No comments about Empress Eugenie: Her Secret Revealed.

5 comments about The Royal House of Monaco: Dynasty of Glamour, Tragedy and Scandal.

1. This is a very interesting book to read, what with the glitz and the glitter that the author presents.
   However, the historical accuracy is slipshod at best. There are a lot of lies published in this book that the author tries to pass off as true fact. He gets many dates and names mixed up as well.
   
   I'd like this book better if there was at least some research put into it.



2. While some "revelations" in this book should probably be taken with a grain of salt, overall, this is better than many Grimaldi biographies in that it is neither a hagiography nor a hatchet job. Glatt doesn't portray, say, Princess Grace as a saint, nor does he portray, say, Princess Stephanie as a monster. Glatt, though he clearly feels a measure of annoyance, even disgust, for some of the antics of the Grimaldi family, he also has compassion for them. For instance, when recounting one of the most salacious scandals to plague the family -- the videotape and photographs which showed Stephanie's husband making love to a Belgian stripper -- Glatt clearly feels bad for Stephanie (despite her appalling lack of judgement in latching on to the creep in the first place); she had really loved him and was genuinely hurt and humiliated by his betrayal.
   
   Glatt also thankfully clears up allegations about Grace having a drinking problem -- allegations that surrounded her toward the end of her life because of her visible weight gain, and which another biographer, James Spada, dug up in the late 80s. Grace was, in fact, a moderate drinker, because she suffered terrible hangovers if she had more than a glass or two of champagne.
   
   Though Prince Albert has managed to steer clear of the tabloid cover stories that followed his sisters around (due, no doubt, to Grace instructing him on how to be discreet about his love affairs, an education which she never gave to either of her daughters), he too has had his share of troubles. Glatt even makes a half-convincing case for one of the more outlandish assertions: that Albert fathered a love child who is a dead ringer for Princess Grace.
   
   So all in all, a good, juicy read about fascinating and flawed people.



3. John Glatt pens a more truthful version of "The Royals," with less favoritism and more fact. Admittedly this isn't the British royal family (who have provided us with entertainment for many years) but a lesser-known (and no less juicy) dynasty, the Grimaldi's of Monaco.

   Monaco first came to attention when Prince Rainier married the film star Grace Kelly, who brought glamor and modernity to the teeny little country. Grace's past -- involving multiple love affairs -- was swept out of sight as she ascended to the glamorous -- and severely stress-inducing -- position of princess, wife and mother. Rarely happy in her long and paparazzi-studded marriage, she nevertheless gave it her darndest and died tragically and suddenly when she was starting to find fulfillment again.

   The book shifts focus after Grace's death in a car accident, to her three *ahem* spirited children: Caroline, who married one playboy after another, got pregnant out of wedlock, and once burst out of her top at a club, then had to shift into the social position that her mother left vacant. Albert, a playboy himself, who played around with one woman after another but wouldn't make even a vestige of commitment--even to one ex-girlfriend who had his baby, Tamara Rotolo. Stephanie, who shocked Monaco with her wild antics, drug use, explicit singing career and wild modelling career, bodyguard live-in boyfriend, and humiliating divorce after marrying said boyfriend.

   Sound like a tabloid? Well, that's a royal family for you. Fortunately, Glatt doesn't speculate on the inner thoughts of the Grimaldi family (said to be under a curse from a witch raped by a Grimaldi) but allows their actions to speak alone. His writing style is pleasant to read, and gives us insights that other biographers apparently didn't get. I especially enjoyed the interviews with Cassini (Grace's ex-fiancee) Robyns who wrote a steamy biography but edited it at Grace's request, excerpts from members of the Grimaldi family, and from people who knew/know them.

   This is hardly flawless. He describes Grace as a devout/militant Catholic, yet chronicles love affairs (with men married and single), an abortion, astrology beliefs, etc. Sorry, these are not the actions of a "militant" Catholic, though admittedly it is possible that she confessed these to a priest (something we will never know). He does occasionally linger on stuff that is more than we want to know, but it does give us a good look at the Grimaldis.

   Stephanie, Caroline and Albert have already been in the spotlight, tabloidwise, so I suppose Glatt felt that there was no real reason to sugarcoat things. Rainier gets away the easiest, for though he was unfaithful to Grace during their marriage, very little space is given to it (as compared to Albert's girlfriends, Stephanie's partying days, etc).

   In recent years the Grimaldis seem to have calmed down, but this book is nevertheless a heckuva read. If you liked the Royals but didn't like the made-up parts, try this book on for size.




4. Make no mistake, this is a book by a journalist, not a historian, and it reads that way. If that's what you're looking for going in, this will most likely satisfy your curiosity.

   Although the subtitle mentions the Grimaldi 'dynasty,' 70 percent or so of the book is about the, um, 'complex' personal lives of Princesses Caroline and Stephanie and Prince Albert, the three children of Rainier and Grace. There's little effort to put the dynasty or the principality in more than the immediate historical context, and although Rainier is frequently described as an absolute monarch or even 'Europe's last dictator' (which isn't even true), matters of state take a distinct back seat to the 'glamour, tragedy, and scandal.'

   This is too bad. One of the most interesting assertions in the whole book was a comment from one of Glatt's sources to the effect that the Grimaldis were not becoming tawdry, but rather had always BEEN tawdry, and had hidden that fact behind a false front of elegance while Princess Grace was alive. I don't know if that's true or not: Glatt unfortunately lets the statement pass almost unanalyzed.

   Glatt is to be commended, at least, for the variety of his sources, including several who (at least according to Glatt himself) had never spoken on the record before. While the book frequently reads like an extended essay in People magazine, Glatt avoids the temptation of acting omniscient about his subjects' thoughts and motivations. When they act inexplicably (which is disturbingly often), he says so. Glatt's tone is respectful and polite, but he didn't pull his punches. As someone who only paid cursory attention to the Grimaldis, I think I have a better understanding (and a lower opinion) of them as a result of this book.

   A worthwhile read, all in all, for monarchy fans whose interests lie more in the personal than the political, the contemporary rather than the historical.




5. For those who feel the Brits have the dysfunctional royal family from hell, this book about the Grimaldis of Monaco will be an eye-opener. It covers Grace's marriage to Rainier--an unhappy sham of a marriage contrived to boost Monaco's economy, ending with Grace's tragic death due to a stroke while driving. Roughly half of the book covers the three troubled children, Caroline, Albert, and Stephanie, who are, to put it politely, a handful. We follow the two daughters through their teenage rebellions, out-of-wedlock pregnancies, troubled marriages, and (in Stephanie's case) drug problem; one cannot help but sympathize with their troubled parents and the heartbreak they've experienced watching their daughters destroy their lives. The sole son, Albert, is the most responsible of the three siblings, but even he is still 'sowing wild oats' at an age when he should be thinking about creating an heir to the throne. It's a gossipy sort of book--not an academic tome--but readers with some familiarity with Princess Grace will be fascinated.

5 comments about Intimate Enemies: The Two Worlds of the Baroness De Pontalba.

1. Having grown up in New Orleans i have a love for it's history.i've heard about the story of Baroness and it caught my attention. i wasn't disappointed having read this book.



2. Having grown up in New Orleans and visiting the Pontalba buildings on many many occassions, I thought I knew a bit about the countess. This book has brought up many aspects of her life and the lives of her family that I was totally ignorant of. It is quite fascinating even though there are times when the pace is a bit tedious. It is a bit academic at times, but it is afterall a biography and not a work of narrative fiction. There are aspects in everyone's life that tend to be less than thrilling.
   Regardless I will recommend it to my many friends, paticularly those who grew up in New Orleans.



3. Vella brings to life with splendid detail the life in New Orleans and Paris in the 1800's. Vella is unquestionably a tireless scholar who has dedicated much time and passion into assimilating an astounding amount of archival materials to bring to life the realities and sensibilities of the different ranks of the aristocracies. Sophisticated, realpolitic, Machiavellian. A wonderful work and a great read. This is how history should be written (for non-academia). Well footnoted & bibliographed.



4. Intimate Enemies: The Two Worlds of the Baroness de Pontalba, by Christina Vella, is one of the best books that I have ever read. I took Professor Vella's class at Tulane University in the Spring of 2000. This book was the basis of the class. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in thorough documentation of facts about a dynamic woman and her family, as well as two great cities, New Orleans and Paris.



5. Intimate Enemies: The Two Worlds of the Baroness de Pontalba, by Christina Vella, is one of the best books that I have ever read. I took Professor Vella's class at Tulane University in the Spring of 2000. This book was the basis of the class. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in thorough documentation of facts about a dynamic woman and her family, as well as two great cities, New Orleans and Paris.

4 comments about Discoveries: Cleopatra (Discoveries (Abrams)).

1. this was a great book on cleopatra. there is so much info. pages 113 to 151 are filled with documents. this book is not only filled with lots of good info but it has lots of pictures as well, at least one on every page. this book also gives you an overview on rome, but does not take away from cleopatra. it gives you just enough info on rome so that you will understand all the things around cleopatra. if you are interested in ancient egypt or cleopatra you should get this book. i bet you are asking why the 4 stars, well this book is very small it is a little bigger than 5 by 7. and the words are alittle hard to read. if the book would have been bigger it would have got five stars.



2. Cleopatra was the greatest.except why did she do suicide.exspecially naked.I wish she lived to see the world until she was the last person in the world.Cleopatra was a good person she cared and she loved every one of her citizens.Thank you for hearing what I have to say and good day.



3. Who really cares what color her skin was? She was an extraordinary woman in extraordinary times. Personally, I believe she was white, but it really doesn't matter either way.



4. I have read many books on Cleopatra. Many clutter your mind with information. This book does not give you too many names or details yet still supplies you with enough information to fully understand her life and troubles as well as the lives of those importent in her live. This is a must be read book that is simple and enjoyable yet information packed.

1 comments about Elizabeth I (Very Interesting People Series).

