4 comments about Castro (2nd Edition) (Profiles in Power Series).

1. good book and easy to read.



2. The author describes how the U.S. had an agreement with its puppet governments in Cuba until 1959 to purchase annually half of Cuba's sugar produce. He shows how this quota could be lowered or threatened to be lowered if Cuba for instance, built flower mills that would compete with U.S. flour exports to the island or if the amount and quality of the rest of its sugar, that which it did not sell to the U.S. under the quota, competed with U.S. growers. The 1934 "reciprocal trade agreement" allowed U.S. exports to flood the island.

   The U.S. backed dictatorship of Gerardo Machado was overthrown in 1933 and Fulgencio Bautista emerged to crush the movements of workers who had overthrown Machado, while at the same time instituting through his subsequent puppet governments slight social reforms. The communist party declared Bautista to be a swell democrat and several communists assumed cabinet positions once he took direct control of the government himself in 1940. Bautista governed mainly by dispersing state funds to journalists, businessmen and others to win their favor. Castro entered Havana University in 1945 in the midst of a much worse political climate. The government of Ramon Grau San Martin, bribed remnant groups from the 1933 uprising to take over many government functions and serve as death squads against the regime's opponents. Castro entered the University of Havana in 1945 and developed a political philosophy heavily influenced by the social reform and anti-imperialism of Cuba's independence leader Jose Marti. He apparently read Marx but wasn't much interested in it, contrary to his own assertions after he became dependent on the Soviet Union that he had always been a commie.

   The author gives an excellent analysis of Castro's economic policies once in power. He writes that the U.S. campaign of terror and sabotage and hostility to Cuba's economic nationalism made Castro's turn to the Soviet Union inevitable. He observes subtly that the United States had decided to fund paramilitary activities against Castro in March 1959 when the anti-Bautista liberals that it favored where still, formally at least, in control of the government.

   The initial policy of Castro and Che Guevara until 1963 or so was providing basic necessities for the population while working them hard to produce initial industrialization and then use the wealth from the latter for further economic expansion and further social benefits. Agriculture was neglected in this process and the resources necessary for the industrialization drive were severely lacking. Soviet advisors then compelled a program where the workplaces would be governed by capitalist notions of material incentives for workers, from and to each according to his ability, etc. The indigenous communists were greatly irritated by the chaotic, one-man direction of the economy, which Castro engaged in. In March 1962, Castro attacked a faction of the communists led by Anibal Escalante for undermining the Cuban revolution and putting their friends and relatives in positions of power. He quietly asked the Soviet Union to replace its ambassador whom he claimed had been involved in this affair. In 1966, as the economy seemed to be going downhill again, Castro began to push for a decrease in the material incentives for workers and instituted "voluntary" i.e. more or less required overtime work. The Soviets were disturbed by this and particularly Cuba's insistence on supporting guerilla groups in Latin America that would help Cuba break out of its regional isolation when the Soviets were calling for a non-violent "united front" approach. Castro boycotted the fiftieth anniversary celebration of the Bolshevik revolution in Moscow in October 1967. The Soviet Union began dramatically reducing its aid to Cuba. In 1968, there were show trials against "micro factionalists," pro-soviet communists accused of various crimes. But with increasing discontent with the austere conditions and voluntary work, if the enthusiasm for Castro himself remained high, Fidel decided to return to Russia's guidance, particularly after the disasterous sugar campaign of 1969-70. In 1968, he had declared the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia as a violation of sovereignty but a necessary evil for he saw Czechoslovakia leaning towards Capitalist restoration and he believed this would empower the U.S., which was seeking capitalist restoration in Cuba.

   Cuba began to develop under the chairmanship of Soviet advisors and Cuban officials with economic plans based on layers of delegated authority in industries. The 1976 constitution enshrined the "People's Power." The People's Power are the legislative branches at all levels of govt. in Cuba. At the local level, the People's Power functions as a form of direct democracy, greatly engaging the masses(within fairly wide but strict paramters set by the party of course).

   Cuba's revolution brought great gains to the standard of living of Cuban masses. Before the revolution, Cuba's per capita income had been falling dramatically. The average wage of the agricultural labor, marked by chronic underemployment and unemployment was $80 dollars per month compared to $120 a month for factory workers. But thirty years after the revolution, the life expectancy had risen from 57 to 74. Infant mortality rate had fallen from 60 per thousand live births in 1958 to 13.3 per thousand in 1989 (It's like 7 per 1000 now). There were 400 doctors available per person in compared to 5000 per one in 1958. There was none of the widespread disease and misery that afflicts capitalist third world countries with the best economic growth statistics. But with the collapse of the Soviet block and the loss of most of its imports and exports and the tightening of the U.S. embargo Cuba found itself in a dire situation. In the late 80's a campaign of "rectification" against corruption in the economy, material incentives for workers were scaled back and extensive criticism of Castro and other officials was tolerated so long as they did not question the legitimacy of regime's basic institutions.

   He also gives some discussion of Cuba's involvement in foreign affairs such as in Ethiopia-Somalia. Cuba entered Angola in late 1975 to help block the South African backed UNITA from taking over the country from the MPLA. UNITA and its allies, he observes, had launched military warfare an early 1975, breaking an agreement brokered between the guerilla groups to hold an elections




3. Balfour's book is very good at charting the political waters through which Castro had to navigate. He understands the complex nature of the pre- and post- revolutionary political structure in Cuba, and the way Cuban history has been determinined (to some degree) by American and Russian policies. If this is what you're after, this book is for you. If you want to understand the psychology of Castro, or elements of his private life ("what makes Fidel tick?"), there are glimpses here and there, but that's not the kind of book this is.



4. Although Fidel Castro has been constantly reviled by a large part of the political establishment in the United States, and the list of actions against his regime is extensive, only his death or physical incapacitation will remove him from power. That list of actions includes the following:
   
   *) An invasion of Cuba, we know it as the Bay of Pigs action.
   *) A very tough economic embargo that has lasted almost fifty years.
   *) Several attempts to have him assassinated.
   *) An attempt to have his beard fall out.
   *) Repeated attempts by the CIA to destabilize his government.
   
