5 comments about 15 Stars: Eisenhower, MacArthur, Marshall: Three Generals Who Saved the American Century.

1. Just finished this. It appears a bit gossipy, but I think the author's scholarship is solid. His depth and breadth of the subjects and the time are impeccable and well displayed here. It gives a well rounded picture. There is a sense that MacArthur comes off with the most unflattering portrait, but there appears ample evidence from multiple sources to support this. Likewise for the other two figures who are revealed as well rounded and authentic men with their own sets of strengths and weaknesses. 15 Stars deepened my respect for Marshall who stayed above the fray at times, but also was willing to do "the next right thing." Eisenhower appears the most opportunistic, but you can see the political skills which must be respected. This is an excellent primer on why generals can make good or poor Presidents. Excellent resource for those who study leadership.



2. 15 stars provides an excellent look at three generals who played a pivotal role in shaping the United States in the 20th century. The book is filled with detail and is by no means a light read but it is worth every sentence. The scope of the book forces the author to be vague at times and it does not cover every detail but gives a general sense of how these three men shaped the century. This is not meant to be only a book about World War II as some other reviewers have complained about. It is meant to analyze the impact these men had on shaping the post war world as well which means not every detail will be covered. As to the bias of the author I have to agree that it is overly harsh on MacArthur who having many faults with his own hubris was made to be almost malevolent in his pursuit for advancement. For those who are starting out learning about World War II and how it shaped the United States this is a great place to start. For those who have read a little bit wider you may want to pass on this one as it does not add much new but summarizes the lives of these men and how their interactions shaped the country.



3. Very detailed, perhaps too much so, but accurate historically. I enjoyed the book very much.



4. This is a well researched book that provides a fascinating insight into the workings and interactions of America's great Word War Two generals. I chose the book because it is unique in focus and I thoroughly enjoyed. It can be hard reading sometimes because there are too many ideas in one sentence, but this is good stuff.
   
   Kevin Ashcroft, 11 July 2008



5. I have read several Bio's of for each of these men, but never one which covered all 3 before. The books author is quite comprehensive in detailing the professional lives of all 3 generals from the 1930's forward. Author definitely is fond of Gen. Marshall, lukewarm on Eisenhower, and clearly dislikes MacArthur. With Mac and Ike the details of their foibles and errors come through clearly in the book. The author is much gentler on the essentially colorless G.C. Marshall. Definitely not a canonization piece for any of the 3 men, lots of behind the scenes information. A good book for folks who have previously read bio's on all of these Generals. I would not recommend this book to someone who knows little about the professional accomplishments of these men or WW2. Enthusiasts will enjoy it beginners in this area of history should look elsewhere first.

No comments about Gamecock: The Life and Campaigns of General Thomas Sumter.

5 comments about The Prince of Princes: The Life of Potemkin.

1. Potemkin was a Russian statesman who exercised power in the reign of Catherine the Great. He had a position of importance for about 17 years in the last part of the 17th Century.

   He was associated with the "Southern Strategy". In the early years of the 17th Century Peter the Great had modernized the Russian army, organized society in such a way that it could support a standing army and run a centralized state in a modern way. Peter had defeated the Swedes and thrown them out of Russia. His campaigns in the south were not successful and he was forced to sign a humiliating peace with Persia.

   Potemkin expanded Russia to the South. Detaching the Crimea from the Turkish Empire and making it an independent state was the first step. Later it was annexed as was some of the territories in the Caucasus and Besserabia. Not only did Potemkin add these territories to Russia but he made them what they are today. These areas had been largely pastoral areas dominated by the Turks and sparsely populated. Potemkin filled these areas with peasant farmers and they became some of the richest agricultural areas in Russia. He also designed and built cities such as Odessa and Sebastapool. One thing which was important to Russia's history over the next hundred years was that he developed good relationships with the Cossacks and in fact created the Kuban Cossacks. As a result the Cossacks became one of the pillars of Czarism.

   In the 19th Century Russia was one of the largest and most successful empires. Potemkin is one of its architects and laid the basis for its relentless eastward expansion. He is remarkable in many ways. A good deal of what he achieved was through diplomacy. His skills and interests were greater than that of a normal military leader and involved setting up the infrastructure of a nation state.

   This book is something that could not fail to be interesting because of its subject matter. The writer however tends to focus on the dramatic and scandalous parts of Potemkin's life to make a dramatic story somewhat at the expense of the historical narrative.

   Catherine the Great was married to a Czar who was probably insane. It seems that her son was the product of an affair. Shortly after her husband came to the thrown she became fearful that she would be divorced. She conspired with two brothers called the Orlovs to overthrow her husband and later murder him and to make her the Czar.

   In her forties Catherine had an affair with Potemkin who was a very minor noble in a guards restaurant. He had shown bravery in battle and continually flirted with Catherine and threw himself at her feet. She succumbed and they were lovers for a while and probably were married secretly. His power and office derive from her trust in him. After their affair ended he continued to exercise power in the South of Russia.

   The book tends to push the romance between Potemkin and Catherine to the fore and to discuss the history as something of an afterthought. It seems designed at selling to a larger market than normal academic histories. Despite all this it is an interesting work both from the point of view of discussing Catherine and also documenting the rise of the Russian empire.




2. If all you knew about Potemkin was the fact that he built fake villages for Catherine the Great, then this book will tell you a lot more. In fact, the author goes into the origin of that particular myth, and shows it to be false, and propagated by enemies of Potemkin, and repeated, uncritically, by subsequent historians.

   There is no question that Sebag-Montefiore is biassed in favor of his hero - this is not an objective biography, and doesn't try to be, or claim to be so. Some people might think that the author of a historical biography should be an invisible, impartial figure, but you don't get that with this book. You hear a lot about the author's travels to research his subject, which contrasts with the dry style of more "serious" historians, who never leave the library. Any author of a biography is likely to be biassed, so why not be upfront about it?

   This is a very readable book - there are lots of anecdotes, and a lot of quotes directly from the correspondance between Potemkin and Catherine. The book makes a direct claim that the two were married, in a secret ceremony, and even describes the ceremony, even though the author cheerfully admits the lack of evidence for this.

   The really good thing about this book is that most of it draws on primary sources, many of which have not been available before, and the author brings these, and their authors to life. This means that it is a ground-breaking historical account, and popular history at the same time. Like all good biographies, it teaches you a lot about the historical context, so you will learn a lot about how Catherine was able to defeat the Turks, and significantly expand the size of the Russian empire. Seeing Catherine through the eyes of her lover's biographer is a new slant on a subject who has had a lot written about her.

   I really enjoyed this book. It's popular history that is both historical (in terms of its academic integrity, and its research) and popular (in terms of its interesting subject, and lively writing style).




3. Unlike physics, writing biography or history is often an exercise in opinion. It gains credibility by being informed of the historical record, but affairs are frequently so complex, and knowledge so incomplete, that opinion may prevail by default. Unfortunately, opinion can also prevail in the presence of substantial fact, and this seems to be the case with Sebag Montefiore's "Prince of Princes: The Life of Potemkin." This prodigