1 comments about Abraham Lincoln, Slavery, and the Civil War.

1. FOR ME THIS WAS A PAGE TURNER. I FELT LIKE I WAS THERE AT THE TIME THESE LETTERS AND SPEECHES WERE WRITTEN. VERY EASY TO GET LOST IN THE TIME PERIOD. IF YOU LOVE THIS SUBJECT, YOU'LL ENJOY THIS BOOK.

5 comments about U.S. Presidents for Dummies.

1. This is a great introduction to American history, excellent for mid graders beginning social studies or just anybody interested in trivia on all the presidents up to George W. Bush's early years. I loved it and used it to get to know some of the presidents that I am not too familiar with like James Monroe, Martin Van Buren, John Tyler, and many of the other lesser presidents. It also goes into some detail into the great ones like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, John F. Kennedy, and so forth. It also talks about the flaws and some of the things that the men wanted to accomplish and what they didn't. There is also a list of 10 best and 10 worst presidents, and the arguments for them are pretty convincing. If there is a fault to the book it is that I really wanted more info on some of them, and all I got was the very basics. Still, great for what it is, a general once over of the most important men in the world.



2. I really like this book because it gives one a great overview of each president. The author doesn't hold back or gloss over any of the presidents. If he thinks one did well, he says so and why. The converse is true for the bad ones.
   
   Each president is given a short pre-history to their presidenthood, a short overview of their actions (and mis-actions) in office and what happened to them when they left.
   
   The edition I own goes up to Preisdent George W. Bush's first term.
   
   I highly recommend it with you need to know the basics of a president to get you started on larger research.



3. This is a fun reference source for information about our Presidents. It is a valuable teaching tool and is loaded with "good stuff" and gossip to help put a human face on these men.



4. Thank you BooksandPrint. The book got to me on one day before the first day for delivery. I found some minor flaws in the book including a rip on the bottom of the page on the section on Richard Nixon and a misprint on one of the elections in the back where one of the canidate got credit for more electoral votes then he was entitled. I disagree with some of the ranking of the presidents including Bill Clinton. I was amazed that Clinton was not ranke one of the worst ten presidents.



5. Do you want to know what makes a Great President? Do you want to know the names and details of some of the 43 that you've never heard of? Do you want to know the people behind the historical facts?

   This book is a great introduction to US presidents for the lay reader. I bought it because I felt underinformed about American history, and couldn't name even half of our presidents. The book certainly helped increase my breadth of knowledge on the subject. It also provided enough tongue in cheek humor to make the history interesting.

   After the fact I felt good enough about the book to give it away as a gift.

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.

5 comments about James Monroe: The Quest for National Identity.

1. Lack of information? This is a good Biog. It does get a little wordy, especially concerning Monroe's foreign affairs work. Personally, I like to study the revolutionary mind, and read about the founding fathers' philosophy concerning politics and life. I just don't think there is as much information about Monroe as some of the others. He seems to have been a somewhat private person. Over all though this is pretty good work. Probably about as good as it gets for the amount of info available.



2. I read this book as part of my goal to read the established biography of every President. This was really an outstanding biography on what is clearly an underrated President.
   
   I would consider Monroe the Eisenhower of the 1800s. He did a lot and doesn't seem to get a lot of credit for it. I don't think credit was what Monroe was after.
   
   He played a key role in both the military and political history of the country and the author did a great job in depicting both. I especially liked the authors discussion of Monroe's role in reaching agreements with G.B., France, Spain, Russia, Portugal, etc.
   
   Obviously we all know about the Monroe Doctrine, but the author went into great detail in other key areas and detailed his relationships with other important men from his era.
   
   It may be longer than most would want to read, but if you want to read a really great book on a great President that is well constructed, flows well and is detailed enough to highlight the key and not so key aspects of a Presidency. This is the book on Monroe you should read.