   And yet, Castro remains in power, almost completely unchallenged inside Cuba. This is a tribute to his political skills. When the Soviet block collapsed, the Cuban economy suddenly lost all of the former subsidies, yet he survived. Whether you agree with his politics or not, it must be admitted that he is one of the greatest political manipulators of the last several centuries.
   While Balfour makes no attempt to write a definitive work on Castro, he more than manages to capture the essence of the Castro leadership and how he has managed to survive. However, he fails to answer what continues to be the major question regarding Castro. Was he a secret communist before he took power, or did he turn to communism because he was convinced that it was the only alternative to the American domination of Cuba? To understand that, one must have knowledge about the history of American involvement in Cuba and the rest of Latin America.
   In many ways, it is a story of economic exploitation and often-direct occupation by the U. S. military. Castro had many reasons to believe that he would be removed from power by (c)overt U. S. military action, so it is plausible that his appeal to communism was based on necessity. I was very impressed with the balanced approach that Balfour takes regarding Castro. He is free with his praise for the elimination of illiteracy and how the rural population of Cuba was provided with basic services, including quality medical care. It is very impressive when compared to the rest of the Western Hemisphere south of the Rio Grande. He is also quite candid in pointing out Castro's failings; some of his foreign political and military ventures have been relatively unsuccessful.
   It will be decades before a definitive version of Fidel Castro's political career can be written and I am sure historians of that time will have significant disagreements about the degree of his success. However, there is one feature that all will agree on, he was a political survivor, probably the best of the last several centuries. There is no question that Balfour explains most of the reasons for Castro's survival.

5 comments about God Saw Them Through: Semper FI - "America's Battalion" in Iraq.

1. If you are a Christian and believe in the power of prayer, you will find the factual stories in this book very inspirational. Glenn Thomas has done a marvelous job in telling the story of the 2nd Battalion, 8th Marines during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Once you start reading, you won't be able to put the book down.



2. There are only eighteen infantry battalions in the U.S. Marine Corp. This is the story of one of them through combat in Iraq in 2003. Commanded by Lt. Col. Royal Mortenson whose philosophy of command includes statements such as :It is fine for the Marine to be able to run three miles in eighteen minutes, but it is better to be able to run one mile in seventeen minutes carrying a wounded Marine on your back."
   
   Lt. Col. Mortenson trained his battallion, took it to Iraq, into combat and brought them all back alive. To Lt. Col. Mortenson, a hearty well done. You deserve your subsequent promotion.
   
   The author is the father of one of the young Marines that went to Iraq and back. He believes that the Christian faith of his son and of the rest of the Marines in this unit was responsible for the Lord returning all of these young men home. Who can say that he is wrong?



3. God Saw Them Through is a fascinating, inspiring, and convicting story about the answer to prayer for soldiers in warfare written by Thomas, the father of one of the marines in 2/8. Sometimes the military abbreviations overwhelm, such as one paragraph which includes the following: CO, XO, H&S Company, TAC CP (though definition is given), assistant S2, assistant S3, Main CP (definition given). Thomas gives all of the definitions at least once, but it can be confusing to those who are not familiar with military rankings and abbreviations. He also includes a helpful glossary, organizational charts, and some maps though a few more would be helpful.
   
   Regardless of the difficulties of the abbreviations, the message comes through clearly. God answered the prayers of thousands on behalf of 2/8. Thomas records how more than once individuals back home were awakened to prayer just before 2/8 was going into battle and that God laid specific requests on their hearts that He answered through their prayers. This has been one of the most inspiring books about prayer that I've read in a long time.
   
   Probably men and women with a military background will appreciate the style and content more than those of us who lack the background. This is a story that men in particular can enjoy. The first chapter bogs down a little with the introduction of the 2/8's leadership, but persevering through it pays off. Men and teenaged boys interested in the military might enjoy finding this book in their Christmas stocking.
   
   God's miraculous answers to prayer in keeping the marines safe during firefights will inspire anyone, military or not, to pray. -- Debbie W. Wilson, Christian Book Previews.com



4. Gave this book to my husband as a gift and he absolutely loved it. After reading it, here's what he had to say:
   FANSTASTIC! It should be read by all military members. A true example of God's present intervention on our behalf. We personally met Colonel Mortenson and he is a man of true character.
   
   God bless!



5. It was reassuring to discover that the leadership of the 2nd Battalion, 8th Marines took their responsibilities so seriously when preparing to be deployed to Iraq in 2003. Decisions were not made by an arrogant group of American military but rather by people who sought strength from a power admittedly far superior to themselves - God. Between the individual prayers of the marines themselves and prayer chains established across the country, the marines of 2/8 were shielded from any severe casualties. It defies logic that this battalion could have fared so well. After reading this book, perhaps more then once, you can decide for yourself if God really did see them through.

5 comments about German Fighter Ace: Erich Hartmann : The Life Story of the World's Highest Scoring Ace.

1. Erich Alfred Hartmann (1922-1993) is the top-scoring fighter pilot in the annals of aerial combat. He flew for Germany during the Second World War and scored the vast majority of his astounding 352 aerial victories against the Soviets on the Eastern Front. Nicknamed "Bubi" (German for 'boy') because of his youthful countenance, Hartmann was a member of Jagdgeschwader (Fighter Wing) 52 from Novemeber 1942 until the end of the war in May of 1945. On one spectacular mission, Erich shot down four American P-51 Mustangs over the oil fields at Ploesti, Rumania. After the war, Hartmann, who won the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves, Crossed Swords, and Diamonds, was unceremoniously handed over to the USSR by his American captors. From May 1945 until October of 1955, Erich Hartmann was confined in Soviet prisons and branded a "war criminal" by the vengeful Stalin and his henchmen. While in the gulags, Erich's father and his infant son, whom he had never held, died in Germany. Released in 1955 after the death of Stalin, Hartmann returned to active duty in the new Luftwaffe and was key in training the next generation of German flyers in the ways of aerial combat. Erich retired from active service in 1970 and enjoyed a peaceful life until his passing in September of 1993.

   This gorgeous photo album, composed by his loving wife Ursula and introduced by Manfred Jager, chronicles Hartmann's life from his childhood in pre-war Germany, his military training and combat, his inspiring and enduring romance with Ursula Paetsch, and ends with his rebirth in Richthofen Geschwader 71.

   I simply cannot recommend this book enough. It is an excellent companion to Toliver & Constable's "The Blonde Knight of Germany", an in-depth biography of Hartmann's life. One does not have to necessarily be an aviation buff to enjoy these titles as Hartmann's story is much, much more than just his accomplishments in the air. His was a life of courage, love, dedication, honor, and perseverance that can serve as an inspiration for all.




2. For those familiar with Erich Hartmann and would rather see him than read about his life, this is your book. Text is limited.



3. I readed it the same way I can look at a family album. The illustrations Ursula choosed to represent her husband, are surprisingly intimate.Throught out the book, I felt very close to Erich Hartmann. I can only admire that man who fought all is life for Germany against the Soviet Union. It's also amasing to think that just before he died, he saw the downfall of the soviet regime and the reunification of Germany. So until the end, he is a true winner! There is only one edition of that book and it's getting hard to find. I strongly advise anibody who's passionate about history and the german military aviation to purchase this precious and unique book.



4. If you are wanting to read about the life of Erich Hartmann, then this book isn't for your. If you want to SEE an intimate, historic look into his life presented by the one person who knew him best, then this book definitely is for you. "The Blonde Knife of Germany" remains the best history of the World's Top Ace, so this is where to learn more of Hartmann's life. However, I think Ursula's book is a must have and fantastic companion book with "The Blonde Knight". The two belong together on your bookshelf, and you won't be disappointed. Hey, another fine product of Schiffer Publishing!



