5 comments about Nicholas and Alexandra.

1. I read this book many years ago and have never forgotten it, and I just recently purchased a copy of my own. Robert Massie is an excellent writer who makes this book memorable for the fun and loving family that the Romanovs were and their terrible, tragic end. I'm now collecting more books on the Romanov dynasty and the individual people who made up this fascinating family. For anyone with an interest, this is the place to start.



2. nicholas and alexandra should never had become czar and crazina of russia.nicholas was just to weak spirit and alexandra to strong without know the real russia people.she saw russian as childern who needed to be told how to run their lives by the papa czar.she hide her son illness and brought in a sexual twisted man of god into her family,ruin the romanov's relationship with it's people.stopping changes that would give citzen russian say in their country.in the end the people turn on the romanov's every thing end tragical.



3. In 2000, there was much talk about the "most important person of the 20th Century." My choice was always Gavrilo Princip, the young Bosnian assassin who killed Archduke Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary, igniting World War I, which caused the Russian Revolution, Communism, and the Treaty of Versailles, which led to Naziism, World War II, atomic bombs, and the Cold War.
   
   Of course, there were other factors which formed the tragedy of the twentieth century, and perhaps some of these historical events would have happened anyway. Almost for certain, the Romanov Monarchy would have fallen or been transformed out of recognition without the help of Gavrilo Princip's bullets.
   
   Although the Ottoman Empire was always referred to as "the sick man of Europe," Robert K. Massie illustrates that Russia was not very well either, despite appearances. An obsolescent autocracy, the Russian Empire was mired in time at the dawn of the twentieth century, the great mass of its people existing much as they had 100 years earlier.
   
   Massie's theory, that the hemophilia of Alexis, the young Tsarevich, had an inordinate influence of Russian and subsequent world history, is well thought-out, though perhaps an oversimplification. Yet, it cannot be discounted. The Romanov Dynasty had ruled Russia then for 300 years, and brought the country, by fits and starts, slowly into the orbit of the modern world. Despite this, there is much truth in the observation that "Lenin inherited a nation playing beside a manure pile and Stalin bequeathed a nation playing with an atomic pile." This is not to defend Stalinism, but only to say how little the Romanovs did overall to modernize their State.
   
   When Nicholas II inherited the throne after his father's untimely death, he was woefully unprepared to rule. Dominated for years by archconservative and anti-modernist members of his family, he did little to educate his people, provide health care, build infrastructure, or lift the heavy cloak of official repression that lay over all but ethnic Russians in his realm, or the cloak of cultural repression that lay over the ethnic Russians.
   
   Yet Massie shows us a man and a family of uncommonly kind nature in Nicholas II and his family. His daughter Olga paid personally for the care of a handicapped subject she spied from her carriage one day. The Tsaritsa, Alexandra, despite a reputation as an uncaring woman, herself nursed sick friends before the war and horribly wounded soldiers during the war. The family built hospitals and schools in and around the various cities wherein lay the royal estates. They acted to ameliorate suffering wherever they saw it, without reservation.
   
   Of course, this was the problem. They acted only on what they saw with their own eyes, never recognizing that these sufferings were endemic throughout the realm. Their myopia was part and parcel of the lives of the citified upper classes, completely divorced from the mass of agrarian peasants in the countryside, magnified by the hermetically sealed nature of being an Imperial Family, aided and abetted by sycophants and the self-serving, who kept the real world at a very long arm's length, in order to maintain their own privileged positions. Living in a bubble within a bubble, they were just not aware of conditions in most of Russia.
   
   Nicholas II ruled over the largest domain on earth. Russia today is still the world's largest nation, even shorn of Finland, Poland, the Baltic States, Belarus, the Ukraine, the Central Asian provinces, and (in 1867) Alaska. Sunset in Vladivostok was dawn in Brest-Litovsk. His hundred million subjects included hundreds of peoples speaking hundreds of languages, linked together by a shockingly small road and rail system. The sensitive Nicholas, had he been really cognizant of the shape of things, could have, by a single order, vastly improved the lives of each and every Russian (of course, as he noted, being an autocrat and giving orders does not ensure that they are carried out properly). His greatest failings, as a ruler, all had to do with his decisions to outwardly maintain his Imperial hautre and his autocracy at all costs in the face of cataclysmic change.
   
   This bubble-within-a-bubble existence however, could not spare them from the fact of the Tsarevich's hemophilia. A genetic disorder inherited through the female line (Alexis' Great-Grandmother was Queen Victoria, whose progeny were ravaged by the disease), it prevents the clotting of the blood. When Alexis was born in 1904, the world was a full lifespan away from the development of a usable clotting factor; most hemophiliacs simply bled out and died. The Tsarevich was protected by a full retinue, but this did not help him, and the boy was often in screaming agony and close to death from what might in another child, be a bad bruise. The Heir, therefore lived in a bubble within a bubble within a bubble.
   
   The Tsaritsa, Alexandra, was a solemn, shy, but deeply emotional and loving woman, nicknamed "Sunny" by her husband. To the world, she presented an aloof exterior, and was extremely unpopular with her subjects. Had they known the sorrows and agonies she suffered through with Alexis, her realm, and history, might have treated her far better. But the Imperial Family decided to keep Alexis' condition a closely guarded secret, fearing the destabilization of the Monarchy and Russia in the face of a physically frail Heir. This may have been the Imperial Family's worst error, as it robbed them of an outpouring of sympathy and support from a passionate populace.
   
   Alexandra turned to religion, and ultimately, to Gregory Rasputin, a filthy, degenerate, sexually perverse and personally dissolute monk of peasant extraction. Although derided by most, and called a charlatan by many, Rasputin was perhaps one of the most charismatic men in history, had a devoted following (largely comprised of Society women he'd seduced), did have the power, somehow, to control Alexis' bleeding episodes, and therefore, had the Empress's full and unwavering support in all things.
   