3. I am presently reading a biography of every U.S. President in order. From browsing the reviews of Monroe biographies, Ammon became the obvious choice. I can gladly say that I was not disappointed. Ammon's biography of Monroe is comprehsive, well written, and superbly researched. Ammon's writing style is refreshingly easy to read and the information is very well organized. Monroe emerges as a very important President and, while not as brilliant intellectually as his two predecessors, certainly well suited to be chief executive and arguably the most important influence on American foreign policy until Theodore Roosevelt.
   
   My criticism of Mr. Ammon's volume is that, despite adeptly describing the political life of Monroe and its importance to American history, the biography never succeeds at leading the reader to understand Monroe on a personal level. Perhaps this task is not possible given the research available, but this is the first presidential biography that I have finished feeling that I did not have an adequate understanding of the personality traits behind the subject's actions.



4. This highly readable book focuses on the foreign policy elements of Monroe's career almost to the point that it is more of a book on diplomacy than a general biography. The portions that detail his partnership with his Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, especially the genesis of the Monroe Doctrine, are where it is at it's best. Unfortunately it gives short shrift to his relationship and feelings to his own slaves, even while giving a very good account of his activities around the Missouri Compromise.



5. James Monroe by Ammon
   Over the last several years, I've read biographies of the first 40 presidents. I've usually used Amazon readers to guide my selections. At the end of this review is a rating of these biographies.
   
   James Monroe was the last of the founding fathers to be president and he is one of most underrated statesmen and presidents. During the Revolutionary War he served with George Washington. Later he was minister to France and Secretary of State. Aside from Washington he is the only president to run for a second term without opposition. He was an excellent diplomat. His cabinet included John Quincy Adams and John C. Calhoun , and it can be argued this was the most effective cabinet and administration of the 19th century. Monroe is closely linked with fellow Virginians, Madison and Jefferson, and while he does not rank as a genius or philosopher with this pair, he was probably a better leader than either. Monroe's political style was to solve problems, be diplomatic, and develop consensus. Ammon's accounts of 12 hour cabinet meetings demonstrate this style of governance. Monroe also believed in a limited presidency . He consistently chose to respect the separation of powers, and at times limited his effectiveness out of respect for the Constitution.
   
   Ammon's biography is better than serviceable. It shines during Monroe's early years and his presidency. The book often drags during the middle third. My sense is this is because Monroe was more of a peripheral figure during these years, and this biography tends towards a tangential sense of history during this section.
   