1. This entry into OUP's VIP series is an solid introduction to the life of Elizabeth I, Virgin Queen, Glorianna. I consider myself an armchair historian of all things British and have read many a book about Good Queen Bess. Whilst I enjoyed its brevity--it also included some details to entice more-knowledgable persons--I disagreed with a few of Collinson's views. He doesn't seem to give Elizabeth credit: he depicts an Elizabethan England dominated by a commonwealth system and a very bossy parliament. While parliament was gaining its preeminence, the Queen was still indeed the Queen and he did not acknowledge that. He also appeared to disagree with himself: he quotes Cecil describing Elizabeth as a "commander" then backtracks and says Cecil may have been the brains behind the reign, more or less. However, the book's strongpoints are the inclusions of many notable people, and some unremembered. I enjoyed hearing the names of courtiers and others and learning what their duties were and their relationship to Elizabeth. I didn't expect detail from such a small volume so it was very much appreciated. I also found no error in his sense of the timeline--no events were mis-dated. Collinson's passion is for the Reformation in England and I enjoyed his knowledge and insight about everything from the Vestment Controversy to well-known events like the Act of Supremacy. On the whole, this was a superb introduction to Elizabeth, or a good refresher as I used it, and is worth its price and then some.

5 comments about Ever After: Diana and the Life She Led.

1. Enjoy reading books, in general, of people who actually lived. Enjoy reading
   of Diana and her life by respectable, intelligent authors who actually know what they are trying to have us know of. Enjoyed it immensely.



2. I'm currently enrolled in a course on writing biographies, taught by Anne Edwards at the UCLA Extension Program. On the first day of the course the author brought an assorted copies of some of the 24 books that she's written over the years and we were each asked to choose one to read during the ten-week course. I read a lot of biographies but I had never yet read one of Anne's. Though I am a bit of a self-confessed Anglophile, "Ever After, Diana and the Life she Led" wouldn't have naturally been my first choice. Most of the others were already taken however, and Anne suggested that I might enjoy reading this one.
   
   The tragic death of Princess Diana is one of those moments in one's life where were one knows exactly the instant that one heard the heartbreaking news.
   
   I'm quite pleased indeed that this was the one she suggested. I found Edwards writing style very engaging and though cliché or not, I found the book very difficult to put down. I enjoyed it immensely. Edwards has a way of recreating the feeling of the moment exactly as when it occurred. She has a talent of bringing in all of the senses so that you really feel that you are there, standing in the moment. "Park House, Diana's home, was a ten-bedroom Victorian country house with staff cottages, stables and a tennis court. Although it was four miles inland, easterly winds brought the scent of salt to remind the occupants of the area's seafaring history."
   
   I found it thoroughly enjoyable, so much so, that I've decided to order a number of Edwards other books from here on Amazon.



3. I also wrote a research project on Princess Diana, and i used this book. It was so helpful and i really learned a lot. All of the other books i had read, by her butler and things, were more about THEIR life, not Diana's.



4. If you love Diana, you will love this book. I did a research paper on Diana, and this book was great help. The discriptions of every event in the book is amazing. I could not put the book down.



5. Anne Edwards does an exquisite job at portraying the life of Princess Diana. This novel takes the reader through Diana's rough childhood, family background, marriage to Prince Charles, public work, divorce and her death in 1997. The book takes the reader by surprise because many people saw Diana's life as a fairytale, but learn through the novel that Diana's life was not as perfect as it seemed to be. Readers will learn a great deal about the life story of Princess Diana. This novel is appropriate for young adults to grownup.

3 comments about The Jewels of Queen Elizabeth II: Her Personal Collection.

1. If you love royal jewels like me then you need to get this book... the pictures are fabulous. There is not a whole lot of text and explanation about all the pieces you view in the book but there is enough for you to get a general history of most of the pieces. I highly recommend this book!!!!!



2. "Amazing" is the only word to describe the impressive array of jewels in Her Majesty's collection. Tiaras, bracelets, earrings... all delicately made and intricate in their structure. Whether they are gifts from other heads of state, inheritance, or personal presents from her parents, the Queen's jewels will take your breath away.
   
   Now when you see pictures of the Queen and her female relations - whether on television or in magazines - you'll be able to name the tiara, place the bracelet, identify the earrings, and swoon over the plate-sized gems pinned to dresses. Brilliant!
   
   © 2005 www.mandysroyalty.org



3. A well written guide to QE II's elaborate collection of precious stones. Comes complete with her family tree as a reference, which you may find handy to refer to as the author traces back how most of the pieces came to the Queen through her ancestors. Many pictures, however, there are almost as many of Queen Mary as there are of Queen Elizabeth II! I especially liked the way it was discussed how some older pieces have been taken apart, reset, and reconfigured to make them do duty in the 20th and 21st centuries. A very well researched book that any royal watcher will enjoy. I would love to see the author devote a publication to the jewelry (real and paste) of the late Princess of Wales.

5 comments about The Queen's Conjurer: The Science and Magic of Dr. John Dee, Adviser to Queen Elizabeth I.

1. For 25 years I have read & collected everything on John Dee I could find, even to the point of ordering the Sloan MSS fron the British museum. My only complaint about this effort is that it wasn't longer. It reads like a novel. This is the daily life of one of the most fascinating people in British history. Occultists will get clarity on the nature of the Angelic workings, Alchemists get a glimpse of the nature of the craft, students of history are drawn into the gritty reality of fifteenth century Europe. This book carried me through from beginning to end in only two sittings. I couldn't put it down. Well done Woolley!



