1 comments about My Autobiography: With "The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism" (Dover Books on History, Political and Social Science).

1. This is the man who started all the fascism in Europe and around the world. Even Hitler was impressed by him and copied his system.. This book is necessary to read and understand one of the most influential leaders of the Fascist movement, people to not appreciate his sincere ideologies. Because of my ancestors' roots of Italian/Spanish origins, I feel that it's my obligation to express my point of view and be the first to review this book, by giving it a five and encouraging the public to understand the Fascist mentality. During the Fascist regimes the public was not exposed to the atrocities and delinquencies that terrorize the world to day, and that is because today we have a lot of Liberals who contribute to the lack of Law and order with weak leaders. If you are concern about the future of your children and the security of your family bringing them up in good moral environment, read this book and examine the difference between the Liberals and the Right wing philosophy.

5 comments about Things We Couldn't Say.

1. I bought this book at the American Book Center in The Hague, Netherlands, a few years ago. As I knew many of the places mentioned in the book, it took on an even deeper meaning for me. I love this book, and I list Diet Eman and Hein Sietsma as heroes. Definitely 5+ stars!



2. The true story of true Christians, and Dutch patriots, Diet Eman and Hein Sietsma, and their courageous risk of everything to resist Nazi tyranny and hide thousands of Dutch Jews.
   True Christians always love the Jewish people and Israel, and true nationalists are opposed to both Communism and Nazism, both the antithesis of national self-determination.
   Diet recounts her own life, and experiences and what she saw and heard, as well as her deep faith in G-D, that guided her in all she did and thought.
   Diet recounts her experiences in Scheveningen prison, where she describes how Jewish families, who were caught in hiding, were hauled into the prison, mothers, fathers and children: 'On the nights the guards brought Jews in, we always heard the children crying all through that place. It was bad enough for us to have to suffer through a place, like Scheveningen, but it was terrible to hear those poor innocent children crying.'
   It is up to true Christians and righteous gentiles to stand by the State of Israel today, in the struggle for her survival and that of her children, against the monstrous Islamic-extreme leftist hate machine.



3. Excellent book. The book is fast paced, exciting and touching.
   
   The risks and sacrifices that the author and her fiance went through for their beliefs and for unkwown people amazed and inspired me. Highly recommended.



4. The account of the author and her experiences fighting the German occupation of Holland during WWII is harrowing. It is hard to imagine that any human being can display so mush courage at such a young age.



5. I have read more than 75 books of this genre depicting this period of history. "What would I have done under the same circumstances?" That is the question I am always asking of myself whilst reading these stories. This is the story of a group of people with the courage of their convictions...Diet's story is inspiring and touching. It illustrates perfectly that the power of prayer is undeniable and when 'all one can do is pray' one has done everything.

3 comments about Thomas E. Dewey and His Times.

1. Thomas Dewey is one of the forgotten figures in American politics and is explored thoroughly in this book. Dewey built his career the old fashioned way through legal victory and gang busting of the mob. More interesting than the presidential runs is actually his work at developing early thorough investigation techniques coupled with accounting strategies. These early years developed an end to the prohibition era and foreshadowed the rise of the methodical calculating man that would become the guiding light of the Republican Party.
   Dewey ran for office and failed for a variety of reasons each time. Although coming close to defeating Truman the second time it was a lost cause due to the publics perception of him. He was seen as stiff and unfeeling and the votes always shifted around him. While he was not the warmest candidate he was a great political operator who understood the system. He gathered as many votes as he did through his sheer political brilliance. He became the antithesis of Robert Taft who typified the isolationist branch of the Republican Party. Dewey became the internationalist branch espousing the UN and fighting against communism through economic expansion. While still a part of the Republican Party at the time he represented what his party would become under Eisenhower and develop into under Reagan. The isolationist branch weakened as time went on. (For more on Taft read Mr. Republican by James Patterson). Although unsuccessful as a presidential candidate he was an excellent governor and had the support of the people there. He kept excess funds from the World War II years and used them to develop transportation and help to alleviate crisis following the war.
   The final phase of Dewey's life was to serve as the savior of the Republican Party and the organizer of Eisenhower's campaign and election. In order to stop Taft and promote the new internationalist policies that Eisenhower elected himself with. It was a pro Korean strategy and an activist strategy across the world to check Russian expansion. While Dewey did not ever want to admit he had anything in common with Truman he did develop many of the same viewpoints but took them further with Eisenhower. Dewey became essentially the chairman of the Republican National Committee and served as the platform and ideals manager of the time.
   Overall if you are going to pick up a book on Dewey this is the perfect one. It is also great for those who want to understand the post world war II world through American politics. Highly recommended for those who want to understand how America and the Republican Party developed.



2. Thomas E. Dewey, the epitome of Manhattan Avenue politics to conservative Republicans, was himself born and bred further west than the venerable Robert Taft himself. A product of Owosso, Michigan, Dewey attended the University of Michigan, studying literature and law, all the while pursuing a career as a professional singer. It was music that brought him to New York, one of many surprises unveiled in Richard Norton Smith's biography of one of America's most prolific political campaigners.

   Dewey was a capable enough performer that in 1924 he was booked for a solo performance in the cultural heart of America. In the audience was the noted music critic Deems Taylor. Taylor commented upon what he perceived as Dewey's contrived emotional stage effects, but this flaw was dwarfed by a more essential one: suffering from laryngitis, Dewey's voice totally shut down halfway through the program. A thoroughly mortified Dewey was forced to take stock of his career, and as a second choice he decided to pursue a law degree. Columbia University of the 1920's enjoyed a plethora of great legal minds, and even the frustrated singer came to develop a passion for law and the potential theatrics of the courtroom.

   Dewey's rapid ascent through the law profession was abetted by two factors: his labors on behalf of New York City's struggling Republican party, and the patronage of George Z. Medalie, who would become Dewey's legal and political rabbi. Medalie, a major character in this treatment, enjoyed a thriving private law practice, but he was drafted for one of the city's frequent, and usually unsuccessful, forays against organized crime, which literally held New York in a stranglehold in the 1920's and 1930's. Medalie, who had once consulted for Dewey's firm, brought this "prodigy" into his investigations of the seamy criminal underbelly of New York including, as it turned out, the disappearance of Judge Crater.

   Not even Medalie could have imagined what kind of courtroom tiger he had unleashed. It was to Dewey's advantage that few intrepid souls wanted to tackle the dangers of addressing organized crime, particularly when corruption pervaded the police department and the courts. Dewey became New York City's district attorney in 1935, prosecuting famous gangsters, politicians, and public figures with a take no prisoners approach. Smith describes several of the most famous investigations in considerable detail, but it is Dewey's style that is most intriguing: a workaholic perfectionist whose "when in Rome" style and prosecutorial armtwisting were not for the prudish. Dewey's face became one of the most recognizable in America-through newspapers, newsreels, and a series of Hollywood B-movies in which Dewey lookalike actors reenacted the more famous of his investigations.

   After the substantive defeats of Hoover in 1932 and Landon in 1936 many Republican voters in the 1940 primaries turned to the fresh aggressive look of Dewey. By May 1 Dewey stood at the head of the pack, but May 1940 proved to be his undoing. Smith observes that it was not a Republican challenger who derailed Dewey's victory train, but Hitler himself. After the disaster of Dunkirk, Dewey became "the first American casualty of the Second World War," as one wag put it at the time. As the war came visibly closer to American life, Dewey's youth and limited international experience became glaring obstacles to his White House hopes. Defeated for the nomination by Wendell Wilkie, Dewey captured the New York state house in 1942. A genuinely compassionate man, Dewey's lengthy tenure as governor was marked by fiscal conservatism and social reform. His vision was remarkable: he predicted the postwar housing shortage and developed a state surplus for postwar needs. He saw the fiscal possibilities of a better highway system and sowed the seeds for what would become the interstate highway system by his advocacy of the New York State Thruway, which now bears his name.

   Had Dewey's ambition been quenched in Albany, he would probably be remembered as one of the most effective state leaders of the century. Regrettably for his posterity, it is his unsuccessful runs for the presidency in 1944 and particularly 1948, when he "snatched defeat from the jaws of victory," that most Americans associate with Dewey. Smith does not psychoanalyze the 1948 event, as many historians do, nor does he demonize Truman, whom he credits with conducting a masterful if brutal campaign. Smith concedes that Dewey's 1948 campaign was too ethereal, but in the final analysis Dewey was a victim of himself. Like Nixon, he was not a natural gladhander, and his perfectionism in crafting his speeches not only resulted in a wooden product but devoured time better spent in personal appearances.

   Smith describes Dewey's personal life as that of, well, a rich suburban Republican. Early in his career Dewey made the acquaintance of journalist Lowell Thomas, who gradually drew him into the social circle of Quaker Hill, an exclusive mountain community near Pawling, New York, north of the city. Dewey remained a presence in Republican circles until his sudden death by heart attack in 1971. He labored to keep his party moderate, campaigning vigorously for Eisenhower and against the Taft wing. Smith brings to light several interesting anecdotes of Dewey's later years. In 1970 a coterie of leading congressional Republicans, deeply concerned about the style and direction of the Nixon White House [read Haldeman and Ehrlichman], nominated their former party leader to speak privately with the president. Dewey apparently agreed to approach Nixon, but his sudden death intervened. Smith also records that the widowed Dewey courted Kitty Carlisle Hart [then a panelist on the popular TV program "To Tell The Truth"] and asked her to marry him. [The question was still under negotiation at the time of his death.] On the last day of his life, in Miami, he played golf with Carl Yastrzemski. His final regrets, it appears, had less to do with presidential campaigns and more to do with his belief that he had worked too hard and played too little.




