2 comments about Theodore Roosevelt: The Rough Riders/An Autobiography (Library of America).

1. Reading this magnificent volume was a joy on many levels. First and foremost, Theodore Roosevelt could write. His prose is always strong, active, and colorful. In "The Rough Riders" he handles action better than most novelists. He picks just the right details about the situation to make it come alive. Whether it is talking about the sound of the bullets buzzing by and the value of smokeless powder because of the difficulty of spotting those using it against you or the plague of sand crabs picking at the dead the reader feels as if he were there.
   
   I also found real pleasure in reading about a time in American history that I did not know that much about. Theodore Roosevelt was a young boy during the Civil War (and he had family on both sides of the conflict) and died in 1919 just after The Great War (WWI). "An Autobiography" was written in 1913 after his failed third party run for the presidency. It is a magnificent work because it is not a chronology of his life. Instead he tells the story of his life through some events that allow him to illuminate at length on various aspects of his philosophy of life. He talks about morals, civil service reform, his views on productivity and the working man versus the big corporations negotiating the end of the Russo-Japanese War and a lot more. At all times he shows how he has considered all sides of an issue and how he came to his decision.
   
   One of the problems in reading history is that a false light is cast backward onto events in the past. The cataclysm of the two world wars and all the history of the following them have made understanding the time of T. Roosevelt, as they understood it, all but impossible. However, both of these books are completely uninformed by The Great War, the creation of the Soviet Union or anything later because both books were written prior to those events. We get a great feel for how that world looked to those who inhabited it, the vividness of the Civil War and how the policies of Lincoln were still well known and were debated as living choices and policies.
   
   He also shares with us his views on why he had to be such an active politician and especially as President. There is no doubt that the world was changing mightily in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The rise of the huge corporations and the industrialization of huge numbers of peoples as workers in those industries created many issues that had to be worked out. The old government structures were overwhelmed and TR was one of the leaders who helped fashion policies that he and others considered fair and progressive. Obviously, from our vantage point, we would have made different choices. But the present is always in flux and always seem simpler in hindsight than it ever was.
   
   Another treat is the way he characterizes the positions of those with whom he disagreed. He always tries to be charitable and often sounds like a kindly parent dealing with a sincere but wayward and somewhat dull child. It is also fascinating to read this progressive's views about moral character. He specifically addresses the evils of sexual licentiousness, abortion, divorce, and much more that has become our norm. It should give us pause.
   
   If you have any doubt about his character or courage, compare this example to anyone today you care to name. Theodore Roosevelt was an Assistant Secretary to the Navy. He saw the Spanish-American War coming and resigns his post to help raise a regiment of volunteer cavalry. He is offered the role of commanding officer, but leaves that to his friend, Leonard Wood, and is happy as Lt. Colonel. He is well liked by his men, never shirks from the hardships and leads his men in battle from the front. He wanted to be in the thick of things not for vainglory, but because it was the best place to communicate with and ensure the best use and protection of his men. Whom do you know like that today?
   
   As a side note it is interesting to read the differences in his orthography from our present day usage. I don't know if the umlauts in double consonants in words such as reelection (reëlection), cooperation (coöperation), or reenter (reënter) were peculiar to him or some school, but I actually like it a lot and wish we would bring it back. It looks better and makes reading all that much simpler. Maybe typewriters did away with them because they lacked the keys to make them. However, our computers can make those characters easily.
   
   If you are interested in American History, the two books in this volume are treasures you owe it to yourself to read. Oh that anyone in public life could write like this with the kind of inner strength and courage Theodore Roosevelt had. We would be the better for it regardless of our policy differences.
   
   Also, this edition from the Library of America deserves special praise. There are many high quality black and white photographs that were used in the original editions that enrich the reading experience a great deal. As always the LOA has made a high quality book that is a delight to hold and read. Thank you, LOA!
   
   Strongest Recommendation!
   
   You might also want to consider:
   
   Theodore Roosevelt: Letters and Speeches (Library of America)
   
   Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Ann Arbor, MI



2. In rankings of the American Presidents, the consensus pick as the first great president of the twentiety century was also the youngest man ever to serve in the office: Theodore Roosevelt. Reformer, rancher, conservationist, hunter, historian, police commissioner, and soldier, Theodore roosevelt led a rich and varied life that he vividly recorded in autobiographical writings, letters, and speeches.
   
   This book contains two books, both written by Roosevelt and edited by Roosevelt biographer Louis Auchincloss:
   
   The Rough Riders (1899) is the story of the First U.S. Volunteer Cavalry. This was the unit raised by Roosevelt, trained in Texas and then shipped to Cuba. This was a time when war could still be seen as a romantic adventure -- unlike what happened in France twenty years later. The biggest problems faced by Roosevelt were: the jungle, the heat, hunger, rain, mud and malaria. Kind of incidentally they also had a war to fight.
   
   An Autobiography (1913) recalls his lifelong fascination with natural history, his love of hunting and the outdoors, and his adventures as a cattleman in the Dakota Badlands, as well as his career in politics as a state legislator, civil service reformer, New York City police commissioner, assistant secretary of the navy, governor of New York, and president. What a life.

5 comments about An Hour Before Daylight : Memoirs of a Rural Boyhood.