5. Erich Hartmann was so much more than the world's highest scoring fighter pilot. He was a man of great strength and character who was not in the least afraid to stand up for what he believed was right. This excellent book is filled with pictures and commentary from fellow pilots and a loving wife about an amazing individual. A must-read for any WW II aviation enthusiast. I couldn't put it down, so read it cover to cover in a day. This was easy due to the many high quality photographs with captions.

5 comments about Tamerlane: Sword of Islam, Conqueror of the World.

1. Marozzi has done a lot of work and there is a lot of great stuff in here. At times he seems to get carried away and feel that he was writing a Hollywood script, it makes the book a cross between a novel and a work of history. But don't get me wrong, he seems to know his subject well. The title is misleading as was the man himself. Tamur used Islam as and when it served his purpose and so implying that he was enforcing Islam is wrong. Tamur killed Sunni's and Shi'as just as happily as he killed people of other faith. Marozzi's treatment of Tamur Lung (the right way of saying the name) reminds me of Mel Gibson's cheap tricks with Christ, throw in a lot of gore and people will buy it to be shocked. Both seem to ignore the context of time. Then every now and then Marozzi throws in a few pages of utmost brilliance like when he boldly states: "Europe of that time was backwater" I doubt how many historians missed that part. He is a great story teller and reads like James Mitchner, just not as gripping. His talks about his travels seem a bit weak and not very interesting. But having said that, I would strongly recommend this book to anyone interested in military history, Tartars, wars in Islamic world and I am sure I will read this book again someday. His map in the beginning is great, but then he chooses to throw some black and white pictures instead of more maps.



2. It feels like the author had a ton of information but did not know how to organize it. There were times when the footnotes seemed to be more relevant than what was above them. Also it felt like he did not know what he wanted the book to be. Chapters seemed to wander from the story line of Tamerlane to the author's travels to architecture without any direction. If he simply broke up the chapters, grouped relevant information together and incorporate the footnotes (instead of having some of them span two pages) that would have made this book a more coherent read. The editors really failed on this one.
   
   The author obviously knows an incredible amount of information on the subject and the book is very interesting none-the-less.



3. The Good:
   
   Tamerlane changed the face of the world, and yet remains virtually unknown in the west. He conquered almost the entire word, crippled empires, decimated the Golden Horde, stalled the Ottoman expansion, and turned glorious cities into desolate fields.
   
   This book could have been little more than a catalogue of cities and dates, but instead we get the global view: what Temur changed, and what he did not. His empire was gone within a century. His memory was virtually erased. His recent revival is limited to Uzbekistan.
   
   More importantly, we get the facts needed, good and bad, to assess Temur for ourselves. However Marozzi weighs the carnage against the cultural developments, the reader is fully equipped to make his or her own determination. In the end, I found Temur a wholly unsympathetic character based on the same data that led Marozzi to the opposite conclusion.
   
   The Bad:
   
   The critics of the book are correct in their complaints: the chronology skips around, the book includes a lengthy discussion of a historically inaccurate play, some of the prose is a little too florid.
   
   If you can look past that, you'll enjoy the book. Chronology isn't much of a problem, because most of the jumps are between Temur's time and much later accounts, including the present day. I liked reading about modern Uzbekistan, as it fleshed out the precise nature of Temur's legacy. The other big timeline issue, beginning the book with the battle against Sultan Bayezid, is a stylistic attention-getter, and eminently excusable.
   
   I rank the discussion of Marlowe's play with the author's discussion of modern Uzbekistan: he's telling us about Temur's legacy, which (like any historical figure) involves inaccurate information. That said, the chapter on Marlowe would have benefitted significatly from more aggressive editing. Reading what C.S. Lewis said about what Marlowe said about Tamerlane is a bit much.
   
   While Marozzi knows his subject well, and a glance at his list of acknowledgments suggests he has studied the materials carefully, the book is practically worthless for citations. When he attributes his quotations at all, it is with a general reference to the source, without page number. For example, he has an indented quote on pages 277-78 which, from the context, I assume is a quote from Clavijo, but even if that is correct, I don't know where in his 268 pages (in the English translation) to find it. And where Marozzi doesn't quote, I can only assume his source is somewhere in one of the dozens of books listed at the end.
   
   If you are more interested in an interesting history/travelogue about a pivotal figure in an exotic location, you'll find it in this book. If you're looking for well-sourced, narrowly focues academic work, look elsewhere.



4. 
   If you're looking for a detailed, clear narrative of Tamerlane's life and achievements, Justin Marozzi's book is not it. Failing to develop Tamerlane as an individual from his youth onward, and failing to explain exactly how he came to be so successful, Marozzi diverts perhaps half the book to recounting his own travels in Tamerlane's homeland. As descriptive and rare the author's experiences may be, a journalistic description of former metropolises in modern-day Central Asia does not provide a better understanding of the Lord of the Fortunate Conjunction. Throughout the book, Marozzi views Tamerlane more through the distant lens of someone in awe of his achievements, rather than the skeptical and down-to-earth approach necessary for biographers to truly evaluate who their particular subject really was.
   This is the flow of the book: a few very narrowed down pieces of Tamerlane's life, each separated by an equally large amount of journalism. The reader can neither fully assess the achievements of Tamerlane's career, nor gain a certain familiarity with his personality.
   The purpose of biography is to find out what kind of person the subject of the book was, and evaluate his/her achievements. In the case of Tamerlane, the reader is never really given an explanation for how someone conquered territory so successfully and rapidly, or how a man could rise from the status of desperado to all-powerful emperor. The main argument presented is that Tamerlane, while committing atrocities, also had many cultural achievements, most notably the building of several Islamic monuments now mostly in ruins or completely nonexistent. There is no assessment of Tamerlane's psyche, what led him to believe in his destiny, just how he outwitted his opponents, and what his legacy was. Why are western scholars, even military theorists, so unfamiliar with someone whose military career was as successful and immaculate as Alexander's? How did Tamerlane as a politician manage to rise so far and fast? What psychological condition could Tamerlane have had that may have motivated his ambition, and more significantly, the genocides he so ruthlessly committed? What aspect of his personality made him an electrifying leader, and gave him the energy to vigorously campaign even up to his death as an old man? These are essential questions about Tamerlane that should be answered, or at least examined, so that readers can analyze Tamerlane with the same level of understanding as western heroes such as Alexander and Napoleon.
   Instead, Justin Marozzi gives a hollow carcass of a biography, decorated with fanciful quotations and literary comparisons, but completely lacking in the real substance essential to a book that seeks to give the public an understanding of one of the greatest conquerors in history. In studying Tamerlane, we shouldn't look for the decrepit and virtually forgotten ruins and former cities of Central Asia. That does not highlight our understanding of him as a man. We need to know what he did, how he did it, why he did it, and what affect it had. We need to know these things as much as possible so that we may truly form an accurate perception of him as a statesman, soldier, and human being.