3. Thomas E. Dewey, unfortunately, is probably best remembered by most Americans as the little fellow who lost the 1948 Presidential election to Harry S. Truman in one of the greatest upsets in American history. But thanks to the work of Richard Norton Smith, we can now see Dewey for what he really was - a crusading, crime-busting district attorney; perhaps the best governor New York State ever had; and the man who "modernized" the Republican Party and allowed it to survive through the Depression years and the 1940's. Dewey came from a small town in Michigan, and his rise to fame and fortune came remarkably fast. A compulsive workaholic and "neat freak", Dewey graduated from the University of Michigan and Columbia University Law School in the 1920's. He briefly considered a career as a singer - he had an award-winning baritone voice and liked to sing Broadway tunes in his bathtub - but decided that the law would be a more stable and suitable career. He married an actress, settled in New York City (although he never really liked New York, and bought a large farm 70 miles north of Manhattan in the late thirties and happily became a weekend farmer). In 1933 Dewey, only 29, became the assistant DA and helped to send several gangsters to prison. In 1935 he was elected District Attorney for New York City, and he soon achieved national fame as the "gangbuster" - the honest lawyer who sent dozens of famous mafia leaders to jail. His most famous target was "Lucky" Luciano, the mafia boss of all New York and who was even more powerful than Al Capone. Dewey's conviction of Luciano made him a national hero and propelled him into presidential politics at the incredible age of 38. Hollywood even made movies about him. In 1940 he ran for the Republican presidential nomination and nearly won, despite his youth and inexperience. In 1942 he was elected governor of New York. During his twelve years as governor he passed the first state civil rights laws in America, lowered taxes AND cut a budget deficit in half, and founded the State University of New York. He also rooted out political crooks and ran a remarkably honest administration. In 1944 he ran for President and came closer to defeating Franklin D. Roosevelt than any of his four opponents. Dewey's great moment was supposed to have been in 1948, when he was considered to be a sure bet to defeat President Harry S. Truman and restore the Republicans to the White House. All the polls showed Dewey winning easily, and Dewey refused to even mention Truman's name - even as Truman insulted and ridiculed him in speech after speech. This was a costly mistake - Truman won a narrow victory in one of the great political upsets of all time. At the age of 46, Dewey was a "has-been". Smith does a wonderful job of explaining why, despite Dewey's honesty, intelligence, and obvious leadership skills he was never able to win the White House. Partly this was due to Dewey's personality - many people felt him to be cold and calculating, a short man with a bad temper and an arrogant attitude towards others. Smith fills this biography with plenty of delicious quotes (Dewey's secretary - "He was as cold as a February icicle"), and he also offers a superb history of the Republican Party in its lean years between the 1920's and the Eisenhower Fifties. Although Dewey will probably always be remembered more for his 1948 upset than for his substantial achievements, Smith's biography will at least ensure that those who read this book will come away with a much better appreciation for the man and for what he accomplished. A terrific book!

5 comments about Memoirs.

1. This is a detailed and fairly honest account from the man that changed the world.
   
   The first part of the memoirs discusses his early life and rise to General Secretary. It is interesting in that it gives insight into the Kruschev/Breshnev system at different levels.
   
   The second and much larger part describes his time as General Secretary. It is a detailed blow by blow account of people and plenums etc. But not so much on the actual policies and issues. Quite a lot on interactions with foreign leaders -- his description of Reagon is interesting. But Rememeber that Gorbachev was about the USSR, not the USA etc.
   
   Be aware that these are memoirs, not an objective history. Gorbachev writes from his own perspective.
   
   Gorbachev largely failed in the end. Could someone else have succeded? I doubt it, there were just too many obsticles. Indeed the situation in the USSR states today could be a lot worse, and their semi-democratic systems are tribute to Gorbachev.
   
   As a foreign reader I did become a little lost in the detail of communist burocracy. This detail was, of course, the life of Gorbachev, but he does assume that you know it. There is a very poorly written forward that tries to cover the gap, the work deserves better.
   
   There are probably better books that discuss this period of soviet history. But this is from the man himself, source material.



2. Patience, and a lot of it. That's what you'll need if you want to read this book, especially if you aren't Russian or a Sovietologist (do they still exist?). The division of the book is into four parts, the first deals with the years before he took the helm in the former USSR. This is the part that you really have to slog it out, especially with the names, places, and also the various positions that he held in the Communist party (the glossary at the end is definitely necessary)... For me this was the least interesting part of the book and if you can get over this initial hump, the rest of the book is very interesting and of course informative.

   The second part is especially interesting since it deals with Gorbachev's ascent into the highest seat in the Soviet Union. He goes into quite some length dealing with the issues surrounding Perestroika and the difficulties involved in making Perestroika work. He is good enough to give the reader some background information on the Communist party, its structures, and the founding fathers, Lenin and Stalin, as well as his other predecessors, Brezhnev, Adropov etc...Quite personal at times and very insightful, especially for those who aren't very familiar with the former Soviet Union.

   Part III, which deals with the USSR's relationship with the outside world is a must read, especially as it deals with how Gorbachev, and not the U.S was the one who began the process that culminated in the end of the "Cold war". Gorbachev also speaks about how Yeltsin's lust for power was one of the factors that led to the breakup of the Soviet Union, and here perhaps the reader would be wise to consult other books that give Yeltsin's point of view.

   The 1991 coup is dealt with in the last part. It is a very personal account of the coup with some private notes from his wife, Raisa Maksimovna's journal. You can't help but pity him for the treatment he received at the hands of Boris Yeltsin after his resignation.
   This is quite a lengthy book, but well worth the effort. I'd suggest this book to anyone interested in the history of Russia or Perestroika and the man behind it.




3. In the latter part of the 20th Century, Mikhail Gorbachev changed the history of the world. He undid the unhappy results of the Russian Revolution and its version of communism which imprisoned Russia and the Soviet Union in totalitarianism. Almost single-handed, he brought the nerve-wracking Cold War to a peaceful end.