2. I have always found Dr. John Dee to be one of the most intriguing characters of Elizabethan times. Yet, there seemed to be so little information available about him, only bits and pieces and rumors- often spread by his enemies. Here is a most satisfying biography that not only gives you a complete look at the Doctor's life, but is also supplemented with a wealth of associated detail and historical background. This book turns Dee from a shadowy character to a real man, a great man.

   What comes across is the amazing breadth and depth of Dee's interests and scholarship. He was already famed for his remarkable intellect and ability as a student at Cambridge. At a time when most scholars barely processed a reading knowledge of bad Latin, he mastered classical Greek to be able to read the forgotten works of Plato and Pythagoras. He was a personal friend and correspondent to the great men of the age such as Tycho Brahe and Mercator. Dee himself was famed as a great mathematician in Europe (at a time when simple trigonometry was almost unknown in England.) He was offered high positions at the great courts of Europe, but turned these offers down out of a deep seated desire to raise up his country of birth to be their eventual global equal (at this time England was a poor, backward, weak backwater.) Indeed, the first conception of a British Empire, founded upon a strong Royal Navy, was first expounded by Dee.

   John Dee was as close to modern scientist as existed in the 16th century. He independently came to the conclusion that bodies of unequal weight fall at the same rate- before Galileo. He was recognized as England's top expert on optics and lenses. He was recognized as one of the top experts on navigation and chart making of his day. He kept detailed astronomical observations that even Tycho Brahe admired. He based his astrological work upon the heliocentric "heresy" of Copernicus. He was an expert in geology and ores and leased his own tin mine. He also collected the biggest research library of the age in Mortlake, which was a gathering place of the greatest minds of England and the continent. In short- Dee was a competent expert in several areas of natural philosophy and applied technology. He believed in detailed observation and record keeping- in both natural, and supernatural, phenomena.

   The thing is, Dee believed his accomplishments in the more material and practical sciences to be among his lesser accomplishments. Like Newton after him, his real passion was with the deepest cosmic and spiritual secrets. This led to his fame as an astrologer, and an alchemist, and a cabalist. Dee's passion was to discover the ancient, true, original religion of mankind, the "prisci theology." That is why he could walk easily among both Protestants and Catholics- he ultimately considered both of their dogma's to be equally absurd. Dee had a much more open mind that the "scientists" of later centuries- he studied all unknown forces, natural or supernatural. This was why be studied and practiced natural magic (Agrippa's three books were always open upon his desk for quick reference.) He knew that hidden currents influenced the day-to-day world, and he documented his observations even if he couldn't explain them in terms of material cause and effect. This also led to his interest is scrying and the use of natural sensitives to communicate with spirits. It should be noted, that no one at this time doubted the existence of such spirits- it was as self evident as the existence of God. In fact, many powerful lords of the day employed seers and scryers, including the earls of Leicester, Pembroke, and Northumberland.

   All in all, you come away with a renewed respect for Dee. You realize that his only fault was to be born in a society of petty, ignorant, lesser men. It was they that libeled and slandered his image and painted him as a superstitious conjuror. Indeed, the only real mistake that the good Doctor made was to outlive his beloved queen and protector.




3. Dr. John Dee is now considered to be the English Renaissance man. This was not always the case, however, because his first biographers, as the author of this fine biography points out, were either `hard-headed rationalist or muddle-headed mystics.' In present time, researchers and historians agree that Dee was a true Renaissance man because he sought to connect or reconcile rationalism with magic, science and the supernatural. This was not unusual for the time. Copernicus cited the mystic Hermes Trismegistus in his Magnum Opus, proposing the heliocentric universe. Isaac Newton began his career as an alchemist, before moving on to modern methods of pure science. John Dee was the most important scientists of the Elizabethan age. But this is only a somewhat recent recognition because throughout the ages he was considered a charlatan, crook, blockhead and "companion of hellhounds". Benjamin Woolley's fine biography combines history, science, espionage and common sense and attempts to answer how a man of genius that had such a major influence in mathematics, astronomy, cartography, navigation and science in general, could die a pauper and in obscurity.

   In 1659, a scholar by the name of Meric Casaubon copied and published a collection of Dee's documents, which contained the recordings of spiritual conversations with angels and archangels, and other dialogues, which could be interpreted dubious at best. After the publication Dee's reputation as a credible philosopher went steadily down hill and has taken centuries to recover. Woolley has done some fine research, using Dee's actual diaries, and has painstakingly pieced together his life and career.

   The Elizabethan age was a turning point in Western history. The Reformation was essentially a battle for power and knowledge and a bloody war in the name of religion. But it also set the stage for the Enlightenment, and Dr. John Dee was a precursor to the Age of Reason. He was a man of `science', collecting and studying every ancient text he could get his hands on, (his library is the stuff of legend) but rational knowledge, he truly believed, would only take him so far - he desired heavenly knowledge and wisdom. And it is possible that his spiritual researches into the divine nature could have been the cause of his downfall. Dee did not seek worldly gain, riches and material pleasure; his only desire was to attain the secrets of the Holy. Did he pay the ultimate price for this activity?

