4 comments about Kitchener: Architect of Victory, Artisan of Peace.

1. Though it is now possible to recognise Kitchener as the architect of a British victory that he did not live to see in the Great War, he has often come across as a stiff, remote and unimaginative figure. This first volume of a two-part biography goes far to change that impression and portrays Kitchener as a sensitive man of high intelligence, capable of great affection, loyalty and kindness. His apparent shyness is here revealed to have been a result of chronic eye problems, which he was largely successful in covering up, while a serious facial wound left him with an almost invariably severe impression. A delightful photograph in this book, which is new to this reviewer at least, showing Kitchener beaming as he is reunited in Britain with the Cameron Highlanders who provided his personal escort in South Africa, reveals a totally different side to the conventional picture.

   This biography makes for easy reading - and is a suitable companion piece to Mr.Pollock's excellent earlier work on that other great Royal Engineer, Charles Gordon, Kitchener's idol. The life here described is one of enviable adventure, admirable courage and daunting responsibility. Kitchener emerges not just as an ideal engineer and manager, but as a man of considerable daring and initiative, with an uncanny ability to pick up languages quickly, to understand alien cultures, and to evoke loyalty from peoples of widely differing racial and religious backgrounds. His diplomatic skills are also seen to be of a high order, as exemplified by his handling of the Fashoda incident and his efforts to bring the Boer War to a negotiated settlement. Somewhat of a surprise is the extent to which strong but unostentatious religious convictions underpinned his behaviour. A virtue of this biography is that Kitchener is portrayed as a man of his time, and judged as such, without projection of twenty-first century values on him - typical being the manner in which speculations by later biographers as to possible homosexuality are robustly dismissed in an appendix. This is one of those rare biographies that one would have wished to have been considerably longer. One would have welcomed considerably more detail on the more minor battles in the Sudan, such as Firket and Um Diyaykarat. This small gripe apart, this book is a splendid treat for aficionados of the Victorian period and one looks forward with impatience to the second volume.




2. Lord Kitchner has an apologist in Mr. Pollock. If you are expecting an objective historical account, I do not recommend this book. The lack of objective thought makes one suspect that the book was written during the Victorian period and not at the start of the twenty-first century. Examples abound, but I will site two as representative. Rumors that Lord K was a homosexual because he never married and was very found of young adjutants are dismissed by Mr. Pollock as a modern bias that would make anyone fond of young men and not a womanizer a homosexual. That is not historical writing from sources, it is the opinion of the author in the nature of conjecture. Secondly, Mr. Pollack dismisses the Murant incident during the Boer war as a subject for "fiction" writers, after admitting that in a suspicious case Kitchner signed the execution papers and then made himself indisposed to appeals for clemency. Why did K do that Mr. Pollock? To answer that, by historical research is your task as a historian. Instead of research we have evasion of the issue. This blot on Lord Kitchner's reputation cannot be dismissed by an objective historian via relegating it to the dustbin of history, with a comment that the incident is a good one for fiction writers.



3. I read a review on here and chose not to read this book - boy how stupid I would have been and what I would have missed! I got this book and am beginning the final fourth: this is a comprehensive biography and a competent one. I'll say that again farther down, but this author has done a tremendous job with a remarkable life in an important time, a man at the center of many events and doings forming parts of our world and helping to define the 'our time' of those who came before us, which we inherited.
   Firstly, this author devotes an entire appendix to the sexual question, and whether or not a reader agrees with the conclusions the issue is quite addressed.
   
   Now that is remarked, time to move on: one does not have to be a detractor, busting the myths of good deeds of a life, to be a biographer, in fact most have some reason for writing on a person, often a fan or at least appreciating some things that personage did: this author has given us a very full and balanced account of a man who, while far less than perfect, gave what was needed during some difficult and climaxing British times: keen confidence and loyal leadership. K was most certainly not perfect, and Pollock shows how K made many mistakes, sometimes noticing the thing himself and regretting, and sometimes not noticing then hearing a friend point it out, then agreeing and regretting. He was great at deciding and issuing orders yet not remarkable at chatting, no manoeuvering manipulator here; not great at the rubbing elbows and chatting or curbing his tongue in subtle areas; his biggest problem came from errantly speaking his mind then finding himself used by a consumate and macchiavellian politician. K was no brilliant politician and made mistakes; but he came into his own in the Sudan command and knew how to run the India Army, or any army; he also made a huge difference in realizing what the first year of the great war would require and getting that going in the face of great opposition. The man did not lack personal and political courage.
   