   The feared and hated Rasputin may have indeed been a seer or had mystical powers of some sort, judging from circumstances. Rasputin was not really political, but as his influence over the Romanovs grew, his power expanded commensurately, and he was able to have Ministers dismissed, Generals reassigned to sinecures, and policies changed according to his own whims (expressed as messages from God) or concerns. Capable Russian leaders, who did not know the basis of Rasputin's power, suspected the worst of Alexandra, and in challenging Rasputin found themselves toppled from power. As World War I dawned, Russia was upside-down, its best men in internal exile, and woefully unprepared for war. Rasputin himself counseled against war, stating that Russia would collapse from within. Nonetheless, the British, German and Russian grandsons of Queen Victoria went to war.In that war, millions died, empires fell, nations were born, ideological political systems triumphed, and the stage was set for a darker and yet bloodier future.
   
   The Tsar and his genteel family were consumed, ending their days against a wall before a Bolshevik firing squad, probably not understanding, until the end, that they had been in the eye of a hurricane that remade the world.



4. I first read Nicholas and Alexandra many years ago as a 14 year old. It was a transformative experience for me, awakening what has been a lifelong passionate interest in royal biography and Russian history. Now that I'm in my early fifties, I recently reread Nicholas and Alexandra for the first time in about twenty years, and it continues to have the same magic.
   
   Robert K. Massie became interested in the last Tsar of Russia because he, like Nicholas, was the father of a hemophiliac boy. Massie spent long hours reading about hemophilia and famous hemophiliacs, and he was fascinated by the way Russian and world twentieth century history turned on a chance genetic defect. Had Tsarevich Alexis not had hemophilia, it is probable that Tsar Nicholas II and his wife Alexandra would not have come under the malign influence of Gregory Rasputin, the Siberian faith healer who had a catastrophic effect on the Russian government before and during World War I; leading to the Russian Revolution, the rise of Communism, and the deaths of Nicholas, Alexandra, and their children. Its an interesting thesis that still holds up well, though Massie's focus on the inner tragedy of the Tsar's family tends to make him discount the many other problems from which pre-revolutionary Russia suffered. Massie also has a natural tendency to whitewash Nicholas and Alexandra (parents of hemophiliacs have a special bond with those who share their trauma, after all), by barely mentioning such negative traits as the Tsar's anti-Semitism and the Empress' many neuroses.
   
   The book remains an extraordinary work of art. Massie's descriptions of the Russian landscape and his finely drawn character sketches are wonderfully rich and detailed. He is able to explain the political and social complexities of the era colorfully and wittily, even when dealing with such abstractions as the differences between Social Democrats, Social Revolutionaries, and Bolsheviks. Most of all, Massie is able to make us weep for the Romanovs: a man who was a bad Tsar but a good husband and father, a woman who destroyed her family while trying to keep her son alive, and five innocent young people who never had a chance to lead happy, productive lives. Every time I read Nicholas and Alexandra I tremble again at the thought of their last awful moments, but I am enriched still more by the chance to read such a magnificent work of art and scholarship.



5. This is an all-encompassing authoritative biography of the last ruling Romanovs, and Massie has compiled a thorough and well-researched insight into the lives of Nicholas and Alexandra. Even forty years after its original publication and long after the fall of the Soviet Union, it is a relevant part of Russian history. Massie is very sympathetic in his presentation of the royal family and addresses pertinent questions about the fall of the monarchy. If Alexis, the heir to the throne, had not had hemophilia, would the influence of Rasputin not have been necessary? And if Rasputin were never in the picture, would the monarchy have suffered such a tarnished reputation?
   
   The book painted a very vivid picture of the Royal Family based on hundreds of sources and letters. Nicholas is an incapable Tsar but a warm-hearted, devoted husband and father. Alexandra seems frantic and ill at ease (and often just ill) in her constant concern over the life of her son. And I love that I felt I got to know each of the children, Olga, Tatiana, Marie, Anastasia, and Alexis more individually and personally. This made their demise all the more heartbreaking. This book also gave me a greater understanding of the political climate of the time in Russia and a better comprehension of the revolution and the roles of Lenin, Trotsky, and other important players (although I occasionally found some difficulty keeping the various Russian names straight). Overall, this is a captivating book and the saga is all the more intriguing because it's history. I will definitely be interested to read some of the more recent material that Massie presents in The Romanovs: The Last Chapter.

4 comments about U-Boat Ace: The Story of Wolfgang Luth (Bluejacket Books).

1. I have read this book and it is an excellently done story on Kapitan zur See, Wolfgang Luth. This man Took charge of the Uboat U 181 and had an excellent crew serving with him. This book is almost as good as "Shooting The War" by Otto Giese. It held my attention which was fully rivited to the pages as I read them, as Otto Giese's book did to me. This book is THAT well done, and I will buy several extra copies of it to send to all 8 of the surviving U 181 vets. Its a shame that Otto Giese, U 181's 2nd Watch officer under Luth, recently passed away as well as three other U 181 comrades. The living members of U 181 will absolutely love this book and will think of it as a work of art. As I do have the priviledge of knowing all the surviving vets, I know they will enjoy adding a copy of this book to their libraries as they have done so with Otto Giese's book. Soon to be another book on U 181 by vet/friend, Bernhard Trenn.



2. This book is a great read. The writing style is concise, and it makes it easy to get involved with a facinating (and true) story. Wolfgang Luth went on long range patrols to Southern Africa, notched up many sinkings, and was popular with his men. What comes across with this book is the personality of Wolfgang Luth himself. He didn't have a large ego, and is not as well known as other U-boat aces, but through this book seems far more interesting than the others U Boat Captains, and was more successful. He could be laid back with his men, other times encouraging them to get married, or poke fun at himself, was utterly fearless, and other times shot hundreds of shells into ships without reason. The book makes one consider the morality of his actions, and yet also gives a front row seat to an interesting U Boat career, and tragic end. This is a good book.