   In his determination to rid his country of the stultifying bureaucratic thought and practices which prevented the full flowering of an idealistic version of Socialism, he broke open old seals to let in light, fresh air and innovative thought. Alas, for Soviet-style communism, the new air and new light caused it to shrivel and die.

   Little did Mr. Gorbachev realize the unintended consequences of his acts, first as General Secretary of the Communist Party and later as Chairman of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet. Little did he realize that when the ties of totalitariansim were loosened that the Soviet Union would disintegrate almost overnight.

   Well, that's all history now -- and it is an historical "given" that Gorbachev's innovations of glasnost and perestroika stimulated thought and ambition and the courage to break from the past. His Memoirs are important -- not for the political analysis of why what happened actually did happen but for what they tell about the man Gorbachev, his ambitions for himself and for his country.

   Some might find the day by day chronicle irritating slow, but I did not. In the first third of this long book, Mr. Gorbachev relates his life prior to his rise to power; interesting because he describes his rural, farm-life background which explains much about the man he ultimately became. The final two-thirds of his Memoirs describes Soviet history and Mr. Gorbachev's role in it during its last days.

   Famous, historical personalities populate its pages. He was diplomatically kind in describing the U.S. presidents he had to deal with -- Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush. In contrast, he was severely critical of some of his Russian colleagues, particularly Boris Yeltsin who, not surprisingly, comes off like a crude, duplicitous vodka-swilling opportunist.

   The world has not been the same since Mikhail Gorbachev's ascendency in the Soviet Union. His personal Memoirs are historically important and worth the time -- and occasionally -- the patient effort to read them.




4. Gorbashev presents and excelent and candid view into the recent history of Rusia. The book provides background knowlege with insight as to the reasons of Rusia`s economical, social and political problems. More importantly, after reading it, I have a deeper understanding as to the current problems that exist with the different countries that are a product of the desintegrated Rusia. To mention a very resent example, Kosovo. It is very easy to get caught in the "media web" and misunderstand other countries problems. There is no substitude for reading. I recommend reading the book, that is why I give it five stars.



5. Mikhail Gorbachev's writing has always been difficult at best. As a lawyer and a life-long aparatchik, never have more exciting ideas been presented in such bland and even obtuse prose. Nevertheless, Gorbachev's Memoirs are worth reading for anyone interested in the historic changes that brought an end to the Cold War and the nuclear arms race. Even books by such knowledgeable Americans as former Ambassador Jack F. Matlock's Autopsy On An Empire, can't hold a candle to Gorbachev's detailed, olympian perspective on the events he was so instrumental in creating. Gorbachev also makes some remarkably candid comments about some other world leaders. As a man who has met most of the more powerful and successful people of his era, Gorbachev's Memoirs are well worth the effort. His book is indispensible for anyone interested in foreign policy.

5 comments about Mao: A Life.

1. It took a while to warm to Philip Short's Mao, A Life, though it begins traditionally with his ancestry and birth. It is what comes after and lasts through the first third of the book that saps any attempt at momentum. Mao's early political career was as chaotic as the country that gave rise to it. Fledgling communist groups split, reorganized, collaborated with the elitist Guomindong, spurned the Guomindong, split again, reformed, obeyed the Comintern, ignored the Comintern, seemingly ad infinitum. It is Short's job to capture this chaos and present it to the reader with some semblance of order and intrigue. For roughly 200 pages, Philip Short fails to do so. Indeed, his ricochet manner perplexes the reader until Mao's power in China is consolidated.
   
   As Chang Kai-shek flees for Taiwan, Short's biography begins to grow wings. Now, soberly told, is the Mao megalomania, the seeming psychosis, the atrocious social experimentation. Mao's ridiculously arbitrary to-and-fro policies led to the deaths of millions. Snapping this way and that, his manipulative, scheming, whims du jour left his comrades alternately humiliated, imprisoned or dead and the powerless proletariat victims of famine.
   
   Short adds nuance to the retelling of Mao's lunatic purges by referring often to the Chairman's poetry, intellect, brinksmanship, and military genius. Yet, even as Short employs a biographer's moderation, he moves one to embarrassment that a creature such as Mao once existed. I trust this isn't unintentional. 4 stars.



2. Short, Philip (1999) Mao: A Life (Holt: New York)
   
   Fenby, Jonathan (2003) Chiang Kai-Shek: China's Generalissimo and the Nation He Lost (Carroll & Graf: New York).
   