5. Just finished Marozzi's book. I can see why some people grew annoyed...its not arranged like a typical history title. But I liked it for that reason. Marozzi's writing is solid too, and the book breezed by. When I finished I was actually a little sad!
   
   Marozzi definitely seemed to be in awe of Tamerlane, and his enthusiasm in turn made me excited for each new chapter. While most of Tamerlane's historic career was quite bloody and brutal, I couldn't help but be enthralled by it. I also couldn't help but be fascinated by Tamerlane's cultural combination of Muslim and Mongol traditions...really interesting reading.
   
   If you like your history on the straight and narrow with little or no author commentary, then you won't like this book. But if you're willing to go off the beaten path a little and read some personal travel musings sprinkled in with the main story, you will enjoy Marozzi's efforts here.

2 comments about Love and Duty.

1. Ben Purcell was turning forty when he was captured during the Viet Nam War. He mentions how one of his captors called him "an old man" when he found out Purcell was forty, and then actually showed him an odd sort of respect as a result. What Purcell faced in the prison system was a lot different from that show of respect, and Purcell gives a good account of that experience. The book is well written, and gives you a firsthand look at the POW experience. He writes about his deep Christian faith, and how it played an important part in his survival while imprisoned. The book goes into detail about Purcell's two(!) escapes from the prison system, and his subsequent punishements. It is a quick read and would be interesting for anyone looking to read about the American POW experience--or the experience of the wife of a POW--during the war. It would also be interesting for someone looking to read about that experience from a Christian's viewpoint.



2. When we were making the documentary film, "In The Shadow of the Blade," we got to meet a most amazing couple -- Ben and Anne Purcell. We had landed in a wooded LZ up in the Georgia hills next to a river. We were there to interview several veterans and for me to perform a wedding ceremony in our Huey helicopter. It was exciting to around some of the nicest people in the world and to be part of that journey across America. But the single most memory of that trip that stands out for me was sitting around at night next to our Huey listening to Ben and Anne talk about their experiences while he was held captive as a POW in North Vietnam for over 5 and half years. He was the oldest POW of that war (Having just turned 40 the week he was taken prisoner) and he was listed as MIA for almost the entire time he was held captive.
   
   His story and that of his wife who waited at home with all their children are what "Love & Duty" is all about. It is a most remarkable and inspiration story as you could read. They both showed lots of courage and class. The book explores the treatment Ben endured and the emotional account of how Anne coped not knowing even if Ben was alive for all that time.
   
   There is neither bitterness nor hate or even angry in the book or in them personally. They truly are people of great faith and more importantly great love for each other, their country and God! This couple represents the very best of America and of what it means to be a human being. This is one tale of being a POW that will inspire the readers. You will come away from this book with the greatest affection and love for these two people.
   
   This book deals with both of their experiences. Ben wrote alternate chapters that follow that same time frame with what she was going through at home trying to make her life and family work and what he was enduring as a POW. The thread of love and faith is fully visible in the fabric of the story they jointly present. If you were going to read just one book about the POW experience then this is the book to buy!
   
   MWSA's 2004 Gold Medal Award for War Memoirs

5 comments about Napoleon: A Biography.

1. Frank McLynn always does an excellent job regardless of what subject her approaches. This is truly a day by day account of Napoleon's life from childhood through his battles. Although I prefer Robert Asprey's two book biography of Napoleon McLynn does an excellent job of explaining Napoleons rise and fall. Do not be deterred by the length it goes very quickly and is a great start for someone who wants to learn about Napoleon.



2. As the title indicates, the book is "a biography" of Napoleon, one more to join the likely thousands written since his death and, like many, highly speculative in some respects. A welcome touch is that it adds considerably to our knowledge of Napoleon's formative years, childhood, stint at Brienne, and involvement with Paoli in Corsican affairs. The military campaigns are described thoroughly, almost hour by hour (I recommend a map nearby, or an Osprey book companion) and constitute the one aspect of the book that makes it outstanding. A great deal, however, is in the take-it-or-leave camp.
   
   I did not appreciate the attempts at psychoanalysis. Some "insights" are simply thrown in..."there were already indications of his bisexuality" (really? when? how?) or gleaned from the clearly speculative, at a great remove diagnoses of others - Jung, Freud, Adler, inter alia. They become annoying, as does his over-use of the term "Machiavellian", to the point of rendering it meaningless; I'd like to remind readers that in the shifting sands 1789-1795 France, that description would fit almost anyone who struggled to survive by cunning and calculation, as many did. He often describes Napoleon's attitude to women as misogyny, that is, one of hatred. At worst Napoleon disliked certain types of women and was cavalier in his treatment of others, something not untypical of men in general, but to call it "hatred" is going a too far. In that vein, the author's own attitudes are curious to say the least. Women like Josephine and Pauline, who used sex as a tool for survival and/or happened to like it become "nymphomaniacs" under his pen; women who aspired to an intellectual life, such as Germaine de Stael, are described as "pushy" and "pedant".
   
   Rather unforgivable (and astonishing in a serious writer) is the author's inclusion of certain malicious items of gossip with, incredibly, the addendum (also malicious) that there may have been a basis for it after all. So, as a glaring example, the English-sourced bit of calumny that Napoleon fathered Hortense's first child is given some credit by McLynn by the fact Napoleon grieved over the death of the boy. Napoleon loved Josephine's children as his own and it was perfectly natural that he would mourn the death of his first step-grandson (and nephew, since he was also Louis's son) I guess natural human responses are not allowed Napoleon!
   
   Annoyances apart, the book is good mainly, if not solely, for its excellent treatment of the military side of things.



3. I'm sure every biographer of Napoleon aspires to be the one to pin this man down once and for all, to figure him out and deliver him on a platter. Well, it does not happen with this book and even if the author claims that this was never the goal, the attempt is there. The result is a tome that might become increasingly tiresome to anyone who is already familiar with the subject and who does not already harbor a dedicated dislike for Napoleon, and too much for those trying to find a starting point. I would not recommend it to beginner students of Napoleon as it is heavily charged with the largelly negative personal biases and opinions of the author, lacks in specific maps - a necessity when covering a battle in great detail - and assumes the reader has a solid grasp of Europe in the 18th century, particularly France.
   
   McLynn, though calling him a "genius" at times, is hyper-critical of Napoleon as a man, son, husband, step-father and leader - at every stage of his career. His relationships with women are always "misogynistic". With the rest of society, institutions and other powers, invariably "machiavellian" - a word repeated ad nauseam, applicable or not. He is equally censorious of his mother, his wives, his lovers, his brothers, his sisters, his entourage, his friends, his assistants, his bourgeois nobility and his marshals. Did I leave anyone out?
   
   His marshals are singled out for scathing condemnation, marched in front of the firing squad of his pen one by one. Those like Masséna, Ney and Augereau who were "low born" are particular targets. Once riff-raff always riff-raff he seems to be saying.
   