   
   Bonus - You can see my reviews (SMR) for many of the following books, but here's a capsule summary
   The BEST
   Franklin Roosevelt - Conrad Black - captures so many facets of a great leader weaving his way through constant challenges, completely engaging writing; SEE MY REVIEW
   Teddy Roosevelt - Edmund Morris - the best writing hands down of a presidential biography - Teddy himself was so much fun that its hard to miss with this subject
   John Kennedy - Robert Dallek - detailed, balanced biography of a complex man, SMR
   Lyndon Johnson - Robert Dallek - volume one is as good as Morris' Teddy Roosevelt in terms of story- telling and describing the complexity of an absolutely driven man. Volume 2 deals with LBJ's presidential years and the morass of Viet Nam - its well written but like the war itself, it goes on and on from one disappointment to the next. SMR
   John Adams - David McCullough - great writing, perhaps a bit too favorable to Adams, but this is the book that got many readers to take a first or second look at our founding fathers
   Warren Harding - Francis Russell - absolutely the best biography of a unqualified president - captures Harding's sexual scandals as well as the smoked filled rooms and corruption of the times and Harding's administration, SMR
   Chester Arthur - Thomas Reeves - a great biography of an very corrupt politician and an incredible job of detailing the spoils system and New York politics, SMR
   The SECOND TIER
   Harry Truman - David McCullough - McCullough is always engaging, but it seems to me that he places Truman a little too high on the pedestal
   Abraham Lincoln - David Donald - the authoritative biography of Lincoln, I felt like crying at the end
   Jimmy Carter - Peter |Bourne - a good history of the time and an unflinching, thorough analysis of Carter Written by a Carter insider, but not afraid to criticize. SMR
   Franklin Pierce - Roy Nichols - a well written description of a man who was simply in over his head, SMR
   Martin Van Buren - John Niven - paints a pretty likeable picture of a man who many despised and distrusted, sifts through a great deal of detail about New York politics, and the Jackson and Van Buren administrations - subtly introduces the idea that most of Jackson's successful policies came from Van Buren
   Grover Cleveland - Alyn Brodsky - a better than average biography, very well organized and readable, soft pedals Cleveland's personal indiscretions SMR
   James Buchanan - Philip Klein - Buchanan schemed to become president for 30 years - Klein's biography gives a great overview of years of US politics and of Buchanan's scheming sort of politics, SMR
   James Monroe by Harry Ammon
   Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation - Merrill Peterson - a very thorough description of Jefferson and his times - much more emphasis on his politics and other works than his personal life, SMR
   Andrew Jackson - Robert Remini - this is perhaps unfairly low - I read the one volume abridgement, and would have preferred the detail of three volumes
   Gerald Ford - James Reeves - brisk writing and the best retelling of Watergate. A thorough description of Ford's developmental years and career prior to becoming president, but his presidential years are given less than 30 pages. SMR
   John Quincy Adams - Paul Nagel - uncovers Adams' personality and depression in a very sympathetic way but covers Adams' failed presidency with only a single chapter.
   Andrew Johnson by Hans Trefousse - a very good biography of a very complicated guy during the US`s darkest years - at times I had trouble keeping the many Reconstruction era politicians straight
   Rutherford Hayes - Ari Hoogenboom - a good biography including Hayes' war years, rise to the presidency, and his years in office. Although the election crisis of 1876 is presented in detail, Hoogenboom tries a bit too hard to give Hayes a free pass. SMR
   Ike Eisenhower - Geoffrey Perret - a workmanlike complete biography
   Ulysses S. Grant - Feeley - a great biography of Grant as a general, but it really falls down (as did Grant) during the presidential years
   Millard Fillmore - Robert Rayback - a good biography of a forgotten president who actually had some success in forestalling the Civil War
   Ronald Reagan - Edmund Morris - the weirdest "major" presidential biography - the fictional and real narrative are confusing. Although Morris captures Reagan, so much time is taken up with childhood, adolescence, and acting that important parts of the presidency are glossed over. SMR
   George Washington - Douglas Southall Freeman - I read the one volume abridgement of his seven volume monster. Freeman tells a great story, but he probably admires Washington too much.
   NOT QUITE GOOD ENOUGH
   Ulysses Grant - McFeely - This is a great biography of Grant's early life and Civil Wars years, but Feely seems about as disconnected from the eight years of Grant's presidency as Grant was.
   James Garfield - Allan Peskin - Garfield could be a caricature of a post Civil War president - log cabins, Civil War general (not much of one), Ohio, Republican, and weak - Peskin writes too much about Ohio politics and not enough about the corruption of the times
   Herbert Hoover - David Burner - A pretty boring read about a fascinating character during a fascinating time
   Woodrow Wilson - August Heckscher - Wilson was a very complex guy. This book captures Wilson and his times but it is a pretty dry read
   James Madison - Ralph Ketchum - just too dry - SMR
   Calvin Coolidge - Robert Sobel - this never really grabbed me but it is written in an engaging style
   William Henry Harrison - Freeman Cleeves - This biography is more than 50 years old. The narrative is engaging and Harrison had an interesting life; BUT, Harrison gets pretty much a free pass for his relationship with the many tribes who he evicted from the Northwest Territories. See the recent biography of William Clark for an more revealing telling of this aspect of Harrison's life.
   VYING FOR THE WORST
   Zachary Taylor - Jack Bauer - Taylor was an egotistical, quarrelsome, and paranoid guy who became president after winning several important battles during the Mexican War. Bauer does a workmanlike job detailing Taylor's life but he avoids a lot of the controversy by not making some pretty basic judgments into Taylor's character.
   Richard Nixon - Tom Wicker - An odd book. Wicker writes with great insight into Nixon, but he seems to get tired of writing the book. Watergate is almost completely left out as is much of the last years of Nixon's presidency. SMR
   James Polk Eugene McCormac - This two volume set was one of the most disappointing biographies I read, but there is little available as far as a complete biography of Polk. A political biography, that completely ignores Polk's personal life (slave-owner, ambitious wife, father). SMR
   John Tyler - Oliver Chitwood - A poorly organized and overly apologetic biography of one of the leading candidates for worst president. Written in the thirties, this book is stylistically dated. SMR.
   William Taft - Judith Icke Anderson The author is a disciple of the Fawn Brodie - psychoanalytic school of biography. Taft is actually a pretty easy guy to figure out, and he was quite open and honest about his feelings about his life and career. He didn't need this sort of biography.
   Benjamin Harrison - Harry Sievers - This is dreck! Three volumes of hero worship. Harrison had an interesting life and was an ineffective president, but this set does little to engage the reader. SMR
   William McKinley - Kevin Phillips - This is more of a long essay than a biography. Way too many aspects of his life are brushed over. I was left with far too many questions about McKinley, and definitely feel a need to find another McKinley biography. SMR

