of these were caused by US training a lack of understanding on our part of the Vietnamese culture and society.
   It is a thoughtful and thought provoking book. A must read for anyone interested in the Vienam War.



3. `Vietnam's Forgotten Army" is about two ARVN soldiers and how they have lead their lives based on the concepts of Freedom - Country - Family - Duty - Honor. Their stories of loyalty, betrayal, life, death, love and hate are told so brilliantly compelling that makes it impossible to put the book down.
   
   The South Vietnamese Army is probably the military force that is most analyzed and most harshly judged by the US. In the teachings of history in current Vietnam, ARVN doesn't even exist. The war, according to the Communist Vietnam, is the fight for Freedom by the North Vietnamese Communist to liberate the South from the colonial US.
   
   This book is one of the very few books that introduces the readers to a fairly balanced view of the Vietnam War and its complexity.
   
   The one problem I have with the book, right from the beginning, is the explanation of Hue and Dinh's support of the war: "In a nation where Confucian values of family and honor are of the utmost importance, Dinh and Hue were drawn to the support of South Vietnam for the most Vietnamese of reasons, following paths blazed by their fathers" (p. 11) Mr. Weist then goes on to dedicate several more subsequent pages about `Family Matters' to support this reason.
   
   While this is undoubtedly a big reason, it is not the only one.
   
   Before 1954, the year Vietnam was divided, most Vietnamese people had already had a good idea of what communism was.
   
   Between 1945-1954, the North Communist initiated a systematic execution of anyone who was thought to be dangerous to the Vietnamese Communist Party. Ten of thousands of nationalists, Catholics and others were massacred in a campaign called `The Great Purge'. They also emulated China's Land Reform Campaign that lasted from 1945 to 1956 during which an estimated 15,000 landlords were killed.
   
   During this time, my father, who had lost most of his family including his mother and sisters due to starvation and sickness, seeing the French as the lesser of the two evils, joined the French Army and later, owing to his father's advice, moved South.
   
   My mother's grandfather, a land owner, sentenced by the Communist People Court, was staked to death in his own rice paddy. Her father was captured and then was fortunate enough to be set freed by his loyal former farm worker, ran home, gathered up his family and fled South via Hai Phong Harbor along with other millions of refugees to seek Freedom in the South.
   
   By the early 60's, when both Dinh and Hue joined the military, South Vietnamese fear of communism was proven valid by Mao's cruelty of `The Great Leap Forward' and `The Cultural Revolution' during which, 20 million of Chinese had perished.
   
   
   I believe that both North and South Vietnamese fought for the Freedom of Vietnam. For North Vietnam, Freedom meant a self ruled nation with Vietnamese leadership, regardless of how totalitarian this leadership was. For South Vietnam, the value of Freedom was not universal. For some people, it was National Freedom in a Democratic Vietnam, advanced and prospered like France or US or at least as the imperial past. For my father, it was political freedom, the idea that it could be under a common wealth, as long as this common wealth brought peace, law and order, security and prosperity to the populace. For my mother and probably the majority of Vietnamese people, the value of Freedom was an individual one. It meant having enough rice to eat, freedom to raise families, freedom to worship their gods or ancestors and own property. Sadly, these values became the great sources of conflicts within the South Vietnamese hearts.
   
   In this book. Andrew Weist did point out this complexity:
   "Certainly the South Vietnamese state and the ARVN were imperfect. Even so, South Vietnam fought for twenty-five years and the ARVN lost more than 200,000 dead. After the war, millions chose to flee South Vietnam rather than live under the suzerainty of their brothers from the North."
   
   The book did an excellent job in highlighting the reasons for the destruction of South Vietnam: Cultural hubris of American Leadership, moral blindness of the media, corruption and incompetence of the Vietnamese Leadership and the lack of enforcement of the democracy ideology for the South, thus in the critical hours, Democracy for South Vietnam could not stand against ideology trained soldiers of the North.



4. "Vietnam's Forgotten Army" is the most complete personal account of ARVN soldiers at war and in the aftermath as experienced by two middle-ranking officers through the personal choices they made. It is written with balance and flair by a scholar who is devoted to a thorough accounting of Vietnam. With firsthand research, Wiest provides the crucial missing voices, those of the South Vietnamese often misportrayed, overshadowed, and underappreciated by their powerful American allies. He gives readers glimpses of what American advisers and their Iraqi counterparts may be facing in Iraq today.

No comments about Christine : SOE Agent & Churchill's Favourite Spy.

5 comments about Mekong First Light.

1. This story takes a long time to get moving. I learned a lot, but it was a struggle.



2. Anyone who is interested in unravelling the confusion and complexities of the single greatest disaster in American foreign policy should read this indispensable book.
   
   Despite looking like a novel, a novel it is not. What it is, is a 'bird's eye' view, an almost detached retrospective of an individual's rôle in the Vietnam war; a humanising of a conflict so often regarded as the antithesis of that - inhuman. Starting from the viewpoint of an average, unremarkable individual, this autobiography progresses into something much more profound, a story of human growth; development and metamorphosis. From his experiences and courage the author was eventually transformed into a remarkable, and anything but average human being, and this book catalogues that physical, mental and spiritual journey.
   
   In addition to the details of what life was like on the ground, this book's strength is undoubtedly the author's ability to put the pieces of an enormously complex puzzle together, to correlate the seemingly impossible. He succeeds in stringing many seemingly incoherent facets of the Vietnam War together into one huge coherent structure. Threading these memories together Calloway eventually leads the reader to a greater depth of understanding of the war, than had he simply tried to shock us with the grisly details and heart-rendering episodes of that sorry affair. Because Calloway took the more intelligent route, what we have is altogether much more readable, more profound and essentially a much more sincere account. Overall an excellent book.
   
   (+)
   i. A quick read.
   ii. Largely unbiased, well-rounded, insightful, complex and honest.
   iii. Nice pre-amble, good foundation to essentially personalise an impersonal war.
   
   (-)
   i. Requires much better editing and organising. Within the same paragraph the topic often changes.
   ii. Needs work on the continuity. Again, as above sometimes the progression and ideas are very erratic.
   iii. This imprint's paper is shockingly poor, not good for highlighting nor marking noted, very cheap feel.



3. Joe Callaway has managed to write a book that tells the real truth of how it was for him and the rest of us in the Mekong Delta. He is able to capture the truth of the Vietnam War experience, the truth of the political issues surrounding the war and the true compassion that he felt for the soldiers who served with him. When I read "Mekong First Light" I was overwhelmed by the realizm and sincerity contained in Joe's words. His description of the infantryman's life in the Delta is not sugar coated or glamorized. It is sometimes sad, sometimes funny, sometimes peaceful and sometimes catastrophic but always real. I have read many books about the Vietnam War and "Mekong First Light" is on the top shelf among the very best. Ernie Parker, A Co., 2/60th Infantry.



4. As a retired Army officer who served during the Vietnam Era (but not in Vietnam) and in Desert Storm I highly recommend this book. The section of the book explaining how we were led into the morass of the Vietnam war is superb. I have reread the last several chapters many times as CPT Callaway so eloquently explains his personal feelings about war. I especially loved his chapter to his sons. I am haunted by this book and how it portrays the similarity (my thoughts after reading his explanation of how we got into Vietnam) between our entry into Vietnam and our entry into Iraq. I commend CPT Gallaway for an excellent piece of literature.



5. Captain Callaway gives us a citizen soldier's perspective of the horrors of war and the folly of America's involvement in the Vietnam War. Joe Callaway was a kid who no one thought would ever amount to much but enlisting in the Army as a private, he would eventually become an effective combat platoon leader. I appreciate his honesty in sharing with his readers the pain he experienced in losing so many friends and his retrospective thoughts on the war, the army, lost friends, leaders, and returning to a different America. Thank you, Joe for writing a very personal book and for helping us connect with the emotions and difficulties of that time and war.

5 comments about Commander in Chief: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, His Lieutenants, and Their War (Bluejacket Books).

1. I picked this book up not by choice in the beginning. I had to have it for a WWII class; I thought the book was going to put a strain on my already hectic schedule. Not the case at all.
   
   This book was outstanding and Larrabee did an excellent job showing the mental, physical, and emotional strain on our leaders. The book is written in profiles so the book started with FDR and worked its way to Lemay for the ending. The profiles do not have to be read consecutively. The profiles were great descriptions with the Vandergrift profile being my favorite. Larrabee did an excellent job describing the Marines battles through their leader General Vandergrift. The profile on FDR showed that he had more strengths than weaknesses. The only apparent weakness being his health. Larrabee does an excellent portrayal of all the leaders and seemed a bit put off by Macarthur. Macarthur's profile was definately the most damning one in the book.
   
   I agree with the one review that says this book should be read. This was a time when our country was united as one. Larrabee also does an excellent look at the Japanese command in the book. He has an in depth history of the Chinese Burma theatre. The book is a great starting point with WWII because the foundations are laid in leadership. Larrabee shows that the war was one with the competence of many great leaders during that time.
   
   He also lead me to ask myself one question. Could FDR run his type of war in present time. I mean he did intern and imprison thousands of Japanese on the West Coast that had done nothing at all. He attacked Germany who never attacked the U.S. It was Japan who struck us on Dec. 7, 1941 not Germany. FDR saw the impending danger of Hitler and struck his head before there was a chance for attack. Maybe History needs to be read more often so future mistakes are not based on lack of knowledge. Also Larrabee shows that FDR did have enemies and the Chicago Tribune leaked a war plan against the Japanese. Thank God the Japanese did not heed this plan.
   
   Larrabee shows there is always opposition against our leaders. FDR had the fortitude to stand up for what he believed and protect the world. I thoroughly recommend this book to anyone interested in leadership or WWII.



2. I purchased this book many years ago when it was first published, but only recently got around to reading much of it. I was extremely impressed at the author's critical analysis of the major players. In terms of detailed biographical sketches and rigorous organization, it lapses from time to time and often spends several pages in diversions about subordinates. What was particularly strong about Commander in Chief, however, was the perspectival discussions on the talents and importance of individual flag officers. I was particularly impressed with the discussion of Eisenhower which was the best I've seen. Larrabee actually gives him more praise and regard than his own son did in the recent Ike: the Soldier. For once, Eisenhower comes across as a powerful and commanding figure in his own right, rather than as a fortunate protege of General Marshall. Indeed, Larrabee explains in a perfectly plausible fashion why Eisenhower was a better choice for overall European command in 1944 and beyond. Although it does tend to wander at times, Commander in Chief is finely written and makes for enjoyable, informative reading. I recommend it highly.



3. Eric Larrabee not only gives the facts about these men and what made them tick, he backs it up with real OFFICIAL memoranda from the time, often from more than just 2 or 3 sources. His study of Douglas MacArthur is outstanding. What MacArthur apologists won't tell you is that this book is required reading at all US military academies. It should be required in all high schools as well. Well written, well done!



4. This is the best book written about the story of World War Two from the perspective of the American military commanders. It won an award from the Society of American Historians called the Francis Parkman Prize for historical excellence. This book is a World War Two classic. You will not find a better one-volume profile of the American commanders in WWII.
   
   Roosevelt was great at picking the right people for the right positions, such as George Marshall, five star general. In Washington D.C., he was the overall commander of the United States military during the war (and later Truman's Secretary of State). His work was superb and, no doubt, ranks him among the greatest American leaders ever. Read about him in the book.
   
   Many expected that Marshall would be given command of the D-Day invasion (and all it's glory), but when Roosevelt told Marshall that he was thinking of hand-picking Dwight Eisenhower and asked Marshall for his advice, leaving the door open for Marshall to lobby FDR, Marshall dutifully told Roosevelt that he should do only what he thought was best for the country. Roosevelt then moved immediately to appoint Eisenhower. It was a great moment of self-sacrifice for Marshall.
   
   The information in this book on Eisenhower is even better. Read about it in the book.
   
   Another great leader that FDR hand-picked was admiral Ernest King, a tough, demanding and resourceful leader. Roosevelt elevated him to commander of the United States Navy shortly after the Pearl Harbor attack, and King proved to be the ideal man at the right time. King was the first aviator to obtain command of the navy, and carrier warfare would emerge as the key to naval warfare during the conflict.
   
   But the best part of this book is how the American commanders led America to victory in World War II. This is great history. It looked very uncertain for years. All of them, including FDR, did a great job. Read the book.



5. This is one of the most useful and well written books that I have read on World War II. Larrabee discusses in depth some of the leading American commanders, including: Nimitz, Eisenhower, Lemay, MacArthur, King, Marshall, and Stilwell. His discussion of Vandegrift included a lengthy discussion of Chesty Puller and his exploits on Guadalcanal. Obviously, any discussion of Chesty Puller can be extremely humorous, but Larrabee's anecdotes left me in stitches. I have also read a review on this site alleging that Franklin Roosevelt was aware of the pending attack on Pearl Harbor. The reviewer alleges that based upon the correspondence between the German foreign minister and the Japanese government should have made Roosevelt aware of the attack. My only response is that if German participation was a foregone conclusion, then why did Germany wait until December 11th to declare war? This is an extemely useful overview of the American leaders and the strategy that they employed in World War II. It should be required reading by any American history class studying the 20th century.