   ~The Queen's Conjurer~ is not a dense historical text, but an informative and enlightening piece of research. It casts some light on an intriguing figure, removing him from modern occult history and in to the mainstream.




4. Benjamin Woolley's 'The Queen's Conjurer' is the most recent attempt to present the life of the English Enigma, Dr. John Dee. Dee is an interesting character and one that has sadly been much maligned over the centuries. Since his death in 1608, he has largely been dismissed at best as an sorcerer and black magicican and, at worst, as a credulous old fool dabbling in astrology and necromancy. Today, despite his prominent historical role in Elizabethan politics and his great contibutions to many fields, he is hardly remembered at all. This book tries to alleviate that problem.

   Wolley's work is well-researched and attempts to shed light on Dee's life and his many accomplishments as not only an occultist, but also as an astronomer, mathematician, explorer, and spy. Dee was a product of the Renaissance and devoured knowledge and information. He was an avid bibliophile, a voracious author of various works on astronomy, astrology, mathematics, occult philosophy, and was well-respected by many prominent people at the court of Queen Elizabeth. The Queen herself counted herself one of Dee's benefactors and visited him numerous times at his home at Mortlake, taking a genuine interest in his many magical and mathematical works. Today he is largely remembered for his works concerning "Enochian" or Angel Magic, due to the fact that these are the bulk of his writings that have survived the flames of history. Most of the second half of this book is concerned with Dee's European adventures with the mysterious scryer Edward Kelly, who is largely regarded by history as a charlatan and a rake. Kelly is a shadowy and intriguing figure and we get some insight into his character and motivations but he is never truly revealed to us, perhaps he never will be. In the end, Dee finds that despite a lifetime of great works and accomplishments, he is viewed with mistrust and suspicion by the general public and has lost favor with the new court of King James I. He dies a tired and broken man, and history would continue to tarnish his great name until well into the 20th century.

   The Queen's Conjurer is a very readable account of a great and fascinating man.




5. Woolley's book is good-hearted, an attempt to help modern readers see John Dee not at the fringes but at the heart of much that was going on Elizabethan England.

   But the book's execution leaves *much* to be desired. As other Amazon.com reviews have noted, the thread of the story gets lost along the way (especially amidst some of the sordid details concerning Dee's relationship with Edward Kelly). There are a number of interesting facts and anecdotes, but they never quite come together as a coherent whole. And Woolley displays such an appalling ignorance of Catholicism when he attempts to describe the religious background of the period (and in some instances, ignorance of Christianity in general) that I tend to wonder whether he's gotten his facts about Dee's life wrong too.

   While I'll give the book 3 stars for good intentions, in general, you're better off finding a copy of Peter French's _John Dee: The World of an Elizabethan Magus_.

5 comments about Mein Kampf.

1. I assigned myself this book to read because I am working on a degree in history, with the aim of teaching high school history. Now that I have finished, I'll never inflict this reading on my students. This is easily the most tedious, boring book I have ever read. I think that is partly why Hitler was able to get away with basically spelling out his plans years before he came to power, and people were still surprised when he did exactly what he said he would do. Also no one took him seriously, and were horrified when they found he actually believed all this drivel he wrote.
   Still, it is a very important book historically, because it announced his plans 15 years before he carried them out. World leaders who wondered what Hitler was about had only to pick up Mein Kampf. As I read this book, I noted the most glaring cases of anti-Jewish remarks, as well as Hitler's views on the rest of the world. Often, the two subjects are intertwined. The quotes you read below are just some of the worst examples; this book is packed with countless other lies against the Jews and other nations.
   
   GERMANY VS THE WORLD:
   P.134, "Unused soil exists for people with force to take it."
   P.138, "Don't let political boundaries obscure the boundaries of eternal justice." (Borders of other nations)
   P.139, "What (land) is refused by amicable methods, it is up to the fist to take."
   P.255, "No half-measures; gravest/most ruthless decisions to be made."
   P.398, "Victory lies eternally and exclusively in attack."
   P.455, "Terror is only broken by equal terror."
   P.610, "The aim of a German foreign policy of today must be the preparation for the reconquest of freedom for tomorrow."
   P.611, "For the oppressed territories are led back to the bosom of a common reich, not by flaming protests, but by a mighty sword."
   P.651, "The boundaries of 1914 mean nothing at all for the German future."
   P.651, "Only childish & naive minds think to correct Versailles by wheedling and begging."
   P.652, "We National Socialists must hold unflinchingly to our aim in foreign policy, namely, to secure for the German people the land & soil to which they are entitled on this Earth."
   P.654, "Germany will either be a world power or there will be no Germany."
   P.654, "If we speak of soil in Europe today, we have in mind only Russia and her border states."
   P.660, "Let no one argue that in concluding an alliance with Russia we need not immediately think of war; an alliance whose aim does not embrace a plan for war is senseless and useless."
   P.688, (conclusion) "A state which in this age of racial poisoning dedicates itself to the care of its best racial elements must someday become Lord of the Earth."
   
