No comments about The Valois: Kings of France 1328-1589.

1 comments about Charles A. Lindbergh and the battle against American intervention in World War II.

1. Today we're used to the ritual of the media building a 'star' and then sacrificing them on the altar of publicity. Diana. John Lennon. Lindbergh, the son of a WW1 Congressman, was one of the first to go. The celebrity that followed his epic flight forced him to reclusivity. A devastating low blow was dealt by papparazzi breaking into the autopsy room to photograph the dead body of his kidnapped son. The aviator thus turned against the press, and they never forgave him for it.
   
   Written with interviews and full access to Lindbergh's private papers, this book demonstrates why Wayne S Cole is "the" historian of WW2 non-interventionism.
   
   Lindbergh Senior was an "old school" foe of entry into WW1. His opposition derived from an agrarian radicalism with roots deep in Jeffersonian soil. Cole has already ably analysed agrarian 'isolationism' in his book onNorth Dakota's Senator Nye. Lindbergh Junior explicitly rejected father's approach and it's opposition to to "big Eastern money". Maybe that was his mistake.
   
   Cole doesn't provide a full biography, he focuses mainly on Charles' career in the movement up to and through World War Two. And into the '60s, by which time Linbergh, somewhat ahead of his time, espoused the cause of indigenous peoples and wilderness before they became fashions for a new generation of celebrities. In the war, denied by a spiteful administration an opportunity to fight with his beloved USAAF, Linbergh worked as a civilian consultant improving the range and armament load of Navy fighters. Despite old age for a pilot, he spent enough time at the front to personally down a Japanese aircraft. This wartime 'quasi-military' career reprised the pre-war career that led him to both non-interventionism and notoriety.
   
   In the thirties the US government's air force capitalised on Air Force Reserve Colonel Lindbergh's international fame by encouraging him to tour the air ministries and industries of europe. His access furnished confidential reports to the USAAF that were, as Cole reports, highly appreciated, and for the most part, in line with their assessments from other sources. It was on this assignment, in the company of a US ambassador, that Goering's surprise award of a medal was made. An incident that gained notoriety only after Lindbergh went public with his anti-war views.
   
   Lindbergh's non-interventionism in many ways paralleled the new internationalism of the interventionists. Based not on his father's localism, Junior had wider concerns for the fate of western civilisation. He believed a war in europe would weaken the west as a whole, only to benefit the USSR and the growing power of Asia. This geopolitical analysis should be considered mundane today as almost all accounts trace the end of the empire to WWII. But it was clothed in racialist terminology, rightfully unacceptable today, but still flourishing in the rhetoric of all parties then. Indeed two decades after Lindbergh, Churchill was still writing histories that elevated anglo-saxons in terms that, to unsympathetic modern ears, smack of 'master race' status.
   
   The new world aviator put air power at the centre. To Lindbergh, American air power not the Royal Navy was the guardian of North America and with a focused effort undistracted by expensive and dubious foreign campaigns, investment in aviation research would make America invulnerable. Such a position, whether right or wrong, should not of itself really be considered surprising from a senior official of NACA, the government aeronautical bureau that would become NASA. And it would seem Lindbergh's views must have had some currency in the Air Force.
   
   Cole only seriously tests one point of Lindbergh's overall analysis. Maybe he should have done more. Cole doesn't mention it but Lindbergh's main prophetic error was in exagerating the importance of aircraft. This occupational hazard was certainly not his alone. Note the later belief that bombers could win wars. It led him to over-estimate the figthing prowess of the Luftwaffe, which was not unreasonably seen as europe's premier air force in the late 1930s. But, in hindsight, it was probably radar, not aircraft, that won the war, even if the atomic bomb ended it. And radar, at least centimetric band radar, was really the product of the world's first true "military-industrial-scientific complex". Britain's. Germany may have had better generals, scientists and industrialists but their coordination was inferior. The reich's industrial tail was divided into uncommunicative "silos" to use corporate-speak.
   
   Cole provides insights into "The Great Debate". I was surprised to learn that the leadership of America First had virtually given up three months before Pearl Harbor in the wake of FDR's "shoot in sight" order to the Navy. They saw this as a de facto declaration of war merely waiting a response from Hitler. They considered folding up shop there and then. And the debate lines were not clearly marked. William Whtyte, the midwestern newspaperman, handpicked by FDR to lead a 'grassroots' public group to support the "all aid short of war" was himself ultimately removed as he apparently really believed in aid, short of, ...but not including..., war. Cole examines Lindbergh's Des Moines speech in detail and provides a chapter dedicated to each of the groups Lindbergh accused of pushing for war, and their reactions to the speech. It generated a furore of criticism from non-interventionists and interventionists alike for it's alleged anti-semitism. Cole suggests the speech may even have been, at least in part, deliberately self destructive. In any event politics magnified the event and Cole finds nothing in Lindbergh's personal papers to find him anti-jewish.
   