   On October 1, 1949 Chairman Mao Zedong stood at the Gate of Heavenly Peace and declared the founding of the People's Republic of China. He told the assembled crowd, "We, the 475 million Chinese people have stood up and our future is infinitely bright." He further continued "The Chinese people have stood up." Two months the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) achieved later final victory. The leader of the Kuomintang (KMT), Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek, fled with his party to the Chinese provincial island of Taiwan. That day was the endgame of a battle that began twenty-two years earlier during the 1927 Autumn Harvest Uprising in Hunan.
   Both Mao and Chiang are synonymous with the history of modern China. Both men came from similar backgrounds, had similar strategies and similar visions for China. Each man came from humble origins - Chiang the son of a salt merchant and Mao the son of a well off peasant. Mao and Chiang also sought to remake China as a modern nation within the world of nation-states. On more than one occasion each man was willing to use the other for their own struggle within their respective parties. To a degree, they were peas in a pod in modern China.
   The capturing of these complicated men in their pod has been a complicated process for most writers. Many writers are trapped in their internal politics to capture the true person behind the images. Mao and Chiang both have had devoted followers and devote detractors who were more than willing to take a blind eye to things both good and bad done by these men.
   Short and Fenby, however, do not. These two biographies are both extremely objective and sound. Mao is seen as the terrible dictator that he was. "His rule brought about the deaths of more of his own people than any other leader in history." Short admires Mao as being the man "who wrenched China from it medieval torpor and forced it into the contours of a modern nation."
   Fenby, meanwhile, is equally objective in his assessment of the Generalissimo. Chiang's regime, both on the Mainland and on Taiwan, was not the thriving democracy it is even though of in the west. But in fact, it was a authoritarian one "organized on Leninist lines with a repressive internal security apparatus." Yet in the wake of three decades of horrid revolution, "Chiang and his era become less of the nightmare painted after the Communist victory."
   Without Mao or Chiang China would probably still be the semi-colonial backwater it was when they were born in the late nineteenth century. Both men helped to unmake the old feudalist China ran for the betterment of Qing Dynasty and laid the groundwork for the extreme economic growth both on the Mainland and on Taiwan. Each Short and Fenby attempt to capture these two complicated men who will dominate the pages of history for centuries to come. Each is a fantastic read about the two men who would be king.



3. Of all the great 20th century dictators, Mao seems the hardest to fathom. This is probably because of the way his mind worked and the peculiarities of his weltenschaung. It is useless to pin down his psyche with a choice quotation or two. The man who famously said that "power flows out of the barrel of a gun" has also been reported as saying that it is "a mistake to believe that weapons decide everything". Above all -- in Phillip Short's excellent biography -- Mao comes across as a man of contradictions. He saw the world in dialectical, yin-yang terms. One feels, almost, that the great turmoils he unleashed were his way of ensuring that the great proletarian revolution remained permanant and forever dialectical and always violent. Stasis would be bad for China.
   
   To those brought up under a western-inspired education system and world-view, Mao seems like a capricious crank, a heartless monster. In Philip Short's treatment, however, Mao displays a preternatural sense of nuance and subtlety of thought, and a finely-honed sense of brinkmanship (as in the Cultural Revolution where he let loose the forces of revolution upon the Party itself).
   
   And what of his legacy ? Short argues that an important distinction needs to be made between Mao and the other dictators: The overwhelming majority of deaths under his rule were the unintended consequence of policies, not the deliberate genocide of a class of people (like the Jews or the Kulaks). Mao's cavalier attitude towards deaths on a massive scale is acknowledged. To Mao, a million deaths is merely a part of the dialectics of revolution. In this sense he was indeed a monster.
   
   Today China is a capitalist country in all but name. I think Mao would have seen this as a natural state of affairs, given the contradictions inherent in world history.If he were to come back from the grave, he would judge that the time is now ripe for him to unleash another great upheaval. Capitalist stasis is also not good !



4. This is a superbly written biography of Mao Zedong who I feel should be in any Sinophile's library. The great detail of Mao Zedong's early life and how he got into Communism is excellent. The description of his Anarchist/Marxist philosophy gives a reader a very clear understanding on why Communism came about in China; that it was mostly accepted by the majority of the Chinese population (especially peasants) and not initially enforced upon them, a view held by most Americans. The sad developments of Hundred Flowers Campaign, Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution are also revealed in great detail.
   
   However, no matter how good this book is, I'm still a little bothered by some of it's lack of details on certain very important aspects of modern Chinese history.
   
   1) Not enough was mention about his relationship with Japanese when China was engaged in the war with Japan. Nothing was mentioned on any possible collaboration with Japan that would have upset certain Chinese who claimed that the Communists did more against Japanese than Nationalist.
   
   2) And talking about the Sino Japanese War, why wasn't the big battle of Operation Ichigo mentioned? China would have faced annihilation from Japan during this gigantic operation in 1944, something that worried China greatly and affect the future of the Communists and Nationalists.
   
   3) Not enough about Zhou Enlai was mentioned. Zhou Enlai's proposal of the Four Modernization program was used by Deng Xiaoping to transformed China. I felt this is ultra-important information that should have been mentioned about the 70s. The contrast of Mao Zedong's ultra left views with Zhou's moderate views would have given the reader a great understanding how Deng's program succeeded in the great transformation of modern China from Mao's disastrous programs.
   
   4) Mao Zedong developed some sort of mental illness later in life which caused the strange series of events during the cultural revolution, especially his purge of Liu Shaoqi; this mental illness was possibly caused by drugs (this was mentioned in Harrison Salisbury's "New Emperors" this would have explained his erratic behavior during his old age.
   
   But otherwise this is a truly good book. I am most impressed by Short's ultra unbiased viewpoints.
   
   Anybody who read this book should compare it with the Chiang Kai Shek's biography, " Chiang Kai Shek: China's Generalissimo and the Nation He Lost", by Jonathan Fenby.



5. Miles ahead of Chang and Halliday. Don't waste your time on their simple-minded view of history as a contest between black cowboy hats and white ones. Philip Short is a real historian, and this is history at its best.

4 comments about Rob Roy (Canongate).