   What made reading this book almost unbearable for me, in the end, are Mr.McLynn's psychoanalytic pretensions. He seems to rely heavily on Jung's speculative rumminations about Napoleon, coming up with novel and often ridiculous (as in "laughable") diagnoses of his own. Thus, Napoleon suffered from every personality disorder and crippling neurosis known to modern mental health professionals, and a few others yet to be discovered; enough for a full psychiatric conference, in fact! In their milder forms, his mental quirks are presented as "complexes". The "Rome complex" for example...Napoleon was interested in ancient Rome but indifferent to the Rome of his own time and, no Gibbon he, never went there. McLynn seriously writes that an "obsession" (another word he loves) with a city one doesn't intend to visit is a "complex". I personally have several then.
   
   His "Oriental complex" is the vague explanation for Napoleon's invasion of Egypt. Nothing about European powers keeping an eye on the crumbling Ottoman Empire and the generally held ambition to be the first to take Constantinople. Oddly, the planned invasion of England - which French strategists studied and prepared for long before Napoleon burst on the scene, and something he personally pursued on and off during his career - never rises to the status of an "England complex". But those familiar with complex-nomenclature in general will be happy to find "Oedipal complex" in there too. Of course.
   
   And so on. Annoying also are the puritanical judgments on the mores, or lack thereof, of 1789-1815 French society, which betray a poor ability to understand the period and refrain from veneering it with present values. It has also been observed that some biographies of Napoleon are essays on tyranny as understood by a post-Stalin or post-Hitler world. It's time Napoleon was allowed to return to his own time.



4. I saw a piece about Napolean on CBS Sunday Morning and I was very
   interested in learning more about him-this book contains all of the info
   you need.



5. I frankly couldn't finish the book, although I did read the beginning, his youth, and the end, and skimmed the middle. I was so put off by the psychobabble that pervades nearly every sentence of the biography of this man that I found it impossible to go on. It felt like being in a high school class just introduced to Freud, Jung et al. The author actually talks about Napoleon's short stature as an impetus to his need to succeed...the first sentence of the book I thought was tongue in cheek (to the effect of Napoleon was not a real person but a creation of the French nation's need for blood after the age of reason ---paraphrasing). But no...its all like that. His mother is powerful and controlling, his father is weak and emasculated...he hates his older brother and repressed it, therefore, the rest of Europe will suffer because he holds in what he would like to do to his older brother but cannot. And on and on. Does anyone still write and talk this way?

5 comments about Trusted Mole.

1. This is the true story behind the true stories of the wars in bosnia. The Author was there for most of the major incidents, if you want to learn what a worthless and beauacratic organisation the UN is read this, Stankovic should be bemedaled and a general bynow, His descriptions of Sarajevo and surrounding areas was spot on and his description of the " little people " describing the ordinary people of the city and his journeys to the " dark side " remind me strongly of my time there. I have read most of the modern books detailing the Balkan conflict and I always assumed that martin Bell wrote the best one but now Bell is in second place. My one wish is that he writes the follow up and lets us all know who placed the spying charges against him and why and how did it all end. to summarise get the book now



2. This book is quite simply brilliant. In painstaking detail, Stankovic relates his experiences during two tours in Bosnia as part of the British UN presence during the war.

   This is no "advocacy" literary piece. There are no sentimental biases or hidden agendas - it's so refreshing to read something which just sticks to the facts and tells the story as it is. As an Australian of part Serbian heritage I totally understood the "mentality" that Stankovic tried to convey, he did it so well, but unfortunatly I think this "mentality" is so foreign to your average westerner that a lot of the true gems of this book would be lost on them. Nonetheless, Stankovic has attempted to articulate it, and once you understand this "mentality" that drives the people of the Balkans, you will start to see why this war happened. That is not to justify the horrors of the last ten years in any way, shape or form - but I feel that this innate understanding of the "mentality" is what is perhaps lacking from most books on the subject.

   It's a great read. Stankovic has portrayed the nitty gritty reality of the war in Bosnia, and provides an insight into the lives of the "little people" and the behind-the-scenes players that we otherwise never hear about because it's not newsworthy enough, or won't fit into someone's colour-by-numbers view of what is going over there... Or quite simply does not suit whoever's agenda.

   This book is an important read for anyone with a serious interest in recent Balkan history. After being falsely slapped with charges of espionage and his military career in tatters, Stankovic has written a probably the best and most important book on the Bosnian war. Put it at the top of your reading list.




3. As someone who was in the balkans at the same time as "Mike Stanley" i saw the same hopeless situation that the UN was placed into without the wholehearted support of the world community. To say that the UN is hopelessly bearucratic is to simplify the entire situation.The UN and UNPROFOR could not take resolute action against any of the 3 sides under the mandate which had been issued by the security council. a lack of wilingness on the part of the major members of the UN especially the USA to bolster the the presence of the UN and the forces which were there to PROTECT UN personnel NOT the indigenous population and the fact that the USA wanted to arm the croat and bosnian goverments against the wishes of the UN. This book shows the futility of sending military forces into an enviroment and expecting them to act as saviours to a population which are hell bent on butchering their neighbours mostly with arms provided by the good old US of A.The most inportant point from this book was that the UN is not and has never been a military organisation due in part to the intransigence of the superpowers at the end of WW2.The UN was not to blame for the war in the Balkans and as much as some countries have tried to militarise it this book shows that this is not only practically impossible but fundamentally dangerous.'Trusted mole' talks about world politics from the perspective of the balkans and it shows just how thin is the veneer of civilisation when it comes down to it .



4. As General Mike Rose's interpreter, Stankovic had a front-row seat to key events in Bosnia. Those observations alone are worth getting the book. Alas, if only they formed even a scant majority of it.

   Informed readers should be ready for some double-takes... and disappointments.

   1. Stankovic's grasp of the Bosnian situation is simplistic and at times woefully ignorant. He declares that there was no separate "Muslim" ethnicity in Bosnia until the Western media created it, showing his ignorance of a crucial factor behind the Bosnian wars: the 1974 Consitution and Muslims-as-consituent-nationality issue. He recounts "rescuing" Sarajevans by "slipping" them out in official vehicles, clueless that he and other well-meaning UN personnel were doing the belligerents' ethnic cleansing for them ...and strengthening the Bosnian Serb hand. Perhaps most shockingly, he takes as gospel the Serbs' good faith behind an early "offer" to yield territory later for a cease-fire today. ...Stankevic slams the international community for not jumping on this supposed perfect opportunity.