5 comments about Here's What We'll Say: Growing Up, Coming Out, and the U.S. Air Force Academy.

1. This is one of those books that after I finished it, I miss it. I miss hearing about Reichen's stories. He does very well doing it, and I must thank him for sharing so many personal and intimate details of his life. (I suppose this is why people write their autobiographies though). But many don't share quite as intimately as Reichen does. Since he is a young man still, we are taken right from early childhood up to the current time. A sequel would be nice. But wouldn't hold the same intrigue as this book did.
   
   I think Reichen Lehmkuhl is a lovely person and it was so exciting to read about him growing up. He was a grateful, loving child and youth and seemed like a good and obedient child. The main reason I bought the book was because I LOVE to read about homosexuals and military life. There aren't that many type books out there. And most of them end up with the author fighting the military about being gay (and always losing). Reichen played pretty much by the rules---he did graduate from the USAF Academy and helped many others to successfully progress through their training & education also.
   
   This was a delightful read. I became so scared for him that he was going to get caught in the Academy. I couldn't quite understand his falling back into women and heterosexuality at low moments, but I had to keep telling myself that he WAS young and most likely still questioning himself. I had to remember that I did similar things. This is one book I will KEEP as one of my special books and will reread again someday.
   
   I was unhappy with the photos. They are almost worthless. Like they were from someone else's camera and a hasty addition to the book. Biographies are so much better when they include photos throughout the life. These are very bad.



2. I lived in Colorado Springs during the late 1980s, and I had a cousin who graduated from the Academy in 1992, so I'm familiar with the culture of both the city and the Academy during the general time period that Reichen was a cadet. While he obviously had to use made-up names for his characters and create composite characters based on more than one person to protect his friends, the virulently anti-gay atmosphere that he describes is true to life. As a gay man myself, I had to remain deeply closeted in my own sports-related work environment, as well as enduring constant tirades in the local news media about the evils of "the chosen homosexual lifestyle." That Reichen was able to engage in any kind of gay-oriented social life at the Academy, Ground Zero for all things homophbic in "The Springs," demonstrates a high capacity for risk taking--some might even call it courage.
   
   While I've lost a lot of respect for Reichen in his post-military quest for eternal youth and gay celebrity status (I guess he has to play on his looks while he still has them), I'll always admire him for writing this book.



3. This story is very fascinating and inspiring story. I am sure I will read this book many more times.



4. I definitely recommend this book to anyone who is coming out, who has a friend who is coming out, or thinks that Don't Ask, Don't Tell isn't hurting anyone. This is a very inspiring story about a guy who starts off like you and me and who ends up just trying to protect his friends. Read about the hypocrisy of the USAF and the military in general. I'm sure they won't admit it, but this is just one more story that confirms that Don't Ask Don't Tell is not a working program. I was impressed with the story and the quality of character described within.



5. Oddly enough, before I read this book, I thought that Reichen Lehmkuhl was full of himself and drawing way to much attention away from the causes. But, as I read I discovered that he acts the way he does now because he ahs earned that right. He is outspoken, he is domineering... but most importantly, he is to some degree and to some people (like myself) heroic.
   The book starts off with a childhood troubled by what other people think. He felt he was ugly and was made fun of for it. He lived in a trailer and was also teased about that. This is so relatable by pretty much anyone because who hasn't been teased or insulted?
   Upon acceptance to the Air Force academy, things take on a darker turn as he battles trying to keep up with everyone else and sudden flourishes of same-sex attraction. The fact that he partook in and possibly founded the Underground gay group is a noble thing indeed... but sadly something that should not have existed at all. The story spans from childhood to his graduation from tha academy, and there are some devastating moments laced in between.
   Yet, the moment that really got to me was the climax when things started to unravel and it got dangerous. I could feel the anxiety as I read about it... knowing all to well what that anxiety felt like.
   This is not a great book by any stretch but it is a good one and it takes on homophobia in a homophobic military, exposing just how ugly this "religion" fueled hatred is. I found it personally refreshing that I share many of the views he does and am glad that I took the time to read this book.
   It isn't for everyone though. Be advised that there is a sexual assault segment that is fairly graphic and some of the same sex scenario's are fleshed out to rather deep detail... not quite soft core porn but just a tad bit dirty. I wasn't uncomfortable with any of the book, but I'm pretty sure that there amy be some readers who will be.
   So, all in all... a good book. It was entertaining and educational... and offered insight into a man that I am happy is so vocal about fighting for our rights.