1. Murray does a great job of telling us about the true Rob Roy MacGregor (versus the tarted up Sir Walter F. Scott rendition to quote an English friend friend of mine)! Murray explains clearly the politics of the time in England, and the Lowlands and Highlands of Scotland: Christianity (Catholicism and Protestantism); the Whigs and the Torys; etc. He gives a vivid depiction of the Highland way of life from the daily routine to engaging in commerce amongst local Highland clans, the Lowlanders, and England. Let's not forget "abduction" of live-stock for which Rob Roy in particular was well-noted. There is even information on the materials used in the dying of kilt and tartan plaids. The impression one gets is that if the Highlanders were left alone to continue their way of life, who knows how wonderfully it would have evolved and what contributions they could have made to the world. Murray is given extra credit here because he had to re-start this writing while in a Nazi POW camp. A must read for all who are interested in all things Scottish!



2. A fascinating biography. This book inspired the film with Liam Neeson, but is so much more than a glimpse of the incidents chronicled in the film. W.H. Murray has given a well-researched, well-documented look at highland life that enables the reader to step into the shoes (or lack thereof) of the Scottish highlander. Everything from the clan structure, rivalries, English oppression, how to carry a handful of oats dipped in a stream for daily ration; it's all there. Mr. Murray gives us very detailed information on the subtleties of the constantly changing political climate and the MacGregor's sense of injustice.

   This book is a must-read for anyone with even a passing interest in Scotland, the MacGregor Clan, or Rob Roy himself.




3. This is a book for a scholar or a person dipping into Scottish history for the first time. An excellent book about Highlanders and there are precious few books available on the topic. The author has considered vast quanitities of sources; the only books lacking are Gaelic language sources such as those bilingual editions published by the Scottish Academic Texts Society. The author shows a broad understanding of the politics and economics of the period; what is unique is an attempt to understand Gaelic society. The "creach" or cattle raid is explained from a Highland point of view; it's a custom sanctified in the great Gaelic epic "Táin Bó Cuailgne". The format is very appealing as historical events are related to the colourful life of this one honourable man.



4. This is an elegantly written, thorough, balanced and fascinating account of a deservedly highly admired man.

   The author provides a comprehensive historic and social background and a detailed biography. Real history, not the current hip Celtic fashion or Braveheart drivel.

   I found the book moving and inspiring. A picture of an honourable, intelligent and courageous man, living his life by the laws of his time; a man who deserves to be remembered.

   The film Rob Roy with Liam Neeson, runs amazingly close to this book. If you were inspired by the film, I think you will greatly enjoy this biography.

   I'd also recommend John Prebble for his classic works on Culloden and Glencoe and the Highland Clearances.

1 comments about Ralph Bunche: An American Odyssey.

1. This book was a good and interesting read. I would recommend it. Ralph Bunch was a very interesting character. I am sad to say that I did not even know who he was a year ago. It further displays my mis-education. He is never mentioned in Black America. It seems if we forgot he ever existed.
   
   It is funny that during Black history month they bring out the same old tired people. Ralph was incredibly significant to the development of the United Nations. I recommend this book.

5 comments about In Pharaoh's Army.

1. Once I started reading this book, it was so totally engrossing, I finished it in 2 days. It's a rather self-deprecating telling of his experiences as a US Army Special Forces advisor to the South Vietnamese in 1968-69 during the Tet Offensive. It is not a "war story" of violent or graphic combat, but of many engaging & intelligent observations, of himself, of the army, and of the events shaping his world at the time. At the end of the book I was left wishing for more.



2. Viet Nam is well-represented in war memoirs these days. Tobias Wolff, whose first memoir, This Boy's Life, made him famous, perhaps mostly because of the successful film version of the book, starring DeNiro and DiCaprio. His second memoir, In Pharaoh's Army, is not so well known. Wolff is brutally honest and self-effacing as he chronicles his rootless young adult life; his drift through basic, jump school, special forces training, OCS, artillery and language school, always near the bottom of every class. When he finally lands in Nam he is assigned to a remote jungle outpost as advisor to an ARVN artillery unit. Somehow he survives the Tet offensive, terrified to his very toes. He tells of an R&R trip to Saigon where a trio of drunken redneck GI's casually pound the poop out of him in a bar. Another tale concerns a small dog he rescues from his Vietnamese comrades. The dog's name, he learns, is Canh Cho. Wolff keeps the small fearful animal as a pet for months. At a farewell feast before his departure, he compliments his hosts on the delicious fare and asks what he's eating. "Canh Cho," he is told, which translates, of course, "dog stew." Horrified, but philosophical, Wolff concludes, "There was only one way left to do him justice. I bent to my plate and polished him off." There is no sign of braggadocio or false heroics in this story. Wolff is just a man who survived the nightmare of the Vietnam venture and told his story as honestly and as well as he knew how. Which is VERY well. - Tim Bazzett, author of Soldier Boy.[...]



3. War stories are really my brother's forte, but I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It's a memoir of Vietnam, and because I read it for a Creative Non-Fiction class, I'm left wondering whether a few things actually happened. Is truth crazier than fiction?
   
   I also really loved the interjections of writerly advice within the narrative, and wish Wolff would have given us more. A young man overseas, always with a novel in the back of his head. In many ways, I related. In many ways, I found truth within his words, and I think I may have found my "in" to the novel I started writing.
   