3. another u-boat captain book,Luth's u-boat survival of the war depended a great deal on his skill,but there are instances here where you realize there was some luck involved as well. An even better source of luck was that he was assigned a section of the south Atlantic,and African waters where his prey was not often as heavily protected as was were convoys in the North Atlantic.Luth's patrols were mainly "lone wolf" type guerilla attacks on isolated cargo ships,not the suicidal wolfpack attacks that were sure to bring on lots of task force boats.You can't help but draw from the book that the thirty year Luth was a by-product of the post WW1 Versailles Treaty outrage against Germany.His resentment as well as his crew run deep,methodically shinking ships like shooting mechanical ducks at a carnival.Not deliberately cruel but with a firm belief that it's either "us or them".When reading this book it would help to have a little knowledge of the "War Reparations"clause in the Versailles treaty,it would make for boring reading but,it will make the Luth story more enriching.



4. Uboat Ace is a excellent book on Submarine warfare in WWII. While you may not like Wolfganf Luff as an Individual one has to admit he was a great leader and example to his men. Found the book interesting and an easy read. Anyone interested in Uboat warefare will enjoy it..

3 comments about The Exploits of Baron de Marbot.

1. I'm a Napoleonic novice,and many things in this book are completely foreign to me, but this narrative gallops right along. This edited version makes me long for the full version. The author appears to write with both candor and a very dry sense of humor (I find myself wincing and laughing-I hope not inappropriately) about incredibly brutal battle exploits as well as about the behind-the-scenes politics. The author's sense of practicality, tempered with his sense of honor makes for a very appealing perspective on the events of the era. Further, it's truly amazing what the soldiers of that era had to deal with, just in terms of physical hardships (at least by today's standards). This book has served to seriously whet my appetite to read and to learn more about this period in history.



2. I bought this book after reading "...Brigadier Gerard," by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle which was based upon the life of this
   man, Baron de Marbot. I'll have you know that I found it every bit as entertaining and fascinating as the "...Brigadier Gerard" book...even moreso for knowing that this fellow de Marbot really existed. When I read "...Brigadier Gerard," I was thinking how amazing some of the adventures were, or how fortunate he had been in this situation or in that one, but when I read about de Marbot, and of his incredible exploits, I was truly mesmerized. The coincidences..the simple twists of fate, the turns of fortune, the moments of chance...Hard to believe that this fellow experienced such awesome adventures... And all the while, amidst these adventures, we are kept abreast of the latest military tactics, the conditions of the land, the townsfolk and the soldiers, of all ranks during a period that seemed not to rest from battle... I tell you it is just a breathtaking piece of work (and for a female to say that is something indeed! )

   When I read this book I swear it felt so real that I could easily imagine the sounds of voices or of artillery fire, or of horses hooves pounding or sabres clashing...Even scents came alive..The scent of a grassy knoll, or of a smoldering fire, or even that of the decaying flesh of men and animals...I could see the uniforms becoming more and mroe soiled and tattered with wear and with time...I could see troops moving silently through shallow streams in the dead of night; the moonlight spread across the ground like a sheet...I could see men's breaths when the air turned cold, and I could feel their struggle within when they knew that the end was near, but dared to keep the field.

   This book simply pulls you in and doesn't let go. But that is quite alright. You won't WANT it to let go. It is every bit as much of a page-turner as "...Brigadier Gerard" was, and it gave me a sense of history that I failed to find in any of the books
   I studied in college. Marbot so intimately describes his friends, enemies, family, and fellow soldiers, that they became not only real to me, but almost familiar to me.

   Additionally, It did me well to remember a time when battles were fought in a much different manner than they are today... When words like Honor and Integrity and Duty and Loyalty were of paramount importance, and had substance,...They were not merely breath with sound.

   I cannot say enough positive things about this book, and to keep at it here would be like beating a dead horse. Let me just say this: If you are ever at a point where you just can't seem to decide on which direction you would like to go in with your next good read, try this one while you are working it out... More likely than not, when you are done, you will kick yourself for not having gotten it sooner. ( And try "... Brigadier Gerard " too! I have reviewd this as well...!! )




3. All the history I've read about the Napoleonic Wars was a bird's eye view of grand maneuvers, but it's very difficult for a 21st century person to fathom what life must have been like in the inscrutably proper world of musket lines and lace. In this memoir, we find that the bygone culture of peasants and nobles fighting with sabers, muskets, and horses could still very much be populated by human beings not much unlike ourselves.
   
   Marbot's memoirs consist of two components: one is his own research into the events of the war, and reads much like a normal history book. Of much greater interest to us, however, is his personal recollections and stories, which is much like meeting the man in person over a beer and having him spew his opinions and experiences to you. Unfortunately, this edition does not retain as much of this personal flavor, instead choosing to retain the drier historical stuff that can be "ascertained". This is a pity, as there is a great deal we can learn about the times from Marbot's stories and rumors, inaccurate as some may be.
   
   The proper tone of this book masks from the reader the horrors that we read in today's memoirs, so it is left up to your imagination to grasp the full meaning of what "despair" or a "piteous sight" might refer to.
   
   The original is much less dry and bursts with period detail, although, much like what you might hear in a bar, is more suspect in its accuracy. It was also translated by a deeply biased Englishman, who is so fierce when he "corrects" every mention of English conduct in the footnotes that you begin to wonder just how trustworthy his translation might be. Being from another century, you will also encounter fierce anti-Semitism in a grand total of about 4 of the book's 700 pages, along with a derogatory remark slur on blacks, but this is to be expected reading a book from a less PC century.

5 comments about P.G.T. Beauregard: Napoleon in Gray (Southern Biography Series).