5 comments about Thunderbolt: General Creighton Abrams and the Army of His Times.

1. Very exciting to see the new paperbook edition of this superbly researched and compassionately written military history profile of General Creighton Abrams, for whom the Abrams tank is named. A real soldier's soldier, Sorley captures the essence of Abrams' outstanding leadership, and celebrates his unswerving commitment to his troops, particularly in the face of increasingly difficult circumstances in the Viet Nam war. Abrams' role in the conflict is explored further in Sorley's Pulitzer Prize nominated book 'A BETTER WAR'. A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam To glean an insight into one of the early influences on Abrams' leadership style, and the shaping of the ethics of command, see Sorley's latest title 'HONOR BRIGHT', a history of the West Point Honor Code. Admittedly biased, I am eagerly awaiting my copy! Honor Bright: History and Origins of the West Point Honor Code and System (CPS2 - USMA)



2. GEN Abrams was responsible for the quality of the Army today and since he was the Chief of Staff. His wisdom and insight into soldiering, leadership, and combat ability is what won the Gulf War. Dr. Sorley is right on the money. It is obvious that Dr. Sorley really admires GEN Abrams and he has done his homework. It's a shame that GEN Abrams died so early, he tranformed the United States Army into the force it is today, or was at the time of the Gulf War.
   I met GEN Abrams in 1973 in Germany as a young Corporal and he spoke with me for a few minutes, but he struck me as unpretentious and humorous. I met Captains and Majors who had a bigger ego that him.



3. GEN Abrams was responsible for the quality of the Army today and since he was the Chief of Staff. His wisdom and insight into soldiering, leadership, and combat ability is what won the Gulf War. Dr. Sorley is right on the money. It is obvious that Dr. Sorley really admires GEN Abrams and he has done his homework. It's a shame that GEN Abrams died so early, he tranformed the United States Army into the force it is today, or was at the time of the Gulf War.
   ...



4. Creighton Abrams may have been the greatest American soldier of the second half of the 20th century. He served as a tank commander under General George Patton at the Battle of the Bulge, in occupied Germany and wartime Korea, as commander of United States military forces in Vietnam, and as Army Chief of Staff. It was a remarkable career! Lewis Sorley's admiring biography of General Abrams narrates the principal events in appropriate detail. In the prologue, Sorley asserts that Abrams was "the quintessential soldier," explaining that Abrams "demonstrated strategic and tactical skill and audacity," extraordinary physical bravery and intellectual courage, the capacity to lead and inspire men, [and] talent in dealing with complex and ambiguous managerial challenges." The measure of the value of this book lies in whether Sorley effectively makes that case. I believe that he largely does, as the result of which this is a very good, if not great, professional biography.

   Although Sorley's approach to biography is conventional, he demonstrates on several occasions that Abrams's views could be very unconventional. Early in his chapter about West Point in the mid-1930s, for instance. Sorley asserts: "From the beginning Abrams was alienated by some aspects of the cadet experience." According to Sorley, Abrams was highly self-motivated and self-disciplined, and he resisted the petty tyranny of cadet life. After Abrams graduated and was commissioned, Sorley writes that he "was tolerant of his soldiers' having fun." (Sorley quotes one Abrams subordinate that the general, if Abrams had a weakness, "he sometimes was too easy on some people.") After World War II, while Abrams was serving in the Plans Section for Army Ground Forces in Washington, D.C., he was assigned to prepare a study on the future of the horse cavalry and quickly concluded that there was none. In 1965, shortly after President Johnson ordered American forces in Vietnam out of their advisory role and into combat, Abrams was briefing a civilian official about the sociological impact of the draft and stated that "the only Americans who have the honor to die for their country in Vietnam are the dumb, the poor, and the black." According to Sorley, "[o]ut in the field Abrams disliked briefings, especially of the canned and rehearsed variety," and "[o]ne of [Abrams's] favorite ways [to find out for himself the truth of what was going on] was through small groups of young officers he would have in for dinner." And when Abrams left Vietnam, Sorley writes that "he went as he had come - no bands, no ceremonies, no flags, no fuss." Similarly, when he arrived back in Washington, according to Sorley, he got rid of the Chief of Staff's ""big black Cadillac limousine...using instead a small Chevelle from Pentagon motor pool that was painted robin's egg blue. No amenities, not even a star plate."