No comments about Abraham Lincoln: 0 Presidential Life.

No comments about Lula of Brazil: The Story So Far.

5 comments about Personal Memoirs: Ulysses S. Grant (Modern Library War).

1. Written by the dying hand of one of the chosen men of his time. For any scholar of Grant, Civil War or Military History, these readings are a must. Grant's military genius was without equal. Had his superiors, early on, had his keen foresight, the Civil War could have ended a year or two earlier. Another great read is "Grant" by Jean Smith.



2. It is surprising that the most balanced and impartial view of U.S. Grant should be written by Grant himself. His style of writing is clear and sparse, recounting fact as fact and without lengthy editorializing. A must read for any civil war buff or serious historian.



3. I think this is the only real account you can get of the civil war. It's...Great!



4. This book really provides incredible insight into Grant and what made him a great general. In a plainspoken & straightforward manner he gives a recount of his role in the war and his military philosophy (attack). Unlike a modern autobiography we get nothing personal or confessional (not necessarily a bad thing). Any mention of drinking, or his dismal presidency are omitted and his family gets only a paragraph or two; which is fine because no one is interested in Grant's parenting or presidenting tips.



5. Although Grant doesn't blow his own horn, a close reading of his campaign accounts supports the "revisionist" view that far from being a butcher of men and Lee's inferior, Grant's victories (other than Shiloh) were tactical in nature, not brute force charges. (OK, there was Cold Harbor, but that was one mistake in a year-long campaign to destroy the South before the North lost its will to fight. Time was not on Grant's side.) Furthermore, Lee, Jackson, Johnson, et. al. always had the easier side of the equation, playing defense and disrupting the North's long lines of supply and communication.
   
   This is also an interesting study on how an apparently unremarkable person find greatness within himself when he is in his element, and how a great general can fail as a president because the leadership roles are quite different.
   
   There is a dry wit in much of Grant's writing which makes it a fun read even if you don't care for the details of his capture of Vicksburg and his eventual destruction of the South's Eastern armies. Grant does not shy away from describing the slogging nature of the war or his mastery of maneuver warfare.

5 comments about The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler.

1. This book is very informative. It gives the background of one of the world's most infamous men. It is not biased in any way. Instead, it gives a clear history of Hitler's life. Readers might be surprised to find out about the many accomplishments of this much-hated man. It made me think about how Adolf Hitler could have contributed to society, instead of hurting so many people. Things could have been VERY different...It is so sad to realize he wasted his talents and destroyed many lives because of hate.