1. This is a very enjoyable book. I love to read about the true
   South. Jimmy Carter is a man to be admired. He grew up learning
   to work for what he wanted. He shows great respect for others.
   A very good read.



2. AN HOUR BEFORE DAYLIGHT by Jimmy Carter
   October 29, 2007
   
   
   Rating: 4/5 Stars
   
   I've now read several books written by President Jimmy Carter and I've enjoyed them all. What I love about his books is his personal touch he lends to them. AN HOUR BEFORE DAYLIGHT however is the first full memoir that I've read by Jimmy Carter (the other books were books on Faith), and seeing the world of his childhood, depression era Georgia, has been insightful. This childhood he had is what shaped him into the giving person he is today.
   
   Living in the South during this time meant that blacks were separate from whites, and whites were superior to blacks. And while some of these attitudes may have prevailed even in the Carter household, he was also taught to treat blacks with respect, and most of his childhood friends were the black children of the hired hands they had on their farm. The Carters, compared to many of their neighbors at the time, did well in farming and were very resourceful in all they endeavored. Hard work was the ethic they lived by, but Jimmy Carter also had stories to tell about childhood antics and enjoying life on the farm. Carter also talks about his siblings, mostly referring to his sisters Ruth and Gloria (Billy came along much later, but he is mentioned in the book, in particular in regards to his tragic early death). He looked up to his father, and greatly admired his mother, a woman who did so much in her later years and became famous in her own right (some of the stories Jimmy relates are quite humorous, including her love of the Brooklyn Dodgers, later the LA dodgers and her friendship with the team).
   
   AN HOUR BEFORE DAYLIGHT is not the perfect book. I found a lot of it to be rather dry reading, but I still enjoyed the anecdotes and stories that Jimmy Carter wrote about his growing up years. He's seen a lot in his life and has used what he learned to enrich others and help those who need it. I am slowly going through Carter's library of books and look forward to the next one.



3. I've been wanting to read one or more of President Carter's books for a long time and decided to begin with this one. While I agree that it is well-executed in the main, it doesn't score higher with me on a few grounds.
   
   One: I felt there was a need for more fastidious editing. The book was by no means too long, but there was repetition and disordered content.
   
   Two: Way too much detail in some of the more mundane and unpleasant sections, in particular discussions of minutiae of small-town agribusiness dealings as well as graphic detail of livestock issues including slaughtering and castrating. TMI.
   
   Three: This is a half-hearted complaint, for I realize this isn't the book where these matters would likely be discussed considering the author has several other memoirs addressing other periods of his life (doesn't he?) In any case, I felt like the President did not discuss enough how his upbringing resulted in his being the man he is today as far as race relations are concerned. Lots of discussion about the relatively tolerant household in which he was raised, but lots of apology at the same time about how racism was ubiquitous at the time and not really perceived by his family or by others as a wrong to be righted. I don't know, I guess I'm rambling here, but I would have liked to have read content along the lines of "and these boyhood experiences shaped my perceptions in such a way that I wanted to make a difference in my public service career" and also I woulda liked to have read about how he connects his religious beliefs with his liberal leanings. Flesh out that relationship a bit more.
   
   Just my 2 cents.
   
   In any event, the book was a quick read and I am very glad I got around to reading it.



4. After reading this book it is easy to understand why Jimmy Carter was denigrated as a weak Leader who let America's enemies walk all over him. As he looks back with affection & describes his childhood in a strict, hardworking, but loving family on a farm in back country Depression-Era Georgia, Mr Carter comes across as a genuinely kind and good man who respects his fellow-men & women - regardless of color or creed; who is tolerant of - though not entirely blind to -- the shortcomings & foibles of others, and truly incapable of seeing evil in anyone. In short, he is the Ideal Christian. This also goes a long way to explain why subsequently he became so widely respected on the International stage in his second career as Humanitarian & Fixer of the World's Problems.
   
   Mr Carter paints a colourful word-picture of his boyhood home, the close-knit community, the Carter farm, the livestock, the hunting dogs, his family, and his neighbours, the black tenant farmers and their children with whom he worked and played. There is nostalgia for a time and way of life that largely disappeared from this continent half a century ago, when children worked harder & shouldered more responsibility than today's young people can even imagine, but which was the making of them as responsible adults. Yet his writing style is innocent & light-hearted, and occasionally down-right laughable as, for example, when he gives us some examples of his rural childhood diction. It is hard to imagine the urbane, educated Mr Carter uttering the words "We et a bait of plums" or, having travelled 30 miles to see the flooding Flint River, "Wheh de ribber, Daddy? Is it down in dat creek?"
   
   This book touched me on a more personal level as well. I was not far into it before I realised it reminded me so much of the spell-binding stories my mother used to tell us children around the dinner table, stories of her life growing up on a 240 acre Clay Belt farm as one of 15 children of Ukrainian immigrants. The climate, the geography and the neighbours' ethnicity may have been worlds away from the Carters, but her life and her experiences could just as well have happened down the dusty road from Plains, Georgia.
   