   But this author has done the main job of a biographer, showing how this man came to do the achievements and leadership he did at critical times by showing the personality's development and viewpoint: showing from where and how he came, and how those he knew and events he experienced affected and formed him to be the shy yet confident man he became, learning by trial and fire as he went, with flawed facets and yet a rare magnetism and decisiveness others required, enjoyed and benefited from. If I had been a colonel recalled from a field command to plan and slave for some senior potentate, I would have enjoyed doing it for K for the same reasons his staffs appreciated him and were loyal: he earned his colonelcy and his generalship by decisive plans and actions, loyalty to friends and fellows, and a keen mind properly bent to the joint struggles and joint end. I now must go read the other biographies of this author I previously had never heard of, but I can greatly recommend this comprehensive and professionally thorough biography including the hallmarks of a well-done one: just have a read at his tremendous sources, including archives and private letters, a great lot of endnotes, bibliographies including manuscripts and newspapers of the times. Even if you care not for the man, you can get a good view of the critical and shaping times across continents between 1880 and 1916, the year K was killed with his staff upon the mined cruiser traveling to Russia for important allied meetings.
   
   This thing is huge with a ton of primary sources woven into dialog and indented paras to show us not only what they did but how these critically placed people felt about each other: this book tells the events and more, but rather than making me put it down every three pages - I would look up after twenty and realize I'm late for something.



4. K was a military guy with a big moustache and similar ego whose speciality was occasionally slaughtering thousands of locals in one of the many outposts of the outsize British Empire (Sudan, Egypt, India). His training as an engineer brought a new dimension to military thinking - the importance of logistics (surely only K could have thought it possible to build a railway in order to bring his army to the battlefield). In this he was a prototype for modern military commanders like Rommel and perhaps Patton. When many predicted at the beginning of WW1 that it would be over by Christmas, he said three years. He's a hard guy to read (or even like) but if you wish to know more about his professional career this book has it all.

1 comments about Somerled: Hammer of the Norse.

1. This is the best history of Somerled I have read! I have read seven others and this is the first author to examine all of the conflicting source materials and present them to the reader to draw their own conclusion. The other historians seemed to discedit Clan Donald histories about their ancestor and except the writings of Somerled's adversaries as gospel. This author presented both sides and added her perspective on reasons for the conflicting accounts. She showed faith that her reader could draw logical conclusions if empowered with all of the information. The reader is immediately aware that this author is presenting Somerled from the perspective of a Highlander. Thank you Kathlene MacPhee for this unique perspective on our ancestor.

No comments about Final Witness: My Journey from the Holocaust to Ireland.

5 comments about The Desert Generals (Cmp).

1. In this book, Barnett again demonstrates a unique ability to dissect high command. Barnett was ahead of his time with his critical analysis of Montgomery. The latest edition includes a section which details the extent to which the allies in North Africa knew in advance what Rommel's moves would be, thanks to ULTRA intercepts. With this additional information, Montgomery's cautious conduct of the campaign in North Africa comes into even greater question. Barnett also details how the British, under O'Connor, were on the verge of driving the Italians from North Africa in 1940, but instead chose to send an expeditionary force to Greece on what was basically a poltical mission masterminded by Winston Churchill. That mission, like Churchill's foray into Gallipoli during the First World War, collapsed and Axis forces were not cleared from North Africa until early 1943. This book is highly recommended for anyone who enjoyed *Hitler's Generals* or *Swordbearers*, both also by Barnett, or anyone interested in the history of the Second World War, North African theater.



2. I recently took part in an online discussion over the merits of O'Connor and Montgomery and came to the conclusion that my knowledge was lacking on the details of their respective attributes as General Officers in the field, so when I came accross this book I thought "Just what I want".

   Once I read the introduction however, whilst assuming the details and history to be correct, what jaundiced my view was that the purpose of the book was to "prove" that Montgomery inherited his good actions from Auchinleck as opposed to 'creating' them himself. This raised the possibility of a 'slant' to the text in order to "prove" the authors contention.

   Having said that, I thoroughly 'enjoyed' the read which was most informative.