2. This book is about Adolf Hitler. Before I hated Hitler blindly only because of the Holocaust. Now I still hate him, but with a bit more understanding. There is no excuse for what he did, but I believe it may not have been entirely his fault. As he had a difficult child, with his father abusing him or his brothers, and later, after his father died, living homeless and poor in Vienna and Munich, I believe he may have been looking for a center to focus anger and to blame for his misfortune, and he found it in the Jewish people. On April 20, 1889, Hitler was born in a small village in Austria named Braunau. His mother pampered him, but his father had a short temper and would yell at and whip his children often. Adolf was not particularly good at school, gaining average grades at best. He was described as thin and pale. Hitler's ambition was to become an artist, but his father refused. Hitler only went to the college his father wished him to go to because that college had drawing classes. Hitler's father died on January 3, 1903, and in 1905, Hitler got a lung infection, and used it as a reason not to go back to school. Therefore, Hitler's education officially ended when he was sixteen. A couple years later, in 1907, Hitler's mother died of breast cancer. Hitler became homeless and had very little money. For years, he survived by painting postcards and then selling them. He barely managed to afford a small one-room apartment. When WWI started forcing Austria to conscript soldiers, Hitler at first avoided being drafted into the army. However, when Germany entered the war, Hitler willingly entered the army. He got many awards, but had to quit when his eyes were damaged. He soon started plotting to become Chancellor of Germany. He didn't want to be President, because the President actually had no power, and the Chancellor was the most powerful. Eventually he got his wish and made the Chancellor and President the same thing and even became the dictator for life of Germany. He wished to expand Germany and moved first into Austria. Austria was given to him to avoid war, and he even got part Czechoslovakia without bloodshed. However, as he moved on Poland, WWII was started. After many defeats and losses, Hitler turned to a goal of his- to destroy the Jewish people. An "option" was suggested and mobilized. Soon hundreds of Jews were being carted to death camps where they were exterminated or sent to factories to make supplies for the war. An attempt to assassinate Hitler failed, but injured him so he diminished. Always a powerful speaker, Hitler remained this, but was so shaky, the effect was diminished somewhat. Eventually, Hitler was pushed into an underground bunker in Berlin. There he shot himself in the head, and his new wife, Eva Hitler, took poison so as not to be captured by Allied troops. They were then cremated and buried. Several of Hitler's followers also killed themselves, preferring not to be killed by Allied persecutors. I would recommend this book to anyone who wished to know a bit more about Hitler or students who want to do a biography on him.
   
   T. Sprock



3. Adolf Hitler was one of the most evil leaders in human history.he dreamed of making Germany the most powerful country in the world.Hitler hated Jews,communis,andgypsies.He led to the organized murder of over 6 million men,women,and childern.



4. I do not pretend to be an expert on European History from the end of WWI until the end of WWII. Additionally I hesitate to judge anyone's book as I realize that a book represents a huge amount of work and an author spends a great deal of time crafting conclusions or even questions that the author says cannnot be answered. However, I have read perhaps a dozen books including Toland, Shirer, Fest and even that recent book by Junge that deal directly in large parts with the life of Hitler. I have also read perhaps four dozen academic books dealing with European history in the first half of the 20th century. I am aware of the of the feuding conclusions regarding Hitler's and the German people's culpability and conduct regarding WWII. I thought this book might give me more insight or least throw some weight to one of the sides of the current historical arguments.
   
   After reading the book, I found myslf severely disappointed. This book is so basic, it reads like a high school textbook. Indeed, it deals with areas of historical dispute by simply ignoring arguments in an almost breathtaking ways. For example, the author, absent one passing comment, simply rejects the argument that the Nazis had been behind the burning of the reichtag in 1933. Likewise, the author left out some of the most basic points found in any serious study. For example, he writes that Germans, dressed as Polish military, seized a German radio station. Although perhaps a bit too much to ask, the author totally leaves out the multiple postponements leading to the jump off. Not surprisingly, the auhor left out the fact of the German units that jumped off early and had to come pack over he border. As to the seizure of the German radio station, the author left out that the Germans left dead concentration camp inmates [called



5. When ever you think of Adolf Hitler, you always think of what he has done wrong. I bet you never knew how he got people to believe him in his speeches. This man was a person like me and you until some dramatic changes in his young life. Did you know he also was very clever and, charming? Also he was very
   intelagent and poor.
   In this book it tells all the things that happened to Adolf Hitler.It tells how people believed. How people thought he was the one to lead Germany, but I guess that they never thought he would do so much evil.
   He also wanted to do things in his life, and make a good difference as he was interested in the arts. This book tells his life from the beginning as a baby to his death. This shows how Adolf got supporters of the Nazi Party and how the Nazi Party got started.
   I would suggest this book for people who want to learn about Adolf.Also I'd recommend this book for people 7th grade and over.