   Attention Jimmy Carter: If you read this - I asked my mother about the sound made by the metal clicker on the handle of the milk separator. She is an expert: one of her chores was to operate the milk separator; and afterward to disassemble, clean & reassemble all its the component parts, which she could perform as rapidly as a soldier does with his rifle.
   Mother says you have to turn the handle faster & faster until it reaches the speed necessary for the cream to separate from the milk inside the machine. The change in the tone of the "clicker" is determined by the speed of the turning handle & occurs when the required speed has been reached for the separation to occur.
   
   Mr Carter is one of only a handful of public figures with whom I would care to be acquainted. Such an interesting Life; such an interesting man!



5. Why is it that ex-presidents make poor writers? Is it that they have had to hide their feeing so long they are afraid to loosen up afterward because we might think less of them? I was looking forward to reading about a boy growing up in Georgia while I was growing up in Iowa, but his writing is so stiff and lifeless that I quit halfway through.

4 comments about The Long, Bitter Trail: Andrew Jackson and the Indians (Critical Issue).

1. I cannot say enough about the value of this book to me. I just finished it today and wish it had been MY first book in the subject. My topic of interest is 1832 and the settlement of West Tennessee. I have had scant real knowledge of the era or the place, but long harbored a yearning to know the actual facts as well as sentiment, national and local, of the early days of my home in Alabama and my adult home in West Tennessee. I have skirted the topic of the "Old Southwest," land grants, what effect statehood in Tennessee (1796)--the sixteenth state--had on anything, how were roads built and mail transferred. Now I'm getting closer to the subject and am very glad to know that time better...and be justly grateful.
   
   I kinda sorta knew some of this story of settlement, so selected the topic of West Tennessee settlement for a creative writing project. And was it a winning subject!
   
   Wallace is an accomplished writer with scores of books. It seems he has dedicated himself to the Indian topic; he is also an anthropologist. His short book portrays the essential characteristics of the colonial presidents and the Indians, then brings us up through Jackson's two administrations and the Indian Removal Act of Congress, 1830. The final chapter dips into all the other eastern tribal history and includes briefly 20th century changes with the Indians.
   
   Other fine books of research have more recently been brought forward, specifically my other favorite, Waselkov, Gregory A., "A Conquering Spirit: Fort Mims and the Redstick War of 1813-1814." But Wallace's book, had I read it first, would have plugged me into the era from the start of my research and oriented my knowledge of history, inadequate though it has been. His mastery of style allowed me to read fluently and fast, and touched my heart, too, even to Old Hickory, whom we see by his actions as a compassionate man (sometimes) who had some really tough assignments, to say the least.
   
   I look forward to reading other of Mr. Wallace's volumes. I also wholeheartedly recommend the book to good juvenile readers.
   
   Robin S. Davis
   Memphis, Tennessee



2. Few events in American history are as shameful as the removal of the Indians from the American Southeast in the 1830s. Despite prior treaties and remarkable success in assimilating American culture, the tribes in the region - Cherokees, Creeks, Choctaws, Chickasaws, and Seminoles - were driven west by the voracious demand of Americans for land. In this book, Anthony Wallace provides a survey of the development of federal policy towards the tribes in the early 19th century and its impact upon them.
   
   For much of the early 19th century, Indian policy was mired in a conflict between people advocating Indian "reform" (who saw Indians as capable of being taught the ways of white civilization) and proponents of a policy of removing Indians from land slated for settlement. The election of Andrew Jackson to the presidency in 1828 decided this conflict. A westerner with a reputation as an Indian fighter, Jackson sided with removal advocates, endorsing a bill that made removal to lands west of the Mississippi River federal policy.
   
   Though supporters of removal argued that the policy was necessary given the unredeemable savagery of the Indians, as Wallace points out, the success of the tribes in the region undermined this justification. More dependent on agriculture than other tribes, the Indians of the Southeast had an easier time adapting to American cultural standards than their counterparts in other regions, with some tribal members even owning slaves. This didn't save them from removal however, and the Cherokees discovered just how hollow the promise of assimilation was when Jackson ignored a Supreme Court ruling that rejected Georgia's claim of state sovereignty over the Indians, thus depriving the tribes of the only hope of protection from expulsion. The result was the "Trail of Tears," the forced migration to Indian Territory that resulted in the deaths of thousands of Indians.
   
   Wallace provides a summary of Jackson's Indian policy that is both balanced and readable. His coverage of white attitudes, which runs across the spectrum from the hostility of settlers to the sympathy of white missionaries, is refreshingly nuanced. His coverage of the Indians is equally good, and he pulls no punches in demonstrating the extent to which the tribal leadership was complicit in removal. Readers seeking to learn more about the "Trail of Tears" and the policies that brought it about would do well to start with this book.



3. Simply the best work available on Indian Removal, in my opinion. It is highly regarded among academic historians. Wallace did a tremendous job of writing clearly and making the plight of the Indians understandable to anyone. It is short, it is lucid, it is interesting reading. Plus, it is balanced. This is not a work that treats Indians as childlike, passive victims, but it does convey the injustice and unnecessary hardships to which they were subjected. It also does not portray the government and non-Indian Americans simply as aggressors. It's an important work for understanding what happened to the tribes. It won't take a lot of your time, so do yourself a favor and read it.