   The format of the book was especially endearing. Each chapter really was its own short story. There is no true linear progression, and yet there is one. We start off in Vietnam, after he and his buddy has just stolen a color TV upon which they're planning to watch the Thanksgiving special of Bonzana. Then we're back in the States, following the author around as he tries to figure out what the hell he's doing with his life. Then back to the war. We are told even before meeting them that some of his buddies are going to die, and yet we watch their relationships unfold ignorant of that fact.
   
   He's funny without trying too hard to be funny, an unique trait among writers nowadays. His humor comes from the mouth of someone real, not merely a vessel for funny sayings. It read, perhaps, like the memoir of someone I might know. A full-timer, down in the dish room, who doesn't talk about it, but it's always there, like the dreams that were so viciously taken away from them and the dreams that they gave up on.



4. There is something about Wolff that puts me off. I couldn't empathize with him in reading This Boys Life. I could understand how critics would think well of it--it does READ well. But as a person, I didn't like him. He carries this unlikablity (not as bad as Dubya, mind you) into In Pharoah's Army. I didn't like how he managed to become an officer in the Army. Somehow his book comes off as less authentic than other books about Vietnam. Compare it to Tim O'Brien or Philip Caputo (or even my own, Waiting for Westmoreland) and he comes out too detached and sometimes not entirely believable. I am not saying he ripped off Graham Greene, but he also shares a fair bit of style and tone with The Quiet American. Still, it may be worth reading if only to contrast it with the others out there.



5. Tobias Wolff knows how to write.
   In his second memoir, In Pharaoh's Army, Wolff masterfully recounts his experience in the Viet Nam war and does so in a way that completely entrances the reader. I started this book on a plane ride from Chicago to Los Angeles, which is a good three and half hours, and not once on that flight did I put the book down. Wolff is a true master when in comes to the conveying of experience. He brings people that remain only memories to life, and provides wit and insight from an older, matured voice. This is Wolff's true talent, the simultaneous storytelling and ironic analysis that he is so acclaimed for.
   
   Wolff's characters are some of the best in literature. Even minor ones come to life; Wolff describes a Vietnamese Sergeant as "[having] a thin scholarly face and a grave manner. When he spoke to me he lowered his head and looked up from under his eyebrows" (81). To add to his incredible storytelling and description, Wolff's funny asides bring even more life to the book. Looking back on a mission where he brought medical aid to rural villages, Wolff describes it as "being a missionary; even a god. A couple of us big white guys would drop out of the sky and spend the day surrounded by astonished rustics..." (100). Honestly, what is there not to love about writing like that?
   
   Not only does In Pharaoh's Army serve as a recollection of Wolff's experience in Viet Nam but also is a continuation of his previous memoir, This Boy's Life. He bridges the gap between his expulsion from Hill Academy and joining the Army, while also going much more in depth into his relationship with his father. So, basically, if you are looking for even more closure than provided by This Boy's Life, this is the book for you.

5 comments about I Was Saddam's Son.

1. When this author invited me to be his friend on GoodReads, I checked his profile and then accepted. When I learned that he was the man I had read about years before--the one who was forced into being a "body double" for Saddam Hussein's evil oldest son, Uday--I was intrigued enough to read the book he had written about his ghastly experiences.
   
   As you might know, political leaders have often been targets of assassination, and in Iraq there's an institution called fidal, which means "body double." Since Latif Yahia bore a striking resemblance to Uday, the government pulled him out of the front lines during the Iran-Iraq war, forcing him to submit to a transformation that made him the very image of Uday.
   
   Yahia served as Uday's double for approximately five years (1987-1991) before the government of Sadam Hussein released him, after torturing and imprisoning him. The demonic acts Yahia witnessed in those years are beyond belief; he describes them in this book in such graphic detail as to leave the reader gasping in disbelief: murder, rape, torture, nothing was too evil for Uday and his henchmen.
   
   Unappreciative of Yahia putting his life on the line for Uday on a daily basis, the evil spawn of Saddam also tormented him harshly one day while calling him "brother" on another. I felt sorry for the author's suffering and degradation as he witnessed things against his nature while pretending to go along with them. There will be those who disbelieve Yahia but it has been well-documented elsewhere, so I tend to believe his story.
   
   This book may not be an academic masterpiece, but it's easy to read and as riveting as a James Patterson thriller or a Dean Koontz horror. Spell-binding in its atrocities against the people of Iraq, the horrendous conditions described within its pages are hard to absorb. I cringed at the acts of inhumanity perpetrated by this barbaric family on its fellowman ... disgusting acts that are graphically described by this author.
   
   Latif Yahia relates that he had to smuggle his wife out of the country and was permitted no contact with friends and family during his bondage to Uday, and tells of his fleeing to Europe after his release from prison.
   
   I Was Saddam's Son screams for a sequel and would make a powerful movie, one that I hope would reveal more about the author's private life during the time of his persecution ... and after he resettled in Europe. I wonder what his relationships with his wife and children are like; if there were any repercussions from writing this book while the Husseins were still alive; and is he in danger now? (Dare I ask him in one of my GoodReads messages?)
   
   After reading this book, even the most soft-hearted readers will be glad the Husseins are dead so they can no longer persecute their own people ... if anyone had any previous qualms about that.
   