   
   HITLER'S VIEWS OF THE PEOPLE:
   P.107, "Broad masses can only be moved by power of speech."
   P.341, Calls voters "Bourgeois voting cattle."
   P.375, Refers to "Unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry."
   P.465, "The NSDAP should not be the servant of the masses, but their master."
   P.577, "National Socialism must lay claim to the right to force its principles on the whole German nation."
   P.608, Calls people "Great stupid sheep's herd of patient lamb-like people."
   P.654, Refers to African nations as "Little ni***r nations."
   P.659, Openly says he appraises value of men on racial basis.
   
   ANTI-JEWISH REMARKS
   P.169, Refers to Jews as "Poisoners of people."
   P.206, "There is no making pacts with the Jews."
   P.232, Refers to Jews as "Great masters of the lie."
   P.244, Says Jews control the press.
   P.246, "A 30cm shell hisses louder than a thousand Jewish newspaper vipers, so let them hiss."
   P.255, "Clear away filth of civilization, ignoring screams."
   P.272, "Jews in the press promoted lies about Germany in WWI."
   P.308, "Once this book (Mein Kampf) is common property of the people, the Jewish menace may be considered broken."
   P.324, "The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew."
   P.351, "The Jew is the great master in lying, and lies & deceit are his weapons in struggle."
   P.453, "The first task is the elimination of the existing Jewish state."
   P.556, Accuses Jews of manipulating Northern & Southern Germans against each other in WWI.
   P.561, First uses the term "Jewish question."
   P.638, Refers to "Jewish plot to rule the world."
   P.651, "It is the inexorable Jew who struggles for domination over nations; no nation can remove this hand from its throat except by the sword, and such a process is and remains a bloody one."
   P.661,"(The Jew) goes his way, sneaking in among the nations from within; he fights with lies and slander, intensifying the struggle to the point of bloodily exterminating his hated foes."
   P.662, Says Jews are from Satan.
   P.679, "If at the beginning of the war (WWI) or during the war 12,000 or 15,000 of these Hebrew corruptors of the people had been held under poison gas, the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain."
   
   By now it should be crystal clear how evil this man was, and this book is. This book was dictated while Hitler was in prison in 1924, and published soon after. It would be nearly a decade before he gained power. You have to wonder why his opponents and other world leaders who read this book at the time did not take it more seriously, especially in the late 1930's leading up to war. It's all laid out here; his determination to dominate Europe, to ally with Russia and then betray her, his contempt for the common citizen, his lust to tear up the Versailles treaty, and his unending hatred of the Jews. He openly hints at his desire to destroy the Jewish people many times. These views are mixed in with endless, incomprehensible rambling that will put you to sleep faster than Nyquil. Still, we only have to read it; Hitler was notorious for putting his own generals to sleep with his hours-long tirades.
   In any case, at the end of the book I was left with a feeling of disbelief that the rest of the world had not seen it coming, with this material available for anyone to read. I know that hindsight is 20/20, but hopefully the next time we are confronted with this kind of insanity, we'll be a little more quick to recognize it.



2. Well in the first part of Mein Kampf Hitler wrote mostly in prison so some things may be hard to put in perspective. His ideas were of very high standards for the white man and preserving heritage. This is not a book that some might have you think will lead to coercive action. The life story is interesting and does show how one man can actually make a huge impact when acting on beliefs. Good book to read for any one. Might be an eye opener for some, antithetical to what they were taught growing up. One thing he is dead on about is the media so that assertion goes along way from his time! So read up don't get mad cause you might be a liberal or Zionist pro Jew anti gentile! Be proud of what you are no matter who you are and remember it is alright to think out side the socialized illicit receptacle.



3. Mein Kampf from a history lovers point of view, is a great read. However, if your not a fan of the history subject you may find this book to be increadibly boring, a continuous flow of long words and sentences before our time. Understanding the complete facts about the second World War, is to understand both sides. If you only keep yourself to a one sided story, your no better than any of those critics or movie makers that produce films that slander our country. Such as Ferinhight 9/11. Excuse my spelling as I'm sure I mis-spelled quite a few words in this writing. If you plan on reading this book, understand what your getting yourself into. Yes, you may find some chapters to be increadibly obscene and stupid. Yes, I had to force myself through a couple of chapters. But, I promiss if you read this book, it may very well bring you to a better understanding of what was happening politicly and personaly to the people of Germany the few years before the second World War. All in All. I felt it was a good read. Do I believe everything and agree with him on everything he has to say???.......No.....



4. [...]
   
   What I read so far is fascinating so I guess I'll have to order another version of this book so I can finish reading it.
   
   Updated 8/30/08
   ----------------
   The [...] symbol above indicates where the editors removed part of my original review. They apparently didn't like exactly the way I said something (about the real source of the paper).
   
   My point was that this book is printed on very thin paper and with low quality ink. Also the type is small. All of these factors combined made it basically impossible to read in all but ideal lighting conditions which is no good for me since I bring my books into restaurants and other places to read them.
   