4. An Indian activist or just an amature historian, everyone should read this book. Though short, it gives an excellent narrative of the removal of Indians and their trama from the East by the American government. This book is amazingly well written and is for both students (like myself who read it in a class) or for casual readers. Please concider this book to find out more about the emerging stories of what really happened to Native Americans.

5 comments about Churchill.

1. I didn't finish this book. Jenkins just throws his note cards at the hapless reader. The editor was awol. Stick with Gilbert. Alternatively, start with Manchester's unfinished bio (to 1940) & then switch to Churchill's memoirs.



2. This is too long - all biographers should read and learn from Lytton Strachey.
   
   But Churchill's life was so over the top that its nevertheless an enjoyable read; more so with two provisos:
   
   1. You have to be at least constructively disposed to Winston. Better still if you downright adore him, as Roy plainly does.
   
   2. The most lovingly recounted incidents are those that took place in and around parliamentary life, the life that Roy Jenkins himself knew best. Its very, very well told, but if you didn't happen to be an MP yourself you might find it a little too detailed, in the sense that what others might consider to be the main story seems to be lost sight of, sometimes.



3. For several years I have wanted to read a biography on Churchill. This past summer I finally broke down and purchased the 900+ page book written by Roy Jenkins.
   
   It has only taken six months to finish it. True, I had a dissertation to write and exams to study for. But regardless the book was slow going.
   
   The author is a politician and a writer - much like Churchill. Consequently, Jenkins focuses the book on the intricacies of Churchill's political and journalistic careers. Fair enough.
   
   Churchill's political life and to a lesser extent his various literary endeavors are key to understanding Britain's greatest prime minister. But the details, though interesting, slowly wear down the resolve of the reader.
   
   For example, the beginning and ending of the book flows well as Churchill's family heritage and retirement are explored; in other words, the parts of Churchill's life which are the least political and literary.
   
   Yet by the time we reach his parliamentary career and the two world wars the book descends into minute detail. Minute details about his toast filled summits with Stalin - interesting. Minute details about his administration of the Admiralty - not so much.
   
   Further, he dedicates a surprisingly small amount of space to some very important events - such as the Battle of Britain.
   
   Yet, to be fair, Jenkins provides an excellent overview of Churchill's life. It is also inevitable that certain areas of interest to the reader will not coincide with that of the author.
   
   Indeed, the biographer's experience in British politics provides rare insights: the great PM's great ambition was getting power, using power and retaining power. So, the way Jenkins skillfully dissects and interprets Churchill's various power struggles makes the book worth reading.
   
   Summary: The book is a great introduction to Churchill, with a special focus on his political and literary careers. Yet the combination of the books length and the author's devotion to great detail could prove fatal to the unmotivated.
   
   I would recommend the book to anyone interested in 20th century history, modern British history and of course Churchill. But I would recommend that the reader take long breaks between each of the six sections.



4. Think Robert Kosowsky's review is pretty much on the mark.
   
   Historical events are not presented except in relation to timing and political positioning by Churchill and others. For example, if you don't know about the Dardenelles operation of WW1, this book will not help you. Despite the final line of the book, this is not uncritical of Churchill and at times makes him appear to be motivated by politics as much as anything else (the author was a MP and in the Cabinet so was a political animal too). This does not ring entirely false as it makes it easier to understand his switching of political parties. And this makes it a good counter to Churchill's own books which are at times clearly self-serving.



5. This was a fine biography on Churchill. At its heart, this book is a comprehensive political summary of one of the world's best politicians. Jenkins does a great job of surrounding the moment with context and analysis. His mastery of British politics is unreal.
   
   With all that said, the book did have a few flaws. First, it was hard to grasp the ins and outs of the British political process which Jenkins discusses at great lengths (this could be my fault as I am an American). Second, there was not enough character development. Jenkins references countless people, but does not take the time to highlight, or bring about, who ultimately has a major role. To this end, I feel there was a certain extent of "name-dropping" in the tome. At times, this made the book harder to navigate through with ease. Finally, I don't know French or Afrikaans, or Latin. So those phrases in foreign languages fell upon deaf ears (or perhaps blind eyes is the more appropriate description).
   
   Overall, a great book. I enjoyed Jenkins mastery of the subject matter, and his writing is fantastic. I have not read other Churchill bios before, but would certainly recommend this to a history buff.

5 comments about Mao Zedong: A Life (A Penguin Life).

1. Jonathan Spence is probably the leading Western scholar on Chinese history, and for that reason alone this book is worth reading. Spence provides the reader with a concise overview of Mao's life with an appropriate amount of commentary on issues that help the reader understand Mao's personality. This focus on Mao as a person (instead of Mao as an historical actor) is, in my opinion, the book's strongest feature.
   
   I'd like to spend a second or two dealing with what some of the other reviewers of this book have said, because I think several of them have missed the mark. Some people seem to be disquieted because Spence spends so little time covering the historical aspects of major events, such as the Long March, the Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution. However, the point of this book is not to give a detailed account of Mao's role in modern Chinese history, but rather to provide an image of Mao that readers can get their hands around. Spence accomplishes this task nicely, and reviewers misunderstand his purpose when they criticize this book for its lack of coverage of such important events.
   