1. 
   The staying power of this book is made obvious in the fact that it was first published in 1955 and it is still in print today. T. Harry Williams is an excellent historian and writer, having won the Pulitzer Prize for his biography on Huey Long. He has written often on the Civil War, including two books on Abraham Lincoln. This is an important work on the "perplexing" Confederate general Beauregard, as combative with his fellow officers as he was with the enemy on the field.
   
   Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard, a Creole born near New Orleans in 1818, attended West Point and was assigned to the Engineers. He served in the Mexican War, was promoted twice, and after the war was stationed in New Orleans where he made navigational improvements to the Mississippi River. He was made superintendent of West Point in 1861, but after only a month he threw his hat in with the Southern cause and joined the Confederacy, being assigned to Charleston. He ordered the firing on Ft. Sumter that began the conflict and later that year led the Confederate forces at Manassas.
   
   A hero at Bull Run, he was promoted to full general and joined Albert Johnston in Tennessee. Over the course of the war he saw action at Shiloh, the Bermuda Hundred, Petersburg, and finally in the coastal defense of South Carolina and Georgia, where he was when the war ended. After the war he was offered command of army forces in Rumania and Egypt, but decided to stay in Louisiana where he became a successful businessman as president of a Southern railroad company and adjutant general of the state. A great deal of his spare time was spent arguing in articles and books his role in the war and his criticisms of other rebel leaders. He died in 1893.
   
   Beauregard was a competent general, but prone to what we might call today "micromanaging": his war plans could become so detailed that they were almost impossible to carry out. He held Jefferson Davis in very low regard and was also highly critical of Joseph Johnston. Williams's book is very impressive and captures this strange man well. Williams believes that Beauregard might have become a superb general if given the time to develop, but the Civil War offered no such growing room. This is an excellent Civil War biography. Highly recommended.



2. This is a very good book on a very deserving subject. Beauregard often gets overlooked, he was never as beloved as Lee or Stonewall Jackson, but he was capable, the man had a sharp mind and Lee understood this, even if Jefferson Davis did not. The book gives a fascinating look at this intriguing man, though being of Creole heritage I do wish the author had spent more time on Beauregards early life, he came from a first line Creole family and he was a top student at West Point, where he disinguished himself well. This is really the definitive book on Beauregard, highly recommended.



3. ..........but dull is not one of them. Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard remains one one of the South's most controversial Generals, either a genius or simply one more mediocre officer in a long line. But, either way, Beauregard had STYLE. He remains, along with Lee and Forrest, the most recognizable Confederate Officer. In fact, he was a sharp, and tough, combat officer, never defeated in battle. No one questions the Creole's intellect; let no one question his courage, either.
   
   Beauregard is, in some ways the Civil War's comic relief...witness his continuing attempt, two years into the war, to collect on a claim for travel back from West Point just prior to the war. I have made the same statement about Judah Benjamin, and there are parallels: Louisiana background, a French Catholic and a Jew, outsiders in a land run by British Anglicans. The two most financially successful Confederates after the war, Beauregard and Benjamin refused to stay defeated. They had STYLE, you see.
   
   PGT Beauregard came from a successful family, did well at West Point [second in his class, as was Lee], and was assigned to the Engineers, the reward for academic success. The war in Mexico soon followed, where Lieutenant Beauregard, along with Captains Robert E. Lee and Joe Johnston, helped pave General Scott's way into Mexico City. After Mexico...Charleston, where his bar-excavator made the harbor usable, and his native New Orleans, where his engineering skill made possible the building of a Customshouse, which he ran for seven years. Appointed Suprintendent at West Point, he lasted a week, relieved because of his obvious Southern sympathy in the coming conflict [this is the origin of the travel claim mentioned above].
   
   Came the war....Beauregard served the whole way, East and West...the firing on Fort Sumter, hero of First Manassas...then, exile. Beauregard, like Joe Johnston, ran up against the high-strung temper of Jefferson Davis. One of Davis' profound weaknesses was an inability to work with people he did not like, and the Confederacy suffered. Unjustly blamed for the "lost opportunity" of Shiloh [as we should have listened to Longstreet at Gettysburg, we should have listened to Beauregard at Shiloh], the General was sent to run the defense of Charleston [the Yankees never did take the harbor], and later assisted with Lee's defense of Petersburg, and Hardee's evacuation of Savannah. Thru it all, the Creole dreamed big dreams of ultimate conquest. Some were impractical, but...obviously what we did didn't work.
   
   Someone once said of General Longstreet that he really died April 9, 1865, though his heart continued to beat another 40 years. Where Longstreet became an apostate for writing that the South needed to build a bridge and get over it, Beauregard didn't write, he simply crossed the bridge to wealth, power, and position in the New South. He was criticized for getting rich, but he had a family to support. Whatever his faults, he loved his family [another parallel with Benjamin, but where Benjamin went to England to get rich, Beauregard stayed in Louisiana]. Beauregard wrote his memoirs, but in an unusual twist on the usual procedure, he had a ghost writer take credit. He made money building railroads, and a ton of money with the Louisiana Lottery. The chapter on the Lottery is hilarious, and worth the price of the book. The powers behind the Lottery wanted a Confederate General to be the figurehead boss, and Beauregard, along with Jubal Early, was glad to take their money.
   
   This wonderful book is the only decent biography of the Creole we have; one gets the impression that Williams dislikes his subject, but he was such a great, fair, honest, balanced writer that the General's greatness shines thru. PGT could be a difficult little man, but he was also a decent man [he paid to bury General Hood and his wife and daughter in 1879, then helped with financing the care of his surviving kids], and a genius [see the article he wrote in 1866 on the need for a battlefield night vision system]. For anyone with any kind of interest in our Civil War, this is an essential study.



4. This was originally published in 1955, so it is somewhat dated. However, this is nonetheless a very nice biography of Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard, one of the small handful of "Full Generals" in the Confederate Army during the Civil War.
   