3. I don't think I may have read a better account of Desert War than Barnett's Desert Generals.By all means a revisionist history ,the book traces the careers of five British Generals in North Africa: O'Connor,Cunnigham,Ritchie,Auchinleck,Montgomery.Their operations represent collective British effort in preventing Rommel's Deutsche Afrika Korps from seizing Egypt, Middle East.
   
   The book opens with brilliant campaign of Maj Gen O'Connor which began as a raid but climaxed in the Battle of Bedda Fomm resulting in the destruction Rudolpho Graziani's Italian Tenth army.Unfortunately British political establishment in London failed to exploit this victory.O'Connor's Western Desert force could have easily taken Tripolitania thus completing the conquest of Italian North African empire.Instead forces were diverted to Greece .This was a blunder of monumental proportions for which Churchill must be held accountable.
   
   The diversion prolonged North African campaign,for it helped Germans land troops in Tripolitania.Besides forces assigned to the Far East were sucked into the defence of egypt ;consequently British were unable to resist Japanese onslaught.Author also is highly critical of Churchill's direction of war in North African theatre.PMs continous prodding led to Battle Axe-premature offensive to defeat Rommel-which ended in a fiasco.Ultimately Gen Wavell was made the scapegoatand had to resign.
   
   Poor British performance continued under generals who succeded O'Connor.How can we explain heavy British defeats in Desert War?
   Author says this was due to poor,faulty armoured tactics.During Crusader offensive General Cunnigham split the armour across length and breadth of the battle field.Instead armour should have been massed enabling it to strike like a clenched fist.Cardinal failure of British was unlike Germans they failed to organise Combined Arms Teams with tank as the pivot.Mad onrush of tanks against fixed German defences without artillery support led to heavy losses.Barnett attributes this to comparmentalised,orthodox ,regimental tradition of British army.
   
   British tactical conduct of battle improved considerably under Gen Auchinleck's dynamic leadership.Author calls Auk as the man who saved Egypt.Against this it must be said when Rommel started probing Egypt's defences Afrika korps had shot its bolt.Ammunition and fuel shortages -due to failure of Axis High Command to neutralise Malta-crippled the movement of German armour.Besides Rommel had lost the services of his efficent Radio Intelligence Service commanded by Alfred Seebohm.With the result he had no idea of British plans ,intentions ,capabilities and was now boxing in the dark.
   
   On the other hand his opponent had a clear picture of Rommel's intentions thanks to Enigma decrypts.Auchinleck's calculated aggression helped British defend Egypt.Swift punches here, there unhinged Rommel throwing his battle plans into disarray.
   
   The book contains virulent criticism of Montgomery's generalship.Firstly ,author condemns Montgomery for claiming credit for repelling Rommel at Alam Halfa.Facts show the plan for repelling German assault had been devised by Auchinleck with the help of his brilliant chief of staff Eric Dorman Smith.Montgomery while becoming Commander of desert army inherited those plans and put them into effect.With the battle progressing favorably ,Montgomery ,according to the author,botched the opportunity of annhilating Rommel's Panzer Armee.He could have done so by unleashing his armour from Alam Halfa ridge which would have descended into the Africa Korps rear- at a time when it had bitten deep into British defences-severing it from its base.There would have been no El-Alamein then.
   
   Further author impugns the wisdom of fighting this set- piece battle.Auchinleck's successful defence of Egypt prompted the Allies to sent a expeditionary force to North Africa.Landings which were to be effected on Rommel's rear would have compelled him to abandon fixed defences and withdraw.British then could have launched their superior mechanised forces to cut off retreating Germans.Instead yearning for national prestige made them fight a battle which came close to disaster.
   
   Author faults Montgomery's breakthrough plan .Armour was used a battering ram.Sheer weight of metal helped Eighth Army hack,crunch their way through German defences.Despite suffering tremendous losses Montgomery knew that victory would be his.Thanks to Ultra, he knew German strength was ebbing away.If he could sustain this attrition for few more days enemy would break.This happened precisely.Despite possessing superior mobility British failed to cut off retreating Germans owing to the chaotic nature of their advance.
   
   All the above are intresting observations which have combined to demolish Montgomery myth.No doubt book raised a storm when it was first published in 1960.I feel author has displayed remarkable courage,intellectual honesty in challenging the established views which made this book military classic.