   Another set of reviewers are disillusioned with the book because they feel it does not adequately show how Mao went from a middle-peasantry childhood to become the leader of China. I don't know what these reviewers think the book is missing in particular; I think Spence does a good job of capturing the essence of Mao's life through time, and Spence stops at each categorical change in Mao's life to explain what was going on that led to Mao's upward shift in stature.
   
   I give this book three stars because I think it is a book without a definable demographic in terms of readership. The content is too surface-level to be of much use to even the moderately informed Chinese history student. At the same time, Spence's sense of irony and paradox will probably be lost on the novice reader because of a lack of contextual understanding. Additionally, Spence leaves unexplained things that not all readers will understand (such as the role of various political bodies that get brought up). So it is that, in my opinion, this book is at times too advanced for the novice, and yet generally too introductory for the more experienced.
   
   I myself didn't learn a whole lot about Mao's life that I didn't already know. Spence's scholarship is very good, however, and there were a decent amount of details that I didn't know beforehand which I found interesting. Spence is very even-handed in terms of moral judgement, which is an important distinction between this book and others that present Mao as either a Saint/Savior or an Antichrist. As a concise biography I think Spence accomplished the worthy task of providing an image of Mao that readers can understand, and on that basis I would recommend this book to people looking to get a better feel for Mao the person.



2. As leader of China for over a quarter of a century, Mao Zedong is one of the dominant figures of modern history, one whose shadow continues to fall on his country today. In this book, Jonathan Spence offers a short introduction to the Chinese leader's life and times, one that seeks to explain how the son of Hunan farmers became the ruler of the most populous country in the world.
   
   That Spence succeeds is a tribute to his command of the subject. He concentrates on Mao's intellectual development, analyzing his writings in order to shed light upon the key points in his life. Spence sees Mao's organizational skills as key to his rise within the Communist Party during the hard years of the 1920s and 1930s. Once in power, Mao consolidated his rule behind an image of himself as the simple, determined leader of a revolutionary movement, an image he sought to impose on the movement as a whole. Yet his increasingly absolute position fueled a self-absorption that, once in power, contributed to the great disasters of his rule.
   
   One of the leading historians of China, Spence presents the details of Mao's life with confidence and erudition. While much of the treatment is perfunctory (what else is to be expected in a biography of less than 200 pages?), within the space available he provides a good overview of Mao's life intertwined with coverage of the complex and dramatic history of twentieth century China. For readers seeking to learn about the interesting times which Mao shaped, this is a good place to start.



3. "The American moon and the Chinese moon are the same moon" noted Mao - the American moon was not BETTER. This is my first book on Mao and the way in which Mr Spence underpins this brief overview of Mao's life with examples of Mao's poetry and philosophy adds to understanding of this hugely significant figure in the World's history. The descent into senility (for want of a better term} and the confirmation once again of the dictum power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, are sad perhaps even tragic conclusions to what began as a noble inspirational life. An enjoyable, informative and concise read.



4. If you going to attempt a 180 page biography of someone of this stature, one must sift thru and present only the most relevent and important details. This did not happen. A decent book, but lacked details on some very important areas, while giving too much time to unrealted topics. Example: Mao becomes the head of a small, isolated band of communist guerilla fighters. Very well, now how does he transform from that, into the head of state for a billion people? the book doesnt say. In this biogarphy, Mao goes from that cave-living nobody into meeting Stalin and ruling China in about 2 paragraphs. From cave-dweller to world leader in 6 sentences. We get more than 6 sentences about his last secretary's personal life.



5. Only about two hundred pages, Jonathan Spence does a very noble job summarizing one of the most powerful, mysterious, fascinating, and frightening persons of the twentieth century. Though if one is looking for a book that goes into detail about any aspect of Mao's life or policies, it is best to look elsewhere. This book is a straightforward and unabashed introduction and quick overview of Mao's life and work and ideas. Perfect for people curious about Mao and twentieth century China who want to read more than an abstract, but do not necessarily need or want to tackle a big and detailed work. Just the facts and little commentary. Spence does a good job balancing any bias against or for Mao and his policies and deals mostly with the reasons for them and overall consequences.

5 comments about Stalin: Breaker of Nations.

1. Having read this as an assignment coming into high school, it has been over six years since I've finished Robert Conquest's book on Stalin and the changes he wrought. You may wonder why I review the book now and not 6 years ago. The answer is that I didn't do reviews on amazon then, and have only recently re-encountered Conquest and been reminded of how good I thought his book was. Therefore, while my memory of this book's specifics are hazy, at best, I shall strive to give as good a review as I can.
   
   I remember the prose itself being refreshingly good; the diction and syntax were certainly for no simpleton, yet nor were they turgid.
   
   Given that this book encompasses Stalin's entire life and his nearly three decades of absolute rule in the Soviet Union in under 400 pages, it is obvious that Conquest cannot mention everything that ever transpired in Stalin's life or under his reign. Therefore, his method of giving a relatively brief, but incisive, account of Stalin's early life is quite useful and appropriate for this sort of book of this sort of length.
   
   Furthermore, Conquest gives various personal vignettes of Stalin, and these are judiciously chosen and not randomly inserted, because they all serve to explain a larger, base character trait of Stalin than can be applied more broadly.
   