   He was a complex, perplexing, and talented person. His pride led him to end up wasting a lot of time (and burning bridges) that accomplished little. For instance, his feud with President Jefferson Davis. He grew up admiring Napoleon (he was Creole, and spoke French for the first part of his life), and often developed battle plans during the Civil War that were Napoleonic in scope--and probably utterly impractical.
   
   The biography does a nice job of laying out his early life and beginning to identify some of the personality traits that would be significant later on. His army career is well detailed, from West Point, to his engineering duties, to his important role in the Mexican War (he was one of a group of young officers, including Robert E. Lee, who were General Winfield Scott's eyes and ears).
   
   Then, his role in the Civil War. The book does a nice job of chronicling some of his major successes--his leadership of the defense of Charleston, his key role in preventing Benjamin Butler and, later, Ulysses Grant from easily taking Petersburg. But there is also his ambiguous legacy from First Manassas (he was the operational commander and deserves credit, but his poorly configured orders, his wild-eyes strategic ideas, etc. raise one's eye brows), to Shiloh (an impractical attack plan), etc.
   
   Thus, there were some great successes (Petersburg and Charleston), some ambiguous successes (First Manassas), a losing battle (Shiloh), and lots of political warfare with his government and other military officials.
   
   His lot after the Civil War? He did well! The book does a nice job of describing his later career.
   
   All in all, despite its age, this is a fair biography of a complex person. It is pretty critical of him at some points, but gives credit where it is obviously due. If interested in this fascinating figure, this is not a bad starting point. . . .



5. I bought this Williams bio of Beauregard some years ago but never read it until after my wife and I took a vacation to Charleston, SC. While exploring the city on foot, we came across a monument to Beauregard where the inscription from "a grateful people" thanked him for successfully protecting their city from Union occupation. This struck me as warm words for someone who is unfavorably caricatured by most Civil War writers. Once back home, I made a point to read it right away.
   
   Everyone who is well read on the Civil War knows the outline and most of the important details of Beauregard's record as a C.S.A. general. I don't think Williams surprises us much in that area. However, I did learn from Williams something about Beauregard's service in Mexico that I believe explains a lot.
   
   While Scott and his general officers wanted to take Mexico City from the south, Beauregard thought a western approach, via Chapultepec, to be the correct action. Beauregard's winning over of Scott and his staff to Beauregard's own plan, and the subsequent success of that plan undoubtedly gave impetus to the delusions of grandeur and outlandish strategic ideas for which Beauregard is so well known in the Civil War.

5 comments about So Sad to Fall in Battle: An Account of War Based on General Tadamichi Kuribayashi's Letters from Iwo Jima.

1. I picked up this book in at Schipol on the way back to the States, and couldn't put it down. I served in the Navy on the tail end of 'Nam and, to be honest, you never remotely considered that the guy lobbing B-40 rockets at you from the bend in the river had a wife and family back in Hanoi or some little village in the North. Certainly the Marines humping across Iwo probably didn't have much time for introspection, either.
   
   Fascinating individual, and a rewarding view through the "other guy's" eyes. Highly recommended.



2. This book is based on the letters sent home by General Kuribayashi Tadamichi the commander of the forces on Iwo Jima. This book is the primary source information for Clint Eastwood's movie Letters From Iwo Jima. This book puts a very human face to the Japanese that fought that battle and outlines the strategy General Kuribayashi used for this fight along with the reasoning behind it. His intentions were similar to those used on Okinawa...in fact his strategy was planned a year before the battle for Okinawa began. Kuribayashi like Ushijima intended to fight delaying battles of attrition hoping to delay the Americans and give the government time to negotiate a peace between Japan and America. Unfortunately their resistance only served to cause the Americans to nuke Japan to avoid the necessary invasion that would be required to subdue Japan. Kuribayashi could have stayed on Chichi Jima and committed suicide there after the fight but he knew the Americans would land on Iwo and he elected to share the fate of the men he commanded, directing them from the front to the end. If he had fought the battle in the same manner as earlier island campaigns the American estimate of 1 week might have come to pass making the invasion of Okinawa a little easier in that resources used to complete the Iwo campaign would have been freed up to serve as reinforcements for Okinawa. I've never seen an estimate for the length of the campaign on Okinawa but I'm sure it was much less than actually occurred. A most excellent book well worth reading by historians wanting to see a glimpse of the losing side of a battle.



3. My husband founds this book to be excellent as far as the Japanese version of the war in the South Pacific.



4. Again, and excellent source for understanding the Japanese mind set on Iwo Jima. The book is a wonderful enhancement to "Pictures" and provides connections for the reader to both of the Eastwood films. Highly recommended!



5. This is not at the core of it a war story. It is a biography of a truly outstanding man caught in horrible circumstances. Expect a fascinating, subtle character study (not a "ripping yarn"). Unlike Eastwood's movie, which was a confused jumble of combat seen mostly from the enlisted point of view, this is about Kuribayashi, a 20th Century man serving a Japanese 17th Century feudal mind-set. The author does a good job of conveying the sense of anguish Kuribayashi must have felt at the circumstances.

5 comments about Burnside.