4. Barnett's "warts and all" bios of so many of the British officers involved in the African campaign stirred up the Montgomery worshippers, despite the length of the rest of the work when compared with the section on Montgomery's command. The author succeeded with the original edition because of his reliance on facts already of record; the later editions beginning in the 1980s included the revelations from the declassified Ultra program. At the end of each section Barnett has new commentary based on the new information available, but apart from one or perhaps two instances, finds even more support for his conclusions, and often enough, more reason to criticize the Montgomery deification. The original edition remains intact within the new edition, which is an excellent approach.
   
   Winston Churchill is criticized for his incoherent meddling. A great war leader like Churchill is bound to have made really monumental blunders, and did. By forcing one of his African commanders to launch an unwinnable and (at best) ill-advised to save Greece, he prolonged the war in Africa by two years. Auchinleck and Dorman-Smith produced the plan which defeated Rommel, beat Rommel, and were then relieved by Churchill. Montgomery's victory at Second el Alamein cost him more than half of his tanks and ended with Monty's failure to chase and catch Rommel before he could slip back to Europe. And the "victory" was entirely due to Hitler's failure to resupply Rommel; its timing was determined by the landing of US troops far behind Rommel, which was the cause of Rommel's retreat.
   
   Barnett's use of sources is splendid. He relies on British sources, but also uses German and Italian sources thoroughly and appropriately to illuminate the back and forth struggle in North Africa.
   
   Regarding "What If" scenarios -- Despite some claims to the contrary, the threat to Allied war efforts posed by the loss of the Middle East was real and serious. Loss of the Middle Eastern oilfields would have crippled, even eliminated, the British fleet, opening the road to a German invasion of Britain, thereby ending any possibility of a western, second front such as the one opened on D-Day. At best, it would have required even more US convoys; the few dozen miles of English Channel was a terrible logistical obstacle to the use of Allied armed forces after D-Day (although that can in large part be attributed to Montgomery).
   
   Loss of the Suez Canal would have cut the British Empire in two, leaving the Far East the exclusive domain of the Japanese. Luckily, Germany was led by a military bungler and meddler worse than any other produced in the 20th century.
   
   Omar Bradley's "A Soldier's Story" has some more truthfully negative remarks about Montgomery, and is also worth reading to find those.



5. What follows is from the preface of Desert Generals, and it is THE reason to read this book:
   
   "The theme of this book is the struggle of individual will against circumstance. The subject matter is human characer. In these five uncommon men during the Desert Campaigns (of World War II), as in the condensed action of a tragedy, were displayed nobility, frailty, resolution, loyalty, indecison, vanity, fear, simplicity, selfishness, greatness and littleness..."
   
   "Desert Generals" delivers all of that and more..much more.
   
   And make it six generals, not five. The Desert Fox, Erwin Rommel, must be included as well. Six generals, five British, one German, a study in character, leadership, the lack of it, and meddling politicians in a time of war.
   
   Good read. Very good. It's about men, not war.

No comments about The Course of My Life: The Autobiography of Edward Heath.

3 comments about Churchill and War.

1. A book for all those interested in the martial side of the great British statesman. Especially interesting to me were thoughts on WW II air raids on Dresden and the overalll tactics and morality of Bomber Command. Also, many will find Professor Best's discussion of Winston Churchill's involvement with the development of the atomic bomb and his early 1950s statements on maintaining international peace, given this new war device, especially informative.
   
   British historian Geoffrey Best writes from deep knowledge, and in a pleasing style. Readers interested in a broader treatment of Sir Winston's life would profit from reading his 2001 biography, "Churchill: a Study in Greatness."



2. This is a brillant book; well researched, extremely well written and a great read!
   
   Author Geoffrey Best shows the important role war played in the life of Winston Churchill, beginning with his birth at Blenheim (built for John Churchill, first Duke of Malborough and commemorating the 1704 battle, which secured England's rising position in the world) and focusing mainly on the British leader's seminal role in the Second World War. "War was central to Churchill's life," writes Best, "He was a soldier before he was a politician."
   