   Although I said that I don't remember many of the specific elements of the book, the one thing that I remember most is the very end of the book, in which Stalin is lying on his deathbed in 1953. The way Conquest described the scene -- from Stalin's deteriorating condition to the chilling look his daughter remembers him giving to his closest Politburo subordinates (that sharp, piercing gaze that seemed to impugn all those around him as complicit in his sudden and suspicious death) -- was pretty masterful, and didn't come off as too sensationalist.
   
   In retrospect, of course, I would have liked to have learned a great deal more about the terrible, overwhelmingly artificial famine, induced by Stalin's policies, that killed so many millions of Ukrainians and others, or of the very interesting international relations Stalin engaged in with Churchill and Roosevelt. But an extensive account of either of those would have burdened the book and have taken the focus off of Stalin and his policies; after all, the book is titled "Stalin: Breaker of Nations". I also have recourse to read his other books dedicated to detailed accounts of certain of Stalin's policies, such as that of the Great Purges or of the one about the famine.
   
   (Note: I would have liked to have given this book somewhere in between 4 and 5 stars, but amazon does not have a more nuanced grading system.)



2. This is one of the most historically inaccurate books published on the Cold War, and in specific Stalin. Robert Conquest is the head of the "cold warriors" who simply re-wrote history to fit their propaganda purposes. Conquest actually worked for a division of British Intelligence in the 50's and 60's which created anti-communist propaganda, based on sheer fabrication and lies. This work is no different. It stinks of right wing anti-communist propaganda and fabrication. The original anti-Stalin propaganda first came into the US in the 30's via Hearst, who relied on sources from his good friend Adolf Hitler. For a more objective and less politically motivated look at Stalin I would reccomend "The Soviet Communist Party Reconsidered" by J. Arch Getty, "Life & Terror In Stalin's Russia" Thurston, "Stalin: Man Of History" by Ian Grey, among many others. Please do not take this book seriously!



3. There have been many biographies written about Josef Stalin. Many recent biographies of Stalin such as "Stalin: The Court of the Red Czar" by Montefiore and "Stalin and his Hangmen: The Tyrant and those who killed for him" by Rayfield focus only on the sexual depravity and crimes of Stalin's followers respectively. A person should only read those biographies only after they have read an introductory biography of Stalin and have therefore come away with an understanding of Stalin as whole. Robert Conquest's "Stalin: Breaker of Nations" provides such a biography with the vital information for one to build a basic stable foundation of the life of this twentieth century tyrant. In the introduction Conquest modestly says, "This book is not a dissection of Stalin's character, but a sketch". It is important to keep this quote in mind as one reads Conquest's book. Many reviewers unfortunately are hasty in criticizing "Stalin: Breaker of Nations" for its lack of length (a mere 330 pages or so). Nonetheless, Conquest's "sketch" proves to be more thorough than many of the "dissections" of Stalin available. Indeed Robert Conquest's work on Stalin has been so extensive that he was chosen to be the main history consultant for the 1992 movie "Stalin", starring Robert Duvall.
   
   Robert Conquest writes his book for the common reader who only has a minimal knowledge of Stalin and Stalinism. The book is nonetheless engaging enough for the serious Russian history buff. Anyone who reads "Stalin: Breaker of Nations" will at least come away with the conclusion that Stalin was the most prolific mass murderer in history (yes even more than Hitler). The purpose of the book is ultimately to stimulate enough interest for the reader to do some further research and reading. If one wants further information on Stalin's crimes, one can pick up Robert Conquest's book entitled "The Great Terror: A Reassessment".
   
   I strongly recommend "Stalin: Breaker of Nations" to anyone who wishes to have a firm grasp on the essentials of the early Soviet era. I especially wish to highlight Chapter 12 (entitled " War") of the book, which points how the Allies (Roosevelt in particular) were incompetent when it came to standing up to Stalin.
   
   If you want some further readings on Russian History, just remember that the best Russian historians start with the letter "R" (Robert Conquest, Richard Pipes, Robert Service, Richard Overy, Robert Leckie, and Robert Payne).



4. Stalin was a perfect dictator: he was above it all. He was above dogma, as seen in his rebellious activity in the theological seminary and his "creative socialism". Ever since his bank robbing escapades he did not mind being above the law. In the Tsaritsyn affair, he showed the penchant for being above authority. He was above any respect for science and arts, having arrested most of the members of the Writers' Union and interfered in a spectrum of scientific fields. He was above any Party allegiance: a half of the party members were arrested and a million of them died in his camps. He did not have any use for familial ties, having imprisoned and shot his own and others' relatives. Of course, he was above any morality.

   As much as I.V. Dzhugashvili was a notable character, Stalin also was made by the people around him. Lenin, a militant opportunist himself, found in Stalin a kindred spirit of his own extremism. Kamenev and Zinoviev saved Stalin from the fall (after the disclosure of Lenin's Testament) because they needed him in their struggle against Trotsky. Roosevelt and Churchill needed him to fight Hitler and turned a blind eye on what they did not want to see, such as Katyn massacre.