   Indeed about the "worst" charge against him that bears the historical support, at least based on the evidence presented here, is pessimism. Or, to those determined to be pejorative, defeatism. But then again, if action speaks louder than words, Linbergh's personal actions in the war years were hardly the behaviour of a defeatist.
   
   As mentioned above, Cole makes one test of Lindbergh's analysis, his pessimistic predictions of the war to come. Cole sees them as, if anything, a near miss. We can easily overlook that the Nazi-Soviet war broke out only six months before Pearl Harbor. If it hadn't been for the Eastern Front, any invading Americans presumably would have faced much stronger German forces than they actually did on D-Day. Up to seven million German troops were killed or captured fighting the Red Army. Had they been deployed west rather than east, victory may not have been as "easy". Most of the former 'isolationist' leaders, including Vandenburg, who became an outright WW2 and cold war internationalist, never conceded any pre-war error. Their position does not seem extreme. Nor was Lindbergh's. He never joined Robert Taft in his post-war opposition to NATO and the Marshall Plan. Post-war Lindbergh became more of an Eisenhower Republican convinced that with the damage already done, American troops and dollars would be needed in Europe for decades.
   
   Lindbergh proved remarkably forgiving to those who plainly smeared him. Talking to Cole in the late sixties he noted that public figures cannot expect gentle treatment. His father suffered worse. And unlike the Vietnam issue, then raging, the Great Debate had been argued without violence. Cole reminds us that Lindbergh still remains something of a lost hero to modern Americans. Unlike the Cold War mud thrown by Joe McCarthy, WW2 mud, perhaps even more groundless continues to stick. It's long past the time Lindbergh was given permission to land. Recommended.

5 comments about Diana: Secrets & Lies.

1. Why on earth was this woman's life and death anything but a personal tragedy to her family?! (And her two decades long feathery, matronly before her time, bowl cut a great fashion tragedy. For all their animus, I think Camilla Parker Bowles and Diana shared the same hairdresser.) Why do Americans of all people care?



2. I too believe that Nicholas Davies is a little toad who hated the Princess. His book was total crap and it is so obvious he is writing it to get money for himself. Don't waste your money!



3. Well if I'm not greatly mistaken this is published by the same people who published National Inquirer, The Glove and The Star. Enough Said. It's just rumours put into a book.
   I mean whatever gossip that's been on the royals that's been out there for the pass 30 or 40 years is thrown in this book.
   It's a great titles at least the LIES part.
   I love the rumour which has been going around since it was disclose Diana had the misfortune to chose James "the cad" Hewitt as a lover that he's the father of Prince Harry. Well as been stated many times they didn't meet or start their affair until 1986 with Harry being born 1984 but why let that stop you Nicholas Davis? What has been know of Hewitt is since the affair ended he has done whatever he could to make money of this affair giving interviews, writing books, trying to sell her love letters to him proves he's totally without character so if there was even a remote possiblity he could be Harry's father don't you think he would milk it for what it's worth??? Plus if the Royal Family wanted to murdered an annoying person who better then Hewitt especially should there be an ounce of truth to him being Harry's father. As someone else stated red hair is a family trait just look at the present Earl Spencer plus Lady Sarah and Lady Jane truth is Diana was the only one without red hair it's fairly obvious that a child of her would have red hair.
   I have read about Princess Diana since she got engaged to Prince Charles in Feb. 24'81 so I feel I'm pretty knowledgeable but this book it's from the gutter. I bet this wasn't published in the U.K. it's too libel???? Total total trash save your money.
   PS Wish I could get it no stars it's that horrible.



4. Hurray, Nicholas Davies! The cover caught me, but the book held me, continously from beginning to end. I couldn't put it down! You bring to light some issues and points worth thinking about. Any reader out there is a fool to think they understand the whole story just by having read one book. You must read many books on the subject from different authors, different perspectives to only begin to put the whole complex puzzle together. I recommend this book!! The Royal history it provides gives it even more depth. A must read!!



5. Such a big deal was made of his courage to tell the truth about Princess Diana's death, well one chapter doesn't explain it. In fact this book is about beating up on a woman that was loved by many. Luck for Princess Diana the public will love her no matter what a money hungry writer will say. Also shame on the people(magazine writers)that misrepresented this book. Total disappointed and a waste of time and money

No comments about King John (The Medieval World).

3 comments about Anne Boleyn.

1. I loved this book. Lofts, generally credited as a romance writer, is an intelligent, insightful biographer who isn't afraid to let her passion for the subject show. It would have benefited by being longer, but stands as a wonderful introduction to Anne. Some of the information is superseded by more recent researchers, but Loft's novelist's skill at pinpointing what motivates people really brings Anne & her contemporaries to life. Genuine psychological insight isn't lacking, & the book is lavishly illustrated. Buy it today.