1. This is a true honest work of a General who had some excellent ideas but was often too naive with initiating action or from truly evaluating his staff. He was politically inept in being aware of the political cabal of McClellanites that undermined his command of the Army of the Potomac and contributed to his failings at Fredericksburg. Marvel does an excellent job demonstrating Burnsides successes at Roanoke Island with amphibious landings, perhaps the first in American war, and his occupation of coastal N.C. Marvel explains that Burnsides beat Lee to Fredericksburg but was held back by Halleck's failure to organize the pontoon train needed to cross the Rappahannock. The author's most interesting part of the book is his explanation of Burnsides' battle plan at Fredericksburg and his misunderstanding of the terrain features of Marye's Heights. In addition, one of the cabal generals commanding the left wing failed to execute his flanking movement properly yet communicated success causing Burnsides to unleash full scale attacks on Marye's Heights. Another fascinating piece centers on Burnsides' plan of the "crater", blowing up a confederate section of line and exploiting the breach with specially trained African American units. Unfortunately, the plan was severely hindered by Grant's and Meade's last minute disallowance of the black units to execute the plan resulting in untrained units commanded by an intoxicated officer. In between Burnsides does well keeping Longstreet out of Tennessee but inflames Sherman by providing Sherman a feast upon his arrival. Sherman misunderstood the meal as evidence that Burnsides' needed no relief. Burnsides is depicted as a very intelligent man that invented a breech loaded rifle but was politically naive particularly that even his alleged friend, McClellan undermined him for his own purpose without Burnsides being aware of it. Hard to defend Burnsides' limited action on McClellan's left flank at Antietam where any early action could have resulted in defeat of Lee. Regardless that McClellan didn't not ask Burnsides to attack earlier but any initiative by Burnsides would have made for a different outcome. Also, if Burnsides was aware or more personally involved with the crater attack, he should have recognized that the officer in charge of the attack was unfit and when the attack was misdirected, perhaps organized a better follow-up of troops although Meade aborted support. One of the last McCellan's generals of the Army of the Potomac to resign, only Warren lasted longer until his encounter withh Sheridan. The book leaves one thinking that if Burnsides had just a little of Sheridan in him and a little less of Burnsides, he would have been more successful. From a biography standpoint, Burnsides seems to havea lot in common with Confederate Genenral Ewell whose failures were also more pronounced than his victories.



2. Ambrose Burnside remains famous for his staggering incompetence as a Civil War general and his facial hair. In this solid biography, William Marvel presents a more intriguing character than most Civil War buffs would think.
   
   Marvel takes the reader through the various triumphs and defeats of Burnside's career. While not ignoring the disasters at Fredrciskburg and the Crater, Marvel does show that Burnside had some ability as his operations in North Carolina and, to a lesser extent, east Tennessee show. Marvel also does an excellent job in illuminating a number of the minor assignments that Burnside handled well, including his command in Ohio as well as his efforts at recruiting. Burnside's humanity comes through very clearly. Marvel does an excellent job of showing
   how the Civil War transformed Burnside's thoughts on race. The prewar Jacksonian Democrat became a Republican as the nature of the war changed. Unlike his friend George McClellan, Burnside seemed to understand that the war had become about more than preserving the Union and started drifting along the same tide as others. The conservative who at the start of the war seemed willing to preserve slavery recognized that the institution of human bondage had to be ended with the Confederacy. Burnside, more than most Union generals, also appreciated the use of African-American soldiers. Marvel shows Burnside in a much more complex light than the caricature of an affable incompetent. Marvel also shows that Burnside had his own circle of subordinates and friends who remained loyal to their chief.
   
   But the book has its flaws. While excellent on the war years, Marvel has little to say on Burnside's pre-war career inlcuding his friendship with George McClellan, his 1858 campaign for Congress and his failed attempt to produce rifles for the Army. Even more astonishing, Marvel has almost nothing to say about Burnside's important post-war political career. Burnside served three terms as governor of Rhode Island and was an important senator for seven years. Some of the more interesting stories which help humanize Burnside are burried in the endnotes (such as a funny tale of Burnside playfully whacking an aide over the head with a slipper).
   
   Still, the book remains an excellent one and is of interest to any Civil War scholar. The book is also very readable. While a bit savage to McClellan, the author seems as affable as the subject; high praise indeed since Burnside's charitable nature comes through on almost every page.



3. Marvel's account is pretty much all you have to turn to if you want to read about the infamous Burnside. The author tries his hardest to present Burnside in a favorable light, going so far as to claim he could have won at Fredericksburg if not for the slowness of General Franklin. Marvel's contentions about Burnside's competency are at best debatable. As noted elsewhere, there is very little here about Burnside's early life (perhaps due to lack of source material), and less understandably, little is included about his post-war political career.
   I feel the book was a bit long, going into great detail about situations where Burnside's subordinates were preforming some maneuver in New Berne or East Tennessee. The book could have been edited down by a hundred pages or so.
   There also a lack of the voice of the subject. Very few letters seem to exist from Burnside, so it is hard to get to know him outside the limits of his official communications.



4. Ambrose Burnside is an easy man to come to conclusions about. Describing himself as not competent to lead the Army of the Potomac, he subsequently confirms it with his disastrous performance at Fredericksburg. Again, later in the war, fate taps him to perform miserably at the Crater, a catastrophe that ends his military career. As a result, we are taught by history to hate him and with the benefit of these awful events, we do.
   
   But who was this man and why did people like him so? Why, after the Crater, was he able to become Senator from, and Governor of, Rhode Island subsequent to the Civil War? Who was this man who remained so loyal to George McClelland that he refused to replace him when offered the promotion. Why was he the second highest ranking officer in the Union Army and what were the reasons for his victories along the Carolina Coast in 1862 and at Knoxville against Longstreet in 1863? The answer is simple: He could be trusted.
   
   William Marvel does a wonderful job of explaining Burnside. As a result, we are introduced to a wonderful person, an entrepreneur, a loyal friend and confidant, a combat soldier promoted beyond his capabilities to be sure but one who remained so admired by those around him that even Grant, who relieved him from command after the Crater, sought his friendship and support as President of the United States.



5. Marvel(the author is aptly named) and greatly wonder, that was what I increasingly did reading this excellent biography of Major-General Ambrose Everett Burnside. I marvelled at the fact that it was possible that soldier's lives were ever entrusted to this man (and he wasn't even the worst one) and wondered how someone who was so insecure, mediocre, naïve and, well, just plain dumb succeeded in reaching such important commands. Oh, let's just say it: the man was a colossal dunderhead.
   