   Stalin was the most evil ruler in the history of mankind, he killed over 40 million of his own people (to put it in perspective, Hitler killed 20 million and Saddam less than half a million), and yet Stalin's specter is very much alive today. During the Ribbentrop-Molotov negotiations, Stalin raised a toast to Hitler. In 2000, Putin was drinking to Stalin. After meeting Stalin in Teheran, Roosevelt commented on the "sympathetic quality in his nature". And G.W.Bush, having looked Putin in the eye, liked what he saw. It is interesting how history repeats itself: Russian leaders keep toasting the humankind's worst tyrants and the leaders of the free world keep seeing good souls.

   As Conquest himself states, this book is not a "dissection" of Stalin's character, but a sketch. Written just after many Soviet materials on Stalin became newly available, the book feels like a period piece. Not having any source references and the frequent mention of "recent Soviet publications" only strengthen the impression. Unfortunately, Conquest's Stalin still remains fairly impenetrable. What was driving him: megalomania, paranoia, inferiority complex, dogma, self-righteousness, all of the above? Until the late 1920's (and the ripe age of 50) Stalin's persona in the book remains fairly obscure. The narrative does not really elucidate what led him, a good and pious student of theological seminary, become a professional revolutionary. Or how exactly he ingratiated himself with Lenin to the point of becoming one of the top Party functionaries. Or how in the crucial years after Lenin's death he was able to come unscathed from the many factional fights. The linguistic constructions are a bit heavy-handed which, along with the macabre subject of the book, makes for a somewhat strained reading. Rather than painting a portrait, the book reads like the author's struggle to piece it all together and understand its subject. On the other hand, it takes one to know one. So if we do not understand Stalin all that well - maybe, so much for the better.




5. Conquest has written eminent studies(the only in thier class) on the Great Famine(harvest of Sorrow) and the Great Terror. THese scholarly works have now been followed by a much lesser work. Clearly Conquest was responding from calls by his supporters to publish a book on the life of the monster, Stalin. But unfortunatly, instead of publishing a scholarly, in-depth 700 page study he has publish a rather paltry tale. Full of information it nevertheless lacks in several areas. It lacks mostly in the details of the post Great Terror. It lacks when describing the war. It lacks in describing the 'doctors plot'. it also lacks in the fact that it does not do justice to its title. Stalin: 'Breaker of Nations'. Conquest does not detail these nations. He tells nothing of the Jews, Tatars, Udmirts, Greeks, Germans, Armenians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Poles, Fins, and Estonians who were victimized by Stalin. Stalin was a breaker of nations but we dont hear about these nations.
   Read this book, but then go and read Volkogonovs 'Stalin: Triumph and Tradgedy'.

2 comments about Icon of Evil: Hitler's Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam.

1. This is an important and timely book. In order to understand the roots of modern Middle Eastern anti-semitism and the rise of radical Islamic violence it is essential to know this almost forgotten part of history. It should come as no surprise to find that it has its roots in the connection between the early 20th Century mufti of Jerusalem and Hitler himself.
   
   This book is a must-read for a better grasp on this history and also to appreciate the surprising political naivete by members of the British civil administration of Palestine. By choosing a a thoroughly unsuitable and unqualified leader for Jerusalem's Muslims, the British set the scene for much of today's Middle-Eastern turmoil.



2. On Tuesday, June 24th, we met Rabbi David Dalin at the Temple Judea in Coral Gables, Florida, where he was introducing his new book: Icon of Evil: Hitler's Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam.
   
   His presentation was excellent, detailing how in 1921, Haj Amin al-Husseini became the mufti of Jerusalem. After some research we learned that the word "mufti" means: (a) a Muslim jurist expert in the religious law, or (b) in the Ottoman Empire, a deputy of the chief Muslim legal adviser to the Sultan.
   
   Mr. Husseini, a most eminent and influential Islamic leader in the Middle East helped foment enmity against Jews in the region and in 1937 joined Nazi Germany because they shared a common enemy, the Jews. Mr. Husseini was seen by Hitler as an honorary Aryan.
   
   While Hitler had written racial inferiority remarks about the Muslims in his book "Mein Kampf," Hitler liked Mr. Husseini's looks, his "blond hair, red beard, and blue eyes, appeared to have been an exception." The cover of the book surfaces a photo that the author explained was hard to obtain, it is of a photograph taken of the mufti with the fuehrer himself, Adolf Hitler.
   
   The book details how Al-Husseini recruits thousands of Muslims in Europe to fight for the Waffen-SS, his protests about allowing Jews to move into Palestine, prevent the escape of Jewish children from Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Slovakia, who accompanied by 400 adults were to enter Palestine in exchange for the release of twenty thousand German prisoners of war.
   
   At some point, Al-Husseini "organized the dispatch of five parachuters to Palestine with ten containers of a toxin to poison Tel Aviv's water system. Fortunately, they were caught near Jericho before they could carry out their mission."
   
   One of the most horrific details provided by the author is that al-Husseini was instrumental in the implementation of the "Final-Solution" used by Germans to eliminate millions of Jewish lives. "In a radio broadcast from Berlin on September 21, 1944, al-Husseini spoke of the 11 million Jews" of the world, a fact that he could have only known because of his participation in their elimination. As far as the world knew, the figure was closer to 17 million.
   