   At least the copy I purchased was. Maybe I got a bad copy I don't know.
   
   I'm still reading Mein Kampf but from a different publisher where the print quality is better. I'm finding it fascinating for just the historical information alone.
   
   Plus when it was written Hitler had not yet become the famous megalomaniac we all know about today. At the time of writing he was in prison with his buddy Hess after their failed attempt to overthrow the German government.
   
   Jeff Marzano
   
   The Mind of Adolf Hitler the Secret Wartime Report
   
   The Gulag Archipelago: 1918-1956
   
   First Circle
   
   Clint Eastwood Collection: Where Eagles Dare



5. I've given "Mein Kampf" 5 stars based on its historical importance, not on its literary or organizational quality. As a literary effort, the book is a disaster. It is an absolute whirlwind of ideas, observations and prejudices. Hitler repeats himself time and again and rarely follows an idea to its conclusion. Hitler would have done well to have employed a first-class editor but, given his ego, this was not a possibility. Perhaps it is even more remarkable that this thing became the Bible of the Third Reich and was actually given as a wedding present to all newly married German couples. I have little doubt that some of Hitler's true believers must have recognized the book's defects but were afraid to make any real criticism. This, in fact, is one of the real problems with leadership--dictatorships in particular. The leader almost automatically is insulated by a thick layer of 'yes-men' afraid to speak the truth. A fairly recent and egregious example of this was Sadam Hussein's inability to recognize that he was staring down the twin barrels of an American shotgun about to blow his head off. His numerous syncophants were too terrified of Hussein's lethal anger to speak the truth.
   
   Even so, the book is of value to the insightful historian. Hitler, in his own words, tells of the forces that shaped his belief system. To be certain, he frequently lies, perhaps to himself as well as the reader but even lies can lead to the truth. Antisemitism is not the main emphasis of this work but it's there. He claims, disingenuously I'm sure, that he never even heard the word 'Jew' while living at home i.e. that his anti-Jewish opinions were the product of personal observations of Vienna Jews. Then he turns around and cites the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' as proof of Jewish malignancy. He hints darkly that the 'Jews will get theirs' but doesn't elaborate.
   
   Much of 'Mein Kamp' is a bitter diatribe against the extinct Austria-Hungary. His hatred--and Hitler has a lot of hatred--is partly because the A-H Empire sucked Germany into WWI but also because the Empire had become a polyglot of peoples [make that slavs] many of whom had positions in the Austro-Hungarian Parliament. Young Hitler, starving in Vienna and with time on his hands, seems to have spent a significant amount of time observing the parliamentary wrangling which he likens to something like the cacophony at the Tower of Babel. He describes how his observations pushed him towards anti-democratic beliefs.
   
   He makes a fairly insightful statement. He writes that in parliamentary democracy there is no one to take real responsibility. If things go right, everyone takes the credit. If things go wrong everyone points to members of the opposite party. How much better, he writes portentuously, that one man take responsibility, a person who is big enough to take both the credit and blame. Of course, this is precisely what Hitler eventually did.
   
   He pats himself on the back many times. He hates the Communists but not individual German Communists who he sees as men, much like himself, who are aimless, post war wanderers looking for solutions. He cites a number of cases in which Communist goons enter his beer hall meetings in order to heckle and break things up. He claims that these same goons walk away convinced Nazis.
   
   Is it true? Maybe. Communists appealed to 'true believers' as did the Nazis. As Erich Hofer writes in his 'True Believer', it is not possible to convince a true believer but you can convert him. Hitler was a powerful and charasmatic speaker and no doubt appealed to true believers--even Communists--seeking for answers. I've even heard the testimonies of two Jewish men who were prevailed on to attend a Hitler speech. Both testify as to the power of the event and how, before the speech was over, they too felt a need to 'do something about the Jews.'
   
   Hitler writes that one of Germany's greatest blunders in WWI was to fight a two front war. Of course, Germany had little alternative because Russia and the Western Entente declared war on Germany almost simultaneously. We, in reading Hitler's book have knowledge how he actually performed when he came into power. Early on, most of his moves were fairly reasoned and were, of course, extremely lucky. He was able to make a treaty with Soviet Russia and the West backed down time and again. It started to come apart when he invaded Poland but again--and against the advice of his generals--he proved incredibly successful against the Poles and then the French.
   
   He was stymied by the English...but...if he had continued to exert full force against the English he might very well have proved successful in driving England out of the War. He did something both remarkable and inexplicable. He invaded his erstwhile partner, Soviet Russia--leaving the fighting English on his flank. In doing so he directly contravened his own military advisors and, more particularly, his own advice in 'Mein Kampf'. Why?
   
   For what it's worth, I'll offer several possibilities. Following his own star, Hitler had proven ridiculously successful even in the face of detractors. He may have believed that he was fated to achieve victory...no matter what. Another explanation is that Hitler really didn't want to destroy England. He reckoned that they were fellow Aryans and would sooner-or-later partner with him. They were, in his opinion, neutralized by his occupation of Europe and U-boats. On the other hand, this would have been a truly stupid conclusion. The English had battled valiantly and showed every sign that they would fight on.
   