   Fredericksburg, Knoxville, the Wilderness and the Crater are the sad testament to Burnside's military abilities. Why the Lincoln administration continued to employ him is still beyond me. Even in 1864 when they had got rid of most stupidheads in command of Union troops, Grant still let Burnside lead an army corps, knowing fully well that Burnside was not a vigourous and competent leader!
   
   As a person he was very likable: a pleasant, caring and modest fellow, a true gentleman. Everybody liked Burnside, but everybody also knew he was a failure as a general. But the fact that Burnside was a nice bloke, kind and well-meaning, does not excuse his failings as a general.
   
   After the war he was very busy in the Senate, lobbying for veteran's affairs, which is highly laudable, but I can't help thinking that there would have been a lot more veterans alive after the Civil War if Burnside had never been given a command higher than a brigade.
   A very good book, sympathetic to its subject, but not blind to his faults. Recommended.
   
   One thing though: Why does this book have that odd, psychedelic cover? a bad reproduction of Burnsides portrait in front of some weird and freaky serrated plant leaves. What's that all about, huh??? It looks chaep too. For Pete's sake, get a better cover on the next edition, wouldya?

5 comments about Quartered Safe Out Here: A Recollection of the War in Burma.

1. GMF has outdone himself with this book about his part in the Horrific war in Burma during War II. He tells of his time as a junior enlist then junior NCO with the Border Regiment. He spins his tale extremely well about the story of the last great War fought by the Old Anglo-Indian Army of the Raj. So if you want to get a feel for a bygone Army, its various & exotic troops, weapons and some great characters like the Iron Duke and the Impressive FM Slim then this is the place for you.



2. George MacDonald Fraser, best known for his Flashman novels, and, in my opinion, one of our best writers, gives us here his nearly fifty-year-old memories of his service in Burma in 1945.
   
   There is so much to like about this book that it's difficult to know where to begin. There is Fraser's absolute honesty about his fears, his mistakes, his attitude toward the Japanese, and the virtues and vices of his comrades. There is his ability to place his unit's activities within the context of larger campaigns and yet give a vivid impression of what fighting with his unit must have been like. There is his brief but compelling portrait of General William Slim, for whom he has an unabashed admiration. There are moments of low humor, of heroism, and of tragic loss of life, and there is an unapologetic pride in what he, his comrades, and the rest of the British and Allied forces accomplished.
   
   This is one of the best books that I have ever read, and I recommend that you make it one of yours.



3. This book had been brought to my attention by the author John McKinna ("The Sen-Toku Raid" and others) when it was learned we both had been combat infantry. And a great recommendation it was. The name of the book was taken from a Rudyard Kipling phrase in "Gunga Din", and outlines the infantryman's life during the final days of WWII as the Black Cat Division pushed down the Burma road towards Rangoon.
   
   His book is unique in that it recounts the perspective of the war-fighter on the ground, who's entire knowledge of a world conflict is about 300 yards. At one point, he described every piece of equipment on his person, a bit of historical information I found of great interest.
   
   Interspersed with this narrative however, was Fraser's meticulous research of after action reports of the units involved to weave a mosaic for the reader that helped round out the full picture of the campaign itself.
   
   Overall, a great read.



4. I read this entire book with a smile on my face, punctuated by frequent outbursts of laughter. George MacDonald Fraser's memories of his WWII service with the British Commonwealth Army in the Burma campaign was the first of his non-Flashman works I've read. Although it's impossible to really compare two completely different literary genres, I'll just say that "Quartered Safe Out Here" was-in its own unique way- as hilarious, if not more so, than the best of the Flashman novels. The difference is that in the Flashman novels, Fraser's obvious respect for the sacrifices and achievements of the British soldier had to be viewed as a backdrop to the foreground humor while the opposite is true in this work, where the humor plays a supporting role to his tribute, which is explicit.
   
   Unlike his Flashman creation, Fraser was an honest-to-goodness war hero- courageous, honorable, and immensely proud of his country, regiment and platoon section. Like old Flashie though, Fraser cuts through the B.S. and shows no tolerance for armchair generals, civilian second guessing, and the nattering classes' politically correct sympathizing for Britain's enemies, so long as they were black, brown or yellow. It was amusing how Fraser's account of his argument with a bleeding-heart over the atomic bombing of Japan exactly echoes Flashman's dustup with a supercilious academic at the beginning of "Flashman and the Redskins". The alert reader will notice other such episodes in this memoir that seem to have found life in that series, but as Fraser noted, sometimes real life in Burma was so bizarre that he would have been laughed out of town if he had tried to slip some of those stories or dialogue into his fictional novels or screenplays. That's why I'm glad he finally got around to writing this book. It would have been a real shame if this story had not been told.
   
   Fraser details his time as a 19 year old soldier in Burma during the last months of the war. His writing is brilliant, as usual, his stories engrossing, his attention to detail is fascinating, and the characters we meet, from the lovably obscene Cumbrians to the unbelievable Captain Grief, are unforgettable, the more so for being real. Apart from the entertainment value, which is considerable, Fraser's insights into the nature of war and the warrior are poignant and valuable as a historical record of, and paean to, a lost Britain. He bemoans the fact that that Britain (not to mention America) has been replaced by a therapeutic society of hypersensitive p.c. twits who have been severed from the warrior tradition and stoic ethos which made their existence possible in the first place. As with most of Fraser's books, it's not for someone who thinks that the world has improved much in the last 50 years. What else is there to say? This is simply a great book. Read it and love it.



5. This is not your so called war stories. It is about a man and the men he served with without any liberal gibberish (see his references to more modern times)and the fact that wars happen and will happen, just or unjust depending on one's views. But, they won't go away like some Utopian dreamers think just because other "Utopians" weren't up to it. There were so many pages that hit me in the gut because one could so readily identify with things on the page. I never expected such a great book from a journalist / media person which proves that there is good in every crowd. I salute Fraser and I wish I could tell him so in person.