   2. .... His boss General Rose can do no wrong: even Rose's most naive and disastrous moves are depicted with something approaching hero worship. To Stankevic, it's unfailingly "us" (U.N., Britain, Rose) good, "them" (NATO, America, Wesley Clark) bad...Prepare for plenty of adolescent swagger and sneer.... Stankevic simply cannot separate himself from his subject. Any personal angle changes everything. He calls the thoughtful and respected U.S. ambassador John Menzies a "pro-Muslim fanatic," offering no reason for this intriguing characterisation except that Menzies apparently once questioned his judgement. Though he derides the idea that his Serb ancestry affected the performance of his duties, and indeed can criticise the Bosnian Serbs, he appears incapable of ever viewing the Muslim leadership with anything but cold suspicion or painting Izetbegovic et al in any but the most sinister colours.

   4. Okay, it's a sideshow, but I for one would like to know the rest of the story behind his arrest. His introduction leaves him in a jail cell from which we never see him released. Was he ever exonerated? Fined? Sentenced? We're never given the opportunity to judge whether his detainment made any sense. We're simply to take his word that it was a trumped-up load of bureaucratic hysteria.

   So if you're a subject expert, buy the book. You'll be able to make sense of what Stankevic witnessed, even if he obviously can't. If you're new to the Bosnian conflict, look elsewhere.




5. This book is by far, as Sunday Times put it, the best book to have come out of the Balkan War. I am a Serb myself, from Bosnia, and even though I do not approve of some Author's opinions and thoughts, I have to say that this book is most sincere that has ever been written on Yugoslav wars.
   I like the book for there is no much preaching in it, no deep politics whatsoever, but true story and his perceptions. I think Mr.Stankovic is one of the very few people in this world that was able to describe and depict all the Balkan's hell due to his origins and background. To be honest, what I liked the best in this book were parts where the Author himself tries to perceive or understand something, which is quite normal or commonplace in Serbs' lives and culture, but fails for he grew up in the UK.
   Nevertheless, the book is simply great! Well done, Milos Stankovic! Svaka cast!

5 comments about Kill-Cavalry: The Life of Union General Hugh Judson Kilpatrick.

1. This author falls into the same trap that's been laid for researchers for the past 135 years. The most glaring example is the standard portrayal of Kilpatrick at Gettysburg, all of which is based on one source who admitted years later he was never a witness to what actually happened or was said on the field that day. Like researchers before him, the author missed this glaring truth.

   Here are two hints of Kilpatrick's character and performance: (1) His men held him in such high esteem that they petitioned Lincoln to have him promoted to general (a rare occurrence in the CW); and (2) after the battle of Gettysburg his men presented their commander with a Damascus sword in appreciation for his leadership on July 3.

   In short, an author who doesn't dig deeper than his predecessors is dancing to the worn-out tune of incredulity.




2. This book smacks of a work done by someone who had a thesis and then did everything he could to prove it, rather than letting the research bring him to a conclusion.

   Fortunately, I did get the feeling that the basic history of Killpatrick was decent and reasonably fair-minded. At the end of each chapter, however, Martin adds his commentaty about how the foregoing information shows that Kilpatrick was a horrible leader, womanizer, thief, etc. At one point, Martin suggests that the attempt on Jefferson Davis' life introduced the idea of assination, even to the point of possibly leading to Lincoln's murder. Right.

   Killpatrick's womanizing, thievery, etc comes out, for sure, but were his casualities really highter than comparable commanders? That's not clear. He won some battles and lost others--like most Civil War leaders.




3. 
   To say Hugh Kilpatrick was a controversial figure would be an understatement. Small in stature, it's my opinion he suffered from the "little man" complex: he attempted to over-compensate for his slight physical size by his recklessness and bravado. This would explain his rashness regarding his plan to attack Richmond and free the prisoners there, which was repulsed decidedly by the Confederates (though Sheridan attempted the same thing 10 weeks later with the same results). Disparaged by many of his fellow officers (Sherman called him a "damned fool"), it's also reported that his men respected him. Martin is highly critical.
   
   Kilpatrick was born in New Jersey in 1836 and graduated from West Point the year the Civil War broke out. He commanded a number of New York Cavalry brigades during the first two years of the war, receiving a serious wound at Big Bethel and then seeing much action in Virginia. After participating in the largest cavalry engagement of the war at Brandy Station in June 1863, he was promoted to brigadier general. He was conspicuous at Gettysburg, where his orders to E.J. Farnsworth to attack Hood, who was well-positioned behind stone walls, on the third day caused much slaughter to Farnsworth's men and Farnsworth's own death from five separate wounds. In the winter of 1864 he made his ill-fated attack on Richmond which resulted in failure. In the spring of that year he served in the Atlanta campaign and was wounded seriously for the second time at Resaca, GA. Recuperating by August, he performed well as commander of cavalry during the Carolina campaign and was a major factor in the capture of Fayetteville, NC, in March 1865. After the war he was appointed U.S. Minister to Chile, where he died in 1881.
   
   Martin's dislike for his subject is quite clear. In this he joins a long list of historians, most of whom regard Kilpatrick as showing poor judgment and costly wantonness. He finds his failure at Richmond to be his worst mistake. Despite this, however, I thought the book was interesting and well written, and made an honest attempt to capture the life of the man for the reader. The book also contained excellent maps and clear elucidation of military affairs. Not the definitive work on Kilpatrick, but not one for the waste heap, either.



4. There are some figures of the Civil War that it is very easy to hate. Even today, very few Civil War buffs have anything good to say about Braxton Bragg or Henry Halleck for example. While not as well known as Bragg or Halleck, there is much to distain in the life of Hugh Judson Kilpatrick, a Union cavalry commander from New Jersey. Samuel J. Martin provides more than enough dirt on Kilpatrick's rather sordid personal life and less than honorable character. Kilpatrick was a selfish and vain man whose ambition for power and glory led him to act rashly and often foolishly while covering his mistakes in the press and reports to his superiors. Furthermore, Kilpatrick was a womanizer who had no qualms about cheating on his wife and discarding mistresses, even those who he impregnated. Martin certainly proves that General Kilpatrick was a scoundrel.
   
   Martin leads the reader through Kilpatrick's rather checkered Civil War career. Graduating from West Point in 1861, Kilpatrick served with the New York volunteers and became known for his rash charges and his willingness to fight. Martin seems to accept this reputation but seems to argue that Kilpatrick was a physical coward, a rather odd statement considering the general's willingness to fight on the battlefield or off (even calling out Southern cadets at West Point to fist fights). Kilpatrick won some fame for driving his men to within 2 miles of Richmond as part of the Stoneman Raid during the Chancelorsville campaign and became a general in the summer of 1863. While part of his division won laurels at Gettysburg (Custer's brigade), the Kilpatrick ordered charge on July 3 proved to be an error, costing the lives of many men of Farnwsorth's brigade including Farnsworth himself. Kilpatrick would lead another raid on Richmond in early 1864, hoping to free a number of Union prisoners, pass out Lincoln's amnesty proclomation and capture and perhaps kill key Confederate leaders including Jefferson Davis and his cabinet. Martin agrees with the Stephen Sears that Kilpatrick was in charge of the raid though a recent article by David Long (which he is turning into a book) argues that Dahlgren planned to kill Davis and that Kilpatrick, a notorious leaker to the press, was out of the loop. After the failure of the raid, Kilpatrick was sent west and led Union cavalry for Sherman's march to the sea and Carolina campaigns.
   