   At the end of World War II, he left to live in France and later moved to Egypt, where he received a hero's welcome, developing relationships with the likes of Saddam Hussein's uncle, General Khairallah Talfah, Yasser Arafat, and his writings served to inspire terrorist groups, such as the Hamas, Hezbollah and others, hard at work to destroy the United States and Israel.
   
   A statement that has immense value to us is that we must learn from history if we are to prevent it from repeating in the future. At the end of the session, the audience asked many questions, but in particular I was rather interested on the mention of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion because I had heard of these before, but was not sure of what they meant, so we asked:
   
   1. What are "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?" His answer:
   
   a. A czarist forgery, a fraudulent anti-Semitic write up, widely distributed throughout Palestine that alleges without proof that the Jewish people conspired on a plot to take hold of power, of a desire of world domination.
   
   Well, I got home and read the book, simply excellent. It was a pleasure to meet the author, to have the opportunity to get my book autographed and to learn more about how the seeds planted by Hitler have produced so much evil, for he is also responsible for inspiring the likes of Castro... and many other dictators.
   
   Don't miss this book!

No comments about Roosevelt and the Holocaust: A Rooseveltian Examines the Policies and Remembers the Times.

1 comments about Everything American Presidents Book: All You Need to Know About the Leaders Who Shaped U.S. History (Everything: Travel and History).

1. After recently watching a wonderful 4 hour show on the Presidents on C-SPAN, I realized how much I had forgotten or never learned over the years. I was seeking a book that was interesting, quick and yet easy to carry for my bus ride to work. After looking at all the books available in Borders (ones that didn't have an obvious agenda), I would say this was a great choice. For me, I just wanted a review in chronological order that wasn't too elementary.

5 comments about The Raising of a President: The Mothers and Fathers of Our Nation's Leaders.

1. Doug Wead first hit the betseller lists with his book on the children of the Presidents of the United States. In this sequel
   he explores the lives of the parents of America's Chief Executives. It is a fascinating journey into the past in an area of presidential history that is little explored,
   Wead gives brief biographies of all the presidential parents from George Washington through George W. Bush. Extended chapters focus on six presidential families:
   1. George Washington-His father died when he was young; he did not get along with overdominating mother Mary Ball Washington.
   2. The Adams family featuring a well drawn portrait of John and Abigail Adams; their influential parents and their brilliant son John Quincy who served as the 6th President of the US.
   3. The little known story of Abraham Lincoln's hardscrabble poverty ridden youth on the Kentucky and Indiana frontier. His
   father Thomas was an ignorant brute who often beat Abe; His mother Nancy Hanks and his stepmother Sarah Bush Johnston gave
   Lincoln the gift of learning, love and set our greatest chief executive on the road to glory. Lincoln had a sad, difficult and
   tragic life.
   4. The family life of Franklin Delano Roosevelt the son of the wealthy James Roosevelt and his wife the indomitable Sarah
   Roosevelt. James died while FDR was a boy; Sarah was one of the
   strongest mothers in our history. She was the third party in FDR's marriage to Eleanor. Sarah made FDR a mother's boy but was also the greatest influence in his development.
   5. The family of John F. Kennedy was dominated by Joe Kennedy to made millons; was often allied to the mob and was a womanizer of Olympian proportions. His mother Rose was often away on shopping trips to Europe and did not give Kennedy the love he craved.
   6. The quiet dynasty of the Bush family is explored in succinct
   but savvy chapters. We met US Senator Prescott Bush; his son
   George Herbert Walker Bush our 41st President and our current
   occupant of the Oval Office: George W. Bush. The Bush family is notable for the strong women it has produced. Dorothy Bush the
   tough, tennis champion spouse of Prescott; the strong Barbara
   Bush who modeled herself after Dorothy and Laura Bush.
   Wead has done a good job of sorting myth from the facts. This
   book can be used as an excellent reference book as well as a
   great read.
   I recommend this book with high marks!



2. This is an excellent book with a slant on history no one has ever delved into in any depth. It was fascinating to read about the one group of people who had the most vested interest in raising our future leaders.



3. As an extremely amatuer historian with ADD and with a fascination for Abraham Lincoln, I really liked this. The research that I have done on my own, albeit not extensive, on Lincoln seems to jive with the author's conclusion. I have no reason to doubt the truthfulness of his writings on the other presidents.
   
   Books rarely hold my interest, and this one did.



4. I was waiting for this one to come out in paperback but I guess the sales keep humming along so I finally went out and bought one. Wow! it was worth it. This is a classic that will have a long shelf life in our family. I will never see the presidents the same again. They are like the rest of us - little children inside grown up bodies. The treatment on FDR and his mother is riveting. Much new here from the diaries and interviews. I knew that mothers were prominet in the lives of their sons but the massive evidence - the reoccuring events that these men have in common is remarkable. It makes sense that the "absent father" is no coincidence either.



5. I like Mr. Wead's books because they offer accurate history from a different perspective. While they don't belabor psychological phenomenon when they encounter it, neither do they ignore it when it slaps you in the face. There is so much new in these books, taken from the diaries of these children or parents of the presidents. And there is so much that one can learn about parenting. I can't wait for the book on siblings.