2 comments about Stand Well Clear: More Adventures in Military Aviation.

1. A really great book, though small. The author has a really good style.I will get his other book, since I enjoyed this one so much!



2. Subtitled "More Adventures in Military Aviation," this book is a sequel to the author's SECOND LUCKIEST PILOT published in 2000 by the Naval Institute Press. It recounts various combat missions and other flights made by the author and other Marine Corps and Navy pilots from the Korean War to the fighting on Afghanistan.
   
   To be honest, I can't rate this book higher than a "3." Some of the stories are interesting, some aren't. And, at $28.95, it's overpriced.
   
   An optional purchase.

No comments about At the Dragon's Gate: With the OSS in the Far East.

5 comments about LeMay (Great Generals).

1. Barrett Tillman's LeMay is a welcome addition to military aviation literature. Rooted in extensive research, gracefully written, and cogently argued, it places LeMay in a far richer and thoughtful context than the one-dimensional cigar-chomping, firestrom-triggering, finger-on-the-nuclear-trigger caricature of post-Dr. Strangelove, post-Vietnam sensibility. Tillman ranges widely across LeMay's life, relating it to key developments in military aviation, technology, world events, national strategy, and the political and social environment of the times. Nuanced, polished, and engrossing, it is must-read for anyone interested in the development of American air power and the role of this complex and fascinating man, one of the "Great Captains" of air warfare.



2. If the Cold War could be wrapped up into one person it would be Curtis LeMay. The U.S. Air Force's Strategic Air Command (SAC) was LeMay and LeMay was SAC. I knew the History Channel facts about Lemay, but I wanted to know more. Unfortunately this book left me wanting. At only 191 small pages, it was tough to really get into deep historical research or analysis for a figure as large and important as LeMay.
   
   I got the feeling the author was just cranking the book out. It did have the feel of a cliff notes or a term paper. There was noting really wrong with the book, but there was nothing that great about it either. LeMay comes across flat and the book lacks the tactile feel that makes great biographies.
   
   The author is very pro-airpower and never really dives into the great political/military dissent around LeMay and his views. I thought that maybe 15 years after the Cold War ended, enough time had past for someone to give LeMay a fresh look, but this book never got there. I will keep searching for a better LeMay bio.



3. This book is a quick and dirty overview of the life and career of Curtis E. LeMay. The biography is rather thin and it hits only the highlights of the general's life. All the books in this series are on the short side and serve more as brief introductions to their subjects than authoritative accounts. There is only so much Tillman can do in the space that he has available and given the constraints he faces, he does a good job. Tillman is a sympathetic biographer and does an exceptional job of explaining LeMay's involvement in the Berlin Airlift. Previous biographers have given this topic little attention. This approach, though, leads Tillman astray when he reaches LeMay's tenure as Chief-of-Staff of the USAF during the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations. Like previous LeMay biographers, Tillman is as dismissive of the national strategies and foreign policies of these administrations as was LeMay. His explanation of these different ideas and approaches is simplistic at best. He is particularly rough on Secretary of Defense Robert S. MacNamara, making the former executive at the Ford Motor Company look at various times as either an incompetent or as a black-and-white villain.
   
   It is clear that Tillman likes his subject, and there is much to admire in Curtis E. LeMay as a professional, a leader, and as a man. Tillman, however, has a difficult time developing the general's complex personality. There was good deal more to him than his gruff exterior. Despite his "bomb `em back into the stone age" reputation, LeMay had a powerful understanding of the bleak realities of what war really was. He was fully aware he was sending off men to kill and be killed, and he was alert to the real damage that they would suffer one way or another. He rarely got romantic about the business of war, which made him all the more human and determined to get results. Despite the caliber of Tillman's biography, the best book on LeMay remains the general's own memoirs. If you can get to a library, it is a good read. Otherwise, this book is pretty good too.



4. Considering Curtis LeMay's long-term influence on air power (from before WW II into the early Vietnam era), it is astonishing that there has only been one prior biography: Thomas Coffey's Iron Eagle (1986). This entry in the Great Generals series therefore is the first biography since LeMay's death in 1990.
   
   The author clearly knows his subject. He has produced a concise, objective study of one of the most controversial military figures of the 20th century, and one of the most significant. Tillman examines LeMay's early life and career, then traces his evolution from the young commander whose decisions helped speed the end of the Pacific War into the "caveman in a bomber", excoriated by the Left even while he kept the Cold War "frosty" rather than "hot."
   
   Readers looking for the story behind the impassive face will have to wait for a more comprehensive treatment. The author's charter apparently was to describe LeMay's leadership philosophy and draw comparisons useful to current managers, as do the other installments in the series. In that regard, Tillman has accomplished his mission: a feat of which LeMay himself would have approved.



5. LeMay is probably best known for his "bomb them back to the stone age" suggestion on how to win the Vietnam War. He is also rumored to have been the inspiration for the crazed Air Force general Buck Turgidson in Stanley Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove." This book helps to set the record straight. LeMay was certainly one of the leading advocates of strategic bombing. He masterminded the fire bombing of Japanese cities in World War II, directed the Berlin Airlift, and essentially created the Strategic Air Command from the ground up during the Cold War. He was also one of the youngest men to ever reach the rank of Four Star General at the age of 44 (U.S. Grant was a little younger).
   
   While this book is a good introduction to LeMay's life and career, it is limited by the small format of the Great Generals series. This is not the fault of the author, but he is forced to condense certain portions of the narrative to fit the confines of the small page count. As a result, the account suffers and the reader is left wanting more. I would recommend Iron Eagle by Thomas Coffey (ISBN 0-517-55188-8) for a more complete and nuanced biography of LeMay. It can be found pretty cheaply through Amazon's marketplace of used book dealers. Happy reading!