   After the war, Kilpatrick, who in the war expressed presidential ambitions, made two failed efforts to get the Republican gubenatorial nomination in New Jersey, ran unsuccessfully for the House of Represenatives in 1880 and twice served as ambasador to Chile. He passed way in 1881 in Chile at the age of 45. While a Republican, he was recalled from Chile by Grant which led to his supporting Horace Greely in 1872. Kilpatrick returned to the GOP and supported Hayes in 1876 and Garfield in 1880.
   
   Martin certainly reveals Kilpatrick's dismal character and offers a solid, if often overly critical, account of his military career. In all fairness Martin had little to work with as Kilpatrick's papers were destroyed. Still, Kilpatrick's political career could have been examined in greater detail. For all his faults, Kilpatrick had an energy and ambition to him which made him a fairly represenative figure for his times. One is left wondering, after reading Martin's book, why Kilpatrick simply was not shelved. Kilpatrick, again with all his baggage, was a fighter and those were few and far between in the Union ranks. His ambition forced him to the battlefield and took him into politics. While Martin reveals the dark side to this ambition, Kilpatrick rose out of youthful obscurity to win a solid reputation. He could not have been merely the talentless scoundrel that Martin depicts. While Martin seems to rely a great deal on secondary sources, he really had no other choice. Despite that, one suspects that Martin went into writing the book with his thesis already formulated and that is what proves frustrating about this book. Martin should have given the reader a portrait of Kilpatrick in full as opposed to bashing us over the head with how much of a jerk the man was.



5. The earlier critical comments about "Kill-Cavalry" are generally accurate. Here are some of the main points.
   
   1. Author Samual J. Martin is neither a trained writer nor a trained historian. He is a retired businessman in South Carolina whose post-retirement hobby is doing Civil War research. The lengthy bibliography attests to his detailed research, much of which is semi-original (manuscripts, official documents, correspondence, newspapers, etc.). His writing itself is dreadful, not in the sense of poor grammar or sentence structure but in its straightforward and completely uninvolving style.
   
   2. Although Kilpatrick led an extremely colorful (if brief) life, he is a difficult subject for historical research. His daughter burned his personal papers after his death, his contemporaries are long dead, and his tendency to exaggerate his successes and disguise his mistakes make most surviving accounts suspect. Factor in the difficulty of tracking the activities of any individual cavalry unit during the Civil War and you have a very difficult task making any definitive claims about Kilpatrick.
   
   3. Martin has an obvious ax to grind concerning his subject. While Kilpatrick was a self-promoting scoundrel, an objective examination of most of his contemporaries would reveal that these qualities were almost a prerequisite for ascendancy within either army. Martin's anti-Kilpatrick agenda sidetracks him from the two best biographical styles for a subject such as Kilpatrick. The most entertaining would be a light-hearted examination of his escapades (Kilpatrick was a Civil War version of actor Errol Flynn-both of Irish descent) and a fun look at his exploits would be quite entertaining. Another alternative would have been to draw parallels with contemporaries like Dan Sickles, Phil Sheridan, and George Custer. Unfortunately Martin's pious disapproval does not allow him to explore either avenue.
   
   4. Because of Martin's prejudices about his subject and his lack of good source material he seems compelled to editorialize throughout the book. Bad enough, but his narrative often contradicts his conclusions. For example, Martin is convinced that Kilpatrick was a cowardly soldier and points to many examples of Kilpatrick losing his nerve in combat situations. Yet at the same time he details Kilpatrick's drive for recognition and tendency to recklessly commit his command to action. Like all but the most senior cavalry officers, Kilpatrick was up in a saddle with his troopers on all their raids and maneuvers, and remained this style of cavalryman for almost the entire war. He was not an armchair general but a field officer in a serious pursuit of advancement and fame. There were far easier and safer commands for West Point trained officers. Had he been lazy or cowardly he would have sought a desk job but he believed the cavalry offered him the best prospects for advancement and recognition.
   
   5. Martin is highly critical of both Kilpatrick's command performance and his refusal to expose himself to danger at Brandy Station in 1863. He does not even mention Kilpatrick's saber fight with a hated West Point classmate during that engagement. But Eric Wittenberg goes into detail about this incident in "The Union Cavalry Comes of Age" (2003): Kilpatrick squared off with a Confederate officer he had known and disliked at West Point...the Southerner gave Kilpatrick a slight cut on the arm...receiving a vicious slash the Confederate officer reeled in his saddle. Seeing an opportunity Kilpatrick killed his injured foe with a slashing cut of his saber. The victorious colonel rejoined his brigade, proclaiming, "That rights a wrong. I have wanted to meet him ever since the war commenced".
   
   6. Rather than bring Kilpatrick to life, Martin fills many pages of the book with general Civil War history. For a book of only 268 pages, there is simply too much detail about the battles and movements of the two armies, without regard to whether Kilpatrick himself was involved.
   
   7. Martin sensationalizes the cavalry charge Kilpatrick and Merritt ordered during the 3rd day of Gettysburg. He goes into great detail about a somewhat dubious account of Kilpatrick's interaction with a subordinate commander, yet fails to examine the very real tactical opportunity that he and Merritt had recognized and were trying to exploit. One of Merritt regiments had tied up the two brigades of Confederate cavalry in Fairfield; leaving the right flank of Lee's army open to attack. Had Law's (formerly Hood's) division been positioned to support Longstreet's assault on the Union center, the cavalry charge would most likely have been a significant success.
   
   Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

5 comments about The Sutras of Abu Ghraib: Notes from a Conscientious Objector.

1. I found Aidan Delgado's willingness to share both his evolving convictions as well as his weakness and doubts throughout the Iraq experience to be deeply touching. His transparent honesty is unexpected and moving. This sifting, without pretense, of the humanity out of the horror of Abu Ghraib gives us all a glimpse of our own potential...either way.



2. This well-written book will hold your attention from beginning to end. A true story that reads like a novel with a range of "characters" that you care about - or strongly dislike. Mr. Delgado helps one to understand the situations and attitudes that make the abuse that took place at Abu Gharib (and other places) possible. He can feel proud that he took a stand to live up to his principles.



3. Aidan Delgado's book is not about THE war - my brother's book is about his war.
   
   Filled with some great moments, many comic and dreadful at the same time, Aidan's book shines brightest when he shows us his war, internal and external, through his eyes and then again through his hindsight.
   
   To some, his insights and reflections may initially come off as precocious if not awkward, but as you come to know the writer, come to see him as he no doubt sees himself, you find the juxtaposition appropriate. A young man too smart and too wise for the insanity of the situation and too self-conscious and self-aware to lose himself to THE WAR. In the tradition of books like "The Way of the Peaceful Warrior" a reader growths along side the writer until, at the books conclusion, you feel the mixed relief and emptiness of "what next."
   