2. I just got this book again because this is the book I checked out from the library when I was 12 which started my lifelong enchantment, fascination and passion for Anne....and for english history. It's an easy, but very informative read. And there are many gorgeous illustrations, and some unusual ones as well.
   
   Lofts always has a wonderful sense of history and her writing is intuitive and deeper than most.



3. This biography of Anne Boleyn is short and quite accurate. There are a ton of illustrations in the book that really contribute to the overall effect. I life the fact that the author didn't overly sypathize with Mistress Anne but didn't try to persecute her either.

   A great book for someone who wants to learn more about history but doesn't have time to delve into a 500 page book that is full of dry, useless information.

No comments about Lee Boo of Belau: A Prince in London (South Sea Books).

2 comments about Queen and Consort: Elizabeth and Phillip: 60 Years of Marriage.

1. Excellent in every way. I enjoyed very much and would highly recommend to anyone.



2. This was a gift for my mother-in-law. She is a Queen Elizabeth buff and from what I gather she liked this selection.

2 comments about Charles I.

1. Hilaire Belloc's 1933 biography of Charles I is one in a series of historical biographies written by the controversial author. Belloc's historical works have often been discounted as careless or blatantly inaccurate. Indeed, there are no footnotes, no endnotes, nor even an index to his biography of Charles I. The forward and the introduction do an admirable job trying to convince the reader that Belloc's work is indeed serious historical study, and I have to admit that after reading the forward and the introduction I was looking forward to a more literary, if not wholly accurate, narrative of the life of Charles I.
   
   Sadly, the narrative is not compelling. Belloc takes a fascinating subject and makes him, in many places, quite boring by focusing on his overriding political theme: that the landed aristocracy was essentially greedy, and that the monarch stood in the way of the aristocracy's attempt to gain more wealth. In furthering this theme, the biography is filled with an open disdain for Parliament, and a desperate attempt to discount any other causes of the civil war. For example, Belloc attempts to significantly downplay the impact of Puritanism (and religion in general) as a cause of the civil war.
   
   Belloc's focus on politics also ignores other highly interesting personal aspects of the life of Charles Stuart. Take, for example, the episode of Charles' youth where Charles and Buckingham travel, incognito, to the continent to court the Spanish infanta. Belloc dwells on the political failure of this endeavor, and misses completely the highly compelling personal drama. Likewise, Belloc does not explore the King's personal relationships with his sister or wife. This book is solely an exploration of the political climate of the reign of Charles I; it is not a full exploration of the life (especially personal life) of Charles. While the causes of the civil war and the political climate of the time are obviously important and interesting, Belloc fails to shed any light on Charles Stuart as a flesh and blood person. This failure, in my opinion, produces an incomplete picture as to how and why the monarchy was overthrown.
   
   Belloc's other prejudices, in addition to his disdain for Parliament, creep into the book. Throughout the last third of the book Belloc makes disparaging comments about Puritans (Belloc was a staunch Catholic). As another example, Belloc is openly hostile in his few comments on the reign of Elizabeth I. If you were to believe Belloc, Elizabeth was an old fool who, rightly says Belloc, left the important business of governing the country to men (the Cecils). This is not surprising, as Belloc once said "I am opposed to women's voting . . . I call it immoral, because I think the bringing of one's women, one's mothers and sisters into the political arena, disturbs the relations between the sexes."
   
   If you are truly interested in Charles I, do not waste your time with this highly biased biography. Instead, read Pauline Gregg's fascinating work on the life of Charles Stuart.



2. Peerless historian Hilaire Belloc here describes with his wonderful and virile prose the saga of Charles I of England. In a way, the regicide of Charles at the hands of Protestant revolutionaries prefigured the later acts of the Jacobins in murdering Louis XVI and the Bolsheviks in murdering Czar Saint Nicholas II. The three revolutionary activities had in common their culminating scene, that being the killing of the King. Of course, there are differences. The Bolsheviks killed not just the saintly Romanov, but his entire family, and left behind their occult sigil on the blood stained walls of the cellar in which their ghastly deed was performed. In any case, Belloc begins the saga here with the life and death of Charles Stuart, his regicide being one of the culminating acts of the Protestant Revolution and one of the initiating acts of the international conspiracy against authority that is still, sadly, ongoing. For the serious student of history, this is a must read.

1 comments about David I: The King Who Made Scotland (Revealing History).

1. A great look at King David I of Scotland. Very informative and well written. With several older brothers David never expected to be King he spent most of his time before then in the background or riding the coat tails of his sister Edith/Matilda Queen of England before becoming King of Scotland. Even after becoming King he still had to worry about other relatives trying to take the throne with him while trying to establish a archbishop in Scotland instead having to rely on the English on among other things. Its a great book

No comments about THE UNRULY QUEEN: LIFE OF QUEEN CAROLINE.