   Endnote: This review is of the first English language edition of this book, co-authored by Karl Wendl. Yahia also has two other published novels: The Devil's Double and The Black Hole: Latif Yahia Author of "I Was Saddam's Son" and "The Devil's Double" Which Have Sold Over One Million Copies Worldwide in Twenty Languages.
   
   Reviewed by: Betty Dravis, 2008
   1106 Grand Boulevard



2. This book is gripping, detailed and shows what Uday Hussein was really like. Latif Yahia was Uday's double, more than a bodyguard. Much more. It's interesting and keeps you reading. I read the entire book in two days. If you want to know what he lived through, survived through in other words, this is a must read.



3. This book is a tough read for its graphic nature, but if you can stand to look evil squarely in the face for a bit, then reading it will most likely make you wish that Udai was still alive - just so that you could make him suffer a painful death. Whoa, you say? Why's that? Any peace loving, non-psychopathic person will be appalled at the inside look at this murderous, twisted family. Makes the Mansons look like the Cleavers. Udai deserved to be beaten to death with a spiced NERF football- or worse (made to watch Donahue re-runs) but, alas he was taken out by one of our Dragon missiles. However, if you read this book and you believe in a just God then you will take solace in the thought that His wrath will be infinitely terrible. (Shudder) So it obviously evokes distasteful emotions in the reader but at the same time the work is of great value because it gives amazing insight into the "mind" of Saddam and the deviant machinations of his regime and family. (On the other hand, if you were a part of the demented audience who LAUGHED when an innocent character got his head blown off in the movie Pulp Fiction then you will find this book hysterical.) You can't help but feel sorry for the poor guy who wrote the book, despite the horrible things he was at least a passive part of. And the premise alone would be a great Hollywood movie - expect that no one would believe it. The problem is that it is true and has been well-documented elsewhere. Oh, aside from that, it is the kind of book that you can't put down, but wish you would. I recommend it if you want to see the "personal family man side" of Saddam and his sons. (Oh and by the way, just for the record. Udai was killed because he was still firing at us - so we fired back until he stopped. Luckily SOMEONE learned from Somalia that you can't send troops in to ARREST someone who (or whose security force) is actively trying to kill them. Police don't do it - why should we?)



4. There is no way of distinguishing truth from fiction in this book, or this man. The book served its purpose, but has little lasting value.
   
   Incidentally, see The Scotsman 24 July 2003 and Reuters 2 Apr 2003:
   
   Latif Yahia regrets that Uday was not caught and brought to trial for his crimes. "Don't tell me that the US could not have taken him alive," he comments on the 200-soldier operation which took Uday and Qusay's lives. "But the Americans did not want this because if you put these people in the dock, they would tell everyone that a lot of what they did they did because the American agents told them to."
   
   Understandably, Yahia has vehement views about Saddam. But, perhaps more surprisingly for some, he is equally vehement in condemning the war on Iraq and says he would return to fight against American and British troops if he could. War should not be waged on the whole country due to one man, Yahia said. "Iraq is my country and it is called the Republic of Iraq not the Republic of Saddam Hussein."
   
   "It wasn't easy for me when I came to Europe to get over it all," he added. "It took me five-and-a-half years of counseling, psychologists, doctors and medication." Yahia now lives in the Republic of Ireland where he runs a detective agency.



5. The life of Latif Yahia is quite an interesting one. I wonder if he has been able to make contact with his children now that the regime of Saddam Hussein is over -- and what his second wife may think of that. Perhaps his book deserves a sequel. However, when did he marry? That was left out of the story. Obviously, he must have been married before his falling out with Uday because he had to smuggle his wife out of Iraq. Who was his wife? Who arranged his marriage or when did he have time to find a wife? It says he had known her since childhood. But he wasn't permitted to have contact with his old friends? I think some things were left out to make Saddam, Uday, and Qusay look even worse than they were. That is not to say the world is worse with the Saddam Hussein family out of power in Iraq.

3 comments about Senator Sam Ervin, Last of the Founding Fathers (Caravan Book).

1. Prof. Campbell succeeded in bringing out an excellent biography which is a pleasure to read. The work is scholarly and well researched. What emetges is as objective as possible portrait of (to me) a perfect Southern anachronism: how a small town lawyer, by dint of regional circumstances, drawing on local connections and personal charm became a national figure of measurable prominence.
   At the same time, the book is very well written and will delight both a student of NC history and any dedicated reader (are not all readers dedicated?). While personal opinions of Sen. Ervin may vary, the picture which emerges from the book is a clear and sharply drawn portrait of a honest man dedicated to long-gone ideals, a slightly bigoted reactionary with excellent manners and a great dose of personal charm, and moderate scholarly resources. In other words, a perfect Southern gentleman of the old school.
   I do have a slight doubt if Sam Ervin would actually feel very comfortably in the company of Jefferson, Madison and Franklin. He most certainly would gain their understanding and perhaps some tolerance and by a sligt stretch of imagination could easily be counted among the founding fathers.



2. Prof. Campbell gives a very complete
   overview of one of America's last Con-
   stitutionally correct senators and the
   best from North Carolina in almost a
   decade. Students at the University
   that Prof. Campbell works at better
   take notes!



3. dr campbell did excellent research on this old school southern democrat and his book extolls the senator's virtues, reveals his segregationist flaws and most importantly demonstrates his charming wit. an excellent read!
   
   gary e