   Even in the writing of the book, Aidan seems to recognize this inherent clash between his youth, his paygrade, his growing wisdom and thoughtfulness and the over-wrought social context into which his words fall. Normally, books like this are penned by seasoned men, graying at the temples and we are ready to accept their memories and insights. Despite Aidan's youth, his "voice" is truly captured in his writing.



4. The Sutras of Abu Ghraib is a vivid description of a soldier's life in Iraq, and also of the life that led him to war and brought him back as a conscientious objector. An American Buddhist serving with the U.S. Army in Iraq, Delgado stuck out among his fellow soldiers as well as among Iraqis, and his book highlights the difficulty of a lonely, disassociated soldier trying to disentangle himself from what became for him an intolerably immoral war. Even if often ridiculed for his Buddhist principles, made to feel embarrassed about his application for conscientious objector, and even called a "terrorist sympathizer", Delgado describes how some soldiers - even the ones he least expected - were honestly understanding and even sympathetic, and this was the real love and brotherhood he found in the Army. Ranging from hilarious accounts of the absurdities of life to gloomy and disheartening stories of the real face of war, The Sutras of Abu Ghraib flies the reader from sandy deserts in southern Iraq, to sunny beaches in Florida, back through the dark bowels of Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, and into the heart and soul of a naïve soldier turned peace activist. A must read for anyone interested in the realities of the war in Iraq and in the hopeful possibility for personal growth and triumph in face of the worst challenges of life.



5. Couldn't put this book down. Delgado tells a touching and troubling story: I was touched by how openly he spoke about his fears and feelings. I was troubled by the reality in Iraq that he revealed. Delgado was relatively fair and honest in portraying his superiors and peers and situation in the Army--it is not easy to talk about such an important moment in your life with objectivity. It shows a great amount of maturity in such a young author.
   
   If you are for or against the war, Buddhist or not---this is a book about the moments in your life that change who you are forever. Delgado's was a beautiful and painful transformation from a confused, naive college student to a Buddhist, veteran and activist.
   
   Everyone should read this book.

5 comments about No Greater Glory: The Four Immortal Chaplains and the Sinking of the Dorchester in World War II.

1. If you ever feel that your fellow man has no regard for you, pick up this book and don't put it down untill you have finished it. What an inspiring story of four 'Men of God' and their dedication to that God, each other, and all those fortunate enough to have crossed their paths. You will be stunned by the character of each of these great men.



2. With a sickening thump, an explosion wracked the troop transport S.S. Dorchester - a German torpedo had found its mark. It was shortly after midnight, February 3, 1942, and the ship was about to sink into the deadly cold waters off of Greenland. As men panicked and struggled to find a way to save their own lives, four men walked amongst them spreading calm and encouragement. Helping everyone they could find, even giving away their own precious lifejackets, the four chaplains - Rev. George Lansing Fox (Methodist), Rabbi Alex Goode, Rev. Clark Poling (Dutch Reformed) and Fr. John Washington (Catholic) - sought to serve their God and the fellow men. And when the end came, survivors saw the four chaplains, locked arm in arm, praying on the upside-down hull of the ship, just before it dove beneath the waves.
   
   This book tells the remarkable true story of four men who joined the American military as chaplains, their experiences at their Massachusetts training camp, and their final tragic mission. It is a story that is bound to bring a tear to your eye, but it is also a great story of faith and truly living the life of godly sacrifice. Overall, I think that this is a great book, on that I highly recommend to everyone.



3. Everyone who's already reviewed this book has said so much about it that it's hard to find anything more to say about how well it's written, what a great gripping true story it is, and the amazing heroism of the four chaplains. This book is so well-written and has such a compelling and involving story that I read it in like two days, and wished there had been even more. Additionally, this heroic tale from WWII has special meaning to many of the people in my area (New York State's Capital District) because Rev. Clark Poling's church was in nearby Schenectady, providing a local connection.
   
   The book itself follows a somewhat nonlinear format, going back and forth between the pre-war lives of the four chaplains and their lives during the war, particularly after they boarded the Dorchester and arrived in Greenland for a very brief stay before going back on the ill-fated ship. After this point, the narrative switches entirely to a linear format, discussing the ship's final night before being torpedoed by a German U-boat and the chaos, heroism, and tragedy that ensued. Not many people could honestly say that they would give up their lifejackets if their ship went down in freezing waters in the middle of the night (Rabbi Alex Goode even gave up his gloves) or remain calm in the midst of such frantic circumstances and such a life-and-death situation. Many people back then also weren't so forward-thinking about interfaith relations, with a Reform rabbi, a Catholic priest, and two reverends from different Protestant denominations being such close friends and reaching out equally to everyone on the ship, largely being nonsectarian apart from when they did things like conduct services. This was still an era in which many Protestants and Catholics didn't associate with one another, to say nothing of the rampant institutionalised prejudice against Jews, and, in a number of areas, against Catholics as well. They set a moving and heroic example for all time, not just in the area of interfaith relations, but also in the area of selfless sacrifice. It was interesting to read in the Afterword about some of the people who have since been awarded the Immortal Chaplains Prize for Humanity Award, such as the Japanese Righteous Gentile Chiune Sugihara, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and Omri Abdel-Halim al-Jadah, a Palestinian Muslim who died while saving a young Israeli Jewish boy from drowning. The Afterword also provided information on what happened to the survivors of the Dorchester sinking and the near and dear ones of the chaplains.
   
   As we find out all throughout the book, this tragedy could have been prevented (it was kind of like a smaller-scale Titanic) if only the Dorchester had been inspected more closely or refurbished, or if there had been enough lifejackets and safety instructions provided, and even after disaster struck, the casualties could have been reduced if the nearby American ships had begun searching for survivors and bringing them onto their ships right away instead of thinking nothing serious had happened or going after the attacking U-boat first, but even in the midst of such bungling and such a chaotic disaster, the amazing heroism of the chaplains shone through as well as it would have in calmer circumstances.



4. I ordered this book for my father, whose brother died in WWII. The family was given almost no information at the time, but by piecing together details, my mother determined that he was almost certainly on a particular boat when it was sunk by the enemy. That fact was confirmed by this book, and it offered a lot of information that is offered only sketchily in other areas. We appreciate the author and the information he was able to provide families, as well as the story of the wonderful chaplains. My mother, an avid reader (particularly about WWII), said this was one of the best written histories on WWII that she has read.



5. This is a touching book about the four chaplains who gave their lives for our soldiers. You will read a biographical background on each chaplain. Their love for each other and the love for the soldiers reached beyond the line of denominations. They gave their lives so that others may life. You can see their beautiful pictures in the stained-glass window at Washington's Cathedral. I had the privileged to visit several years ago.