   Sorley occasionally offers significant insight. For instance, Sorley writes that Johnson's decision not to call up the reserves at the beginning of the expansion of the war in Vietnam was "perhaps the most fateful decision of the entire conflict." (Abrams explained the impact of this decision: "We decide[d] to use the Army in Vietnam, minus the National Guard and the Army Reserve.") In addition, according to Sorley: "A pervasive atmosphere of mistrust and antagonism characterized civil-military relationships in the Pentagon of the 1960s." Sorley describes the battle of Tet in 1968 as a "true watershed," which is not penetrating analysis, but he proceeds to explain: "Before Tet, America was seeking a military victory in Vietnam, but after it she was seeking to get out." About Abrams's appointment to the position of Army Chief of Staff, Sorley writes: "Creighton Abrams returned from Vietnam to head an Army that was widely viewed, both by the nation and from within its own ranks, as dispirited and desperately in need of reform. His appointment was the first step in getting on with the job of rebuilding."

   In other places, Sorley's approach to his subject approaches hagiography. For instance, although Abrams' performance during the relief of Bastogne was heroic, Sorley's assertion that this made Abrams "the most famous small unit leader of the war" is debatable. And Sorley's assertion that "Abrams command in Vietnam was...arguably the most difficult any top American soldier in the field has ever had to face" seems extreme. But Sorley may well be correct in writing: "In terms of prior experience Abrams was probably the best-qualified man ever to assume the duties of Army Chief of Staff."

   This biography concludes with Abrams's death. I would have much preferred for Sorley to devote a few pages to placing Abrams's accomplishments in the context of American military history from World War II through the middle of the Cold War. But Abrams had an extraordinary career, and this is a very good narrative of it.




5. Sir Robert Thompson, a British counter-intelligence expert, called Abrams "the best U.S. General since Grant." Reading Sorley's terrific account of Abram's life, it's hard to argue the point.

   Abrams was an armored warfare genius. His gruff, no-nonsense exterior masked a big heart and an abiding, deeply rooted love for his men and his country. His selfless devotion to duty is a model for us all.

   For a more in-depth analysis of Abrams'considerable (though largely overlooked) post-Tet, post-Westmoreland successes in Vietnam, read Sorely's "A Better War."

5 comments about First In, Last Out: Stories by The Wild Weasels.

1. Lots of personal Wild Weasel combat action stories about finding and killing the dreaded SAMs--Surface to Air Missile systems introduced and operated by the Soviet and North Vietnamese Armies in 1965 though 1975. The Wild Weasels produced a defensive system that defeated the SAMs by direct confrontation to protect the US Air Force and Navy Air forces attacking the most highly defended targets, ever. Hostile Anti Aircraft Artillery (AAA) and Fighters (MIGs) were losing the air battle over North Vietnam to American attackers. The Soviets saw an opportunity to test and exploit their latest SAMs from the "Cold War" while gaining valuable combat experience. When American Air forces lost four aircraft in a week in 1965, President Johnson started an "Anti-SAM" top priority, top-secret effort that led to the development, testing, training and employment of a dedicated team of "SAM Killers", The Wild Weasels. These stories are personal, mostly unedited, first person narratives and reflections by the Leaders, Pilots, Electronic Warfare Officers (Bears), Engineers and Maintainers and their families who made the defeat of SAMs possible and enhanced survival of the Strike Force leading to the Wild Weasel motto "First in, Last Out".



2. Seemed strange that some of the other famious WW were not included.



3. RETIRED AIR FORCE, VETERANS OF THE VIET NAM CONFLICT. GOTTA' LOVE IT.



4. "I will never forget the date of the third kill. It was on my Mothers birthday 4 March." - This is a compiled collection of war and development stories and variations in writing abilities are to be expected. Repetitions of topics are off course to be expected also. And although none of the story writer is great (but some are decent), you soon get tired of some of them reeling off half the Captains and Majors they've met at one stage or another. - Including where they had been previously. And an absolute low point is reached when one of the authors uses the opportunity to get his mothers birth date in print for the entire world. - Perhaps interesting and entertaining for the magazine in the club, but... I guess some having given the book four stars are personally involved, in one way or another?
   (A minor thing that may not offend anyone but still is weird, is the size: Has never been afraid of a thick book. But this is a mini-telephone book, both in thickness and area. Inconvenient to read, but perhaps it says more about the editing?)



5. The stories were very vivid and put you in the situations. However,there was alot of repetition that this type of writting (individial stories) is prone to. Editing could have prevented those. Also there many mistakes, misspelled words and typos. This all took away from the validity of the stories.
   USAF Pilot, RVN 1966-67