   My own suspicion is that Hitler, who was probably bipolar, was starting to feel the effects of his physician's daily amphetamine injections. Hitler became, quite simulataneously, increasingly grandiose and paranoid. He thought he could fly over tall buildings. He couldn't miss. Proof? His subsequent personal and military behaviour. Time and again he made increasingly stupid military decisions. Some of the more remarkable were his orders to Rommel, defeated in North Africa, and von Paulus, surrounded at Stalingrad, not to retreat. Rommel disobeyed orders and his army lived to fight another day. Von Paulus followed orders and lost an army of 340,000 men. Another is at Kursk, the largest battle in world history. Hitler and his staff had evidence that the battle plan was compromised but went for it anyway and lost big.
   
   Another is the D-Day invasion. Hitler's staffers, terrified of his towering anger, didn't wake him up to tell him the truth. The Battle of the Bulge is another. The war was all but over but he organized his scant reserves--forces that could have been better used to slow the advancing Russians--to try to force something like a major victory against the Western Allies. Again Hitler only managed to hasten his end.
   
   Ron

5 comments about Queen Emma: A History of Power, Love, and Greed in 11th-Century England.

1. History is full of powerful and intriguing women, and Queen Emma definitely was one of them. If you can appreciate that fact as well, you will appreciate this book. I love that Amazon can find these gems I may not see in the bookstores.



2. There are a couple of facts we need to remember when reading this particular book. First, and this is important, it, the book, is not a Doctorial Thesis and it is not written as such. This is a popular historical work, meant to inform, but at the same time, to entertain. Secondly, I too, like a couple of other reviewers, was a bit disappointed that more was not written about the main character, Emma, her personal life, etc. This leads to the second fact we must remember. Source documents from this era, in particular personal histories, are very, very hard to come by. Most documents from this time have simply disappeared, have been destroyed, or are lost in some historical black hole. This being said and this being remembered, as the book is being read, might help.
   
   The author has given us a fascinating look into the life and politics during the latter part of the first century. A very troubled time for England, and indeed, most of Europe. True, she, the author, does not go into the depth of her subject as many of us would like, but as I have stated, the author had very few source documents of refer to. This work is done in the "popular mode," and is quite readable. The author has taken great pains to let us know when she is stating documented facts and when she drifts into the realm of speculation. This is important to understand what the author is trying to do. I found the author's style far from dry, considering the subject matter. Queen Emma was indeed a complex and fascinating woman and the author has gone to great lengths to bring this across.
   
   This is one of those book I like to call a "tickler," or "seed book." It gives information to those who are interested in a subject, but not fanatical about it. My primary interest is in New World History, but I do like to know where we came from. Works such as this give me as much information as I need for my purposes. Granted, if I were doing a research paper, or was extremely interested in the subject, I would indeed want more. As it stands though, this work gave me a wonder glance into those days and times. Now that I have this information, I find I do have an interest and this work has "tickled" me into checking other works out. This is a good thing. Perhaps one day I could land a nice juicy government grant, travel to England, and check out some of the source documents myself. Would not that be fun!
   
   All in all, I found the work to be very well done, enjoyable to read and quite helpful. I do recommend this one for any individual interested in those days and times and the Queen Emma.



3. Emma of Normandy was the daughter of Richard I and his Danish "handfast" wife, Gunnor, whose origins are obscure. She married Aethelred II of England, was widowed, and married the Danish invader, Canute the Great the next year. One of her sons by each husband subsequently ruled England. She also became the mother-in-law of Henry III of Germany and was the great-aunt of William the Conqueror. But Emma wasn't the typical royal spouse. She learned how to wield power, played an expert political game, and suffered the failings of greed and scandal. Because of her wide and deep connections between the conquering Danes and Normans and the conquered English, this lively, well-written volume is more than a biography. Though the author is a journalist rather than an academic, she has produced a popular history with thorough source citations that is well worth the reading.



4. If you like Medieval history and the history of continuous Viking raids on England, maybe you'll find this book enjoyable. For me, it was a huge disappointment. The author appears to have no concrete evidence about Queen Emma's public or private life, reign, whereabouts during specific periods in British history, children, marriages, or anything else surrounding the book's main topic. Although a short read, it is dry and without enthusiasm. The book's main subject, Emma, is incidental throughout the entire "biography." Emma happened to be the English queen during Viking raids and that's about it. There is plenty of guess-work on the part of the author about what Emma might have done, might have seen, might have said or read, but there's nothing solid or concrete. There are, however, some interesting insights into Medieval life at the time of Emma's reign but that's about it.



5. The century or two leading up to the Norman Conquest is a favorite historical period for me, and I've read a number of books balanced roughly on the fulcrum of the year 1000, give or take. And Ms. O'Brien's was a very worthwhile addition to them. Like another reviewer, though, I wished for more on Emma -- or Aelfgifu as the Anglo-Saxons called her. Still, the book was quite a worthwhile and well-written portrait of the times and the characters involved in those fateful years.
   
   And I still say Harold got a raw deal. Arrow in the eye (at least, according to the Bayeux Tapestry) -- that's gotta hurt! ;)