5 comments about Franklin Delano Roosevelt (The American Presidents).

1. This abridged version is read by Richard Rohan & he even tries his hand at FDR inflections. This is a pretty good overview of FDR's life,but you wouldn't expect much depth with 3.5 hrs. running time on a CD. Roy Jenkins died shortly after or maybe a little before this was completed. Arthur Schlesinger jr. edited. But the tone gets more reveverential towards the end. Not really Jenkins style so maybe Mr. Schlesinger finished. But there is no doubt that FDR was the most influential president of the 20th century. His impact is still very much with us.



2. The New Deal, Social Security, World War II. FDR was the greatest president of the 20th century. He was a polio victim with braces on his legs. Perhaps America needed such a leader to get it through the Depression and the war with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. We have seen the video of FDR addressing Congress following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor: "December 7, 1941, a day which will live in infamy!" Americans volunteered for military service in droves. They fought the Japs island by island. Army engineers built the Alaska Highway, stretching 1500 miles from Dawson Creek, Canada to Fairbanks. After Pearl Harbor, the fear was that Japan might take Alaska. Japan bombed the two western-most Aleutian Islands. Roosevelt was president the same years Adolph Hitler was in power in Germany, 1933-45. Roosevelt and his staunch ally, Winston Churchill, proved tougher than Hitler. Roosevelt was elected 4 times as there was no two-term limit. Roosevelt's archrival, Hitler, was born in 1889 in the Austrian town of Braunau. In his youth, Hitler wanted to be an artist. He lived and struggled in Vienna. It was there that he came to hate Jews and Communists. He believed in an Aryan master race. He fought against Britain in World War I. He joined the Nazi Party and went to prison after a failed coup. Hitler dictated Mein Kampf (My Struggles) to Rudolf Hess in prison. After his release, he reorganized the Nazi Party and surrounded himself with men like Himmler, Goebbels and Goering. Hitler became German chancellor in 1933. World War II began when Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Germany occupied France, bombed London and attacked Russia. The United States entered the war after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Americans landed at Normandy Beach on the coast of France on D-Day, June 6, 1944, and drove the Germans back. They met their Russian allies, who poured in from the east to crush the Nazis. Hitler and his companion, Eva Braun, committed suicide. It came to light that 6 million Jews had been exterminated in what is now called the Holocaust. America helped to rebuild Europe with the Marshall plan. Donald Rumsfeld's "Old Europe" became a suburb of the U.S. in light of the Soviet threat. The time has come the United States to put itself first. If the U.S is going to police the world, the world must pay for that protection. Police cannot work for free. Government is about war and money. Too often, it is a gang of thugs terrorizing its own people. Government should exist to serve. Its best form is democratic, not totalitarian, neither fascist nor Communist. Government needs to foster education, promote arts and sciences and care for the aged and disabled. It must encourage agriculture and facilitate transportation and communication.



3. avoid books where the author's personality and florid prose obscure the subject. besides, what precisely does jenkins have against short sentences and one-dollar words?



4. The late Roy Jenkins, in assessing Roosevelt, rates him in the top three of all American Presidents, along with Washington and Lincoln. Whether you like FDR or whether you are one of his critics, it is hard to dispute Jenkins' conclusion. Jenkins believes that had FDR not run for a third term, he would have been one of the better, near great Presidents, but that it took WWII to make him the icon he became. Jenkins fails to point out that FDR did not create any appreciable number of private sector jobs prior to WWII and that, in fact, unemployment was almost as high as it was eight years earlier, when he took office. The reason may be that Jenkins had been a Labour Party member of the House of Commons, accordingly, his world view was that of a government interventionist. However, I ultimately agree that nontheless, FDR was, at least, a better than average President during the depression years, due to the great optimism that he conveyed.
   
   I believe that Jenkins is correct, that FDR became one of the greatest Presidents due to the war. He led the United States in a great mobilization effort. Certainly, responding to events can make one great and FDR's optimistic leadership during the war made him great. This does not mean that he is beyond criticism, and Jenkins offers very little of that. Again, as a Labour party menmber, he would not have been as staunchly anticommunist as a Conservative, such as Churchill or later, Thatcher. Therefore, he spares FDR of any criticism for Yalta. His view is that since the USSR already occupied Poland, there was nothing to give away.
   
   I must contrast this book with another book in the American Presidents series, Tom Wicker's biography of Eisenhower. Wicker could find almost nothing Ike did as President that did not deserve criticism. Jenkins, on the other hand, finds little, in FDR, to criticise. An example is his absolving FDR from any real criticism for not taking in more Jewish refugees during the holocaust.
   
   This series of books constitues short biographies, thus it is not possible for the authors to be comprehensive. However, Jenkins covers a lot of ground. He gives a lot of coverage to FDR's career prior to his presidency. This is something Wicker failed to do, in his biography of Eisenhower, regarding Eisenhower's prepresidential career. Still, there was much Jenkins could not cover. For example, FDR went to great legnths to hide his disability. In a television documentary, it was revealed that he always would hang on to the arm of either a secret service agent or one of his sons and, by pretty much thrusting his hips forward, would give the illusion of walking. The legnths FDR went to are certainly fascinating but, I recognize that this book was too short to cover it in depth.
   
   Perhaps this biography was a little too adoring. The fact that there is much to criticise does not detract from the fact, that ultimately, FDR was indeed one of the truly great Presidents. Still, Jenkins covers a lot of material and I highly recommend this short biography.



5. This is a very good brief introduction to Roosevelt, and I highly recommend it to anyone wanting a brief understanding of Roosevelt. It is very easy to read and suitable for high school students. Being written by a man from Britain, it also shows how the world views FDR - as one of the most important leaders in world history.
   
   You will not acquire a thorough understanding of FDR by reading this book. For that I would suggest the huge "Champion of Freedom" by Conrad Black.
   
   In response to Mister Syzek, my understanding the post-war settlement is that Stalin broke violated the Yalta agreement, which was quite favorable to the west. FDR achieved most of what he wanted, including the stipulation that Eastern Europe was to have elections. But Stalin broke his promises and controlled Poland despite the agreements that FDR was able to extract from Stalan. FDR got the deal in writing. Stalin did not abide by it.
   
   Stalin was determined to control Poland no matter what, so Poland was firmly in his grip, despite what the actual terms of the agreement said. Staling went so far as to say that it was "a matter of life or death."
   
   Franklin Roosevelt was a geopolitical realist, and the reality is that the Soviet armies controlled Eastern Europe and Poland, and the USSR would be willing to fight - and win - to stay. The American people had no enthusiasm for yet another world war againt Russia. They wanted their soldiers home. Maybe you should ask the American people why they were not willing to suffer 5 million killed for Poland. You see, in America you must deal with these pesky things called voters and democracy.
   
   To complicate the matter, the Soviet Union took the brunt of the war (17 million dead), and Stalin was rigidly determined to secure a buffer between Mother Russia and Western Europe. Stalin would not have budged on his goal.
   
   So what Roosevelt obtained from Stalin was the best he could obtain - firm promises from Stalin to hold elections. It was Stalin who broke his promises. That made the Soviet Union look like the bad guy.
   
   Truman then waged the Cold War (without the millions of dead from a hot war) leading to an eventual liberation of Eastern Europe. It's no surprise that Reagan was a huge fan of Roosevelt, voted for him four times, and attended his third inauguration (a moving event for Reagan). Reagan then brought an end to the Cold War without firing a shot.
   
   You may be able to criticize Truman for not liberating Eastern Europe while American had a monopoly on the atomic bomb... or Eisenhower. After all, USSR staged a coup in Czechoslovakia and then staged a brutal crushing of the revolt in Hunguary in which tens of thousands were killed. Clearly this was in violation of the agreement that FDR was able to extract from Stalin. It was the USSR that broke the agreement. FDR did not sell out anyone.
   
   Then again, maybe the path Truman took was wise. Maybe waging a long-term cold against USSR was better than a violent real war. Maybe FDR realized that no European-based power has ever conquered Russia. Remember Napolean? Remember Hitler? Could even USA have defeated USSR in 1945? Maybe Roosevelt would have done things differently. We will never know because he died.
   
   As this book says, FDR was clearly moving to a get-tough posture against USSR. Indeed, FDR moved closer to one of his advisors who was anti-USSR. I suggest you read this book.
   
   At the same time, Roosevelt was an idealist in the Wilsonian tradition when realistic. He believed in the free determination of free people, but he was also realistic. For example, he essentially pushed for an end to world colonialism in his design for the post-war world. Churchill opposed this but he could do nothing about it. The British empire was too weak.
   
   By the way, Poland was not even a country at the start of World War One and was viewed by some in a similar way to the Baltic States of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Should American have gone to war over the Baltic States?
   
   This fine little book is a fine introduction to Roosevelt. It is the best brief book on Roosevelt. Read it if you want an easy introduction to FDR.
   
   If you want a more detailed study of Roosevelt's foreign policy then read Robert Dallek's Bancroft Prize-winning "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy." My essay here pales in comparison. Or read Conrad Black's "Champion of Freedom."

2 comments about Lincoln Legends: Myths, Hoaxes, and Confabulations Associated with Our Greatest President.

1. This was such an engrossing and captivating book that I read it in only a couple of days. Of all of the many, many, many books already published about President Lincoln, this one is a most worthy addition to the canon. For many people who have grown up treasuring or swearing by urban legends or outright historical falsehoods (such as Betsy Ross making the first American flag or President Washington chopping down a cherry tree), it can be hard to be confronted with the facts demolishing the legends, but intellectual honesty and historical truth should matter more than preserving a myth just because it makes one feel good or because it's been repeated so often that it's taken on the stature of truth.
   
   I've read a lot about President Lincoln since I was a child, but some of the legends in this book were new to even me, such as the stories about his supposed out of wedlock birth, his alleged late-night baptism in a freezing river, and "Peanut John," the boy who held Booth's horse while he was inside of Ford's Theatre on that fateful night. Other topics covered include Dr. Samuel Mudd (was he or wasn't he an innocent doctor caught in the wrong place at the wrong time?), the true nature of the relationship between the young Abe and Ann Rutledge (I was kind of disappointed to learn that they may not have had a romance, though there is still no conclusive evidence in either direction), the modern-day myth about President Lincoln being gay, the "lost" draft of the Gettysburg Address, and Andrew Potter, the man who never was. Some of these legends may be more interesting to Lincoln scholars than to the general public, but they're all interesting. Some of them even made me laugh, like the one about his supposed true paternity and the totally implausible scenario for his alleged secret late-night baptism in the freezing December weather. There's something in here for everyone who has more than a passing interest in our greatest president.



2. Most of Lincoln Legends is directed at buffs attracted by such arcane topics as the provenance of the Lincoln "birthplace" cabin, the final resting place (or more likely, places) of Ann Rutledge, whether Lincoln could have been baptized by immersion in the Sangamon River, and assorted odd notions about the assassination. A few chapters are of greater significance, among them the one spiking the myth of a "gay Lincoln" and the thorough examination of the "deceptive doctor," Samuel Alexander Mudd.
   
   Steers writes well enough, but the book might have been improved by a more vigorous application of the editorial pen. Steers' method is usually to begin by laying out the mythological tale at perhaps too great a length and then to demolish the myth at the end of the chapter. This course often leads to wordy repetition. Books about myths and hoaxes are often fun to read; and this one is no exception, although it would have been better if it had been say, fifty pages shorter.