   Best addresses various aspects of Churchill as a war leader, including his influence on the Grand Alliance and the strategic insight and war direction he provided to Great Britian and the Allies. While he helped to determine the outcome of the war by ensuring America's participation, Churchill's strategic vision was, at times, faulty. Certainly his resistence to Operation Overlord, the Allied invasion of Normandy and the European Continent, in favor of a greater Allied commitment in Italy and the Balkans, shows him at his strategic worse.
   
   Following the Second World War, however, the British leader became less conservative and more flexible and worked fervently to avert another world war. The use of atomic weapons in another war became anathema to him. "The fact was that Churchill had lost his taste for war," records Best. "He had studied was for sixty years and lived it for fifteen of then and it had been getting worse all the time. He had never cherised illusions about it."
   
   This book dispels a great many myths about Winston Churchill and his attitudes toward war. Informative and insightful, it will alter our perceptions of a great statesman, whose life, from beginning to end, was filled with war.



3. Geoffrey Best masterfully highlights the role that war played in Winston Churchill's long life while putting to rest some myths and misconceptions on this subject. As Best puts it diplomatically at the beginning, Churchill was not a saint. Churchill was at times rough and at others smooth. Churchill's roughness was embodied in his egotism, ruthlessness, and lack of consideration. Churchill's smoothness was found in his decency, patriotism, humanity, and courage. The secret behind Churchill's greatness lied in breaking rules.
   
   Churchill was a man in a hurry, on the lookout for both fame and notice. Churchill was always wondering how he looked like if he did this or that. Churchill was looking for his "finest hours" for decades. Churchill repeatedly showed recklessness on the battlefield while believing that nothing serious could ever happen to him during his military adventures.
   
   Churchill's books, articles, and speeches were at the service of his military and political ambitions while making a living out of them. Churchill valued most his writings about war. War was the most exciting activity to man in Churchill's view. History taught him that war was ruling the destinies of nations.
   
   Churchill was never one to be idle. Churchill's great transformation began when he took to serious company and books. Churchill did not find any relish in club-lounging, party-going, dancing, and womanizing. Although Churchill was not indifferent to female charm, he was not at ease with women. Churchill was lucky to find in Clementine Hozier a gifted woman who could accommodate his sometimes difficult character.
   
   Churchill was a very hard working man and showed an unusual talent for mastering detail. Churchill had an elephantine memory on which he could rely to use facts and data for further purposes. Although Churchill had an unusual gift with words, he was not by nature an effective public speaker.
   
   Churchill had a deep interest in military strategy within which the large allied armies operated during the two world wars. Strategizing was to him the closest thing to commanding great armies in the field. Churchill's interest in generalship was at the very heart of his fascination with war, including the technologies used for waging war. Like other war leaders, Churchill found the neutrality of non-belligerents irksome.
   
   Churchill remained a democrat at times of war by not suppressing critics who annoyed him. Despite his excitement about war, Churchill considered magnanimous peacemaking important once war was over. However, Churchill had no intention to condone the atrocities committed by the Nazis against non-combatants during WWII.
   
   The older Churchill was, the more he became aware of the heavy price tag attached to war for those who did not have his luck. For all his humanity, Churchill knew very well that war was a dreadfully demanding endeavor that overturned peacetime norms and hardened man's heart. Churchill had no illusion about the increasingly lethal evolution of war during his lifetime. Unsurprisingly, Churchill promoted a peace agenda after WWII with the advent of the balance of nuclear terror.
   
   To summarize, Best helps his audience better comprehend what role war played in the existence of a man who left an indelible footprint behind him.

1 comments about Shakespeare's Friends.

1. Shakespear's Friends is a book that enhances knowledge about William Shakespear, as it gives insight into the type of man he really was. Many of William Shakespear's friends were from royalty, yet others were from those he worked with, and many of his friends were from the working class. Through his body of work, one can tell William Shakespear valued friendship.
   
   The book is broken into different periods of his life, his friends in Stratford before he left for London, friends in London, friends he knew from his profession. Among his friends were Elizabeth I, James I, Francis Collins, Richard Field, and countless more. His friends transended the lines of gender, and class. As he had female friends, as well as those that were from all lines of work. One can tell he was readily able to draw characters in his places from personal knowledge of a variety of people.

No comments about Memoirs of a Private Man.

No comments about St. Margaret's Gospel-Book: The Favourite Book of a Queen of Scotland (Treasures from the Bodleian Library, Oxford).

No comments about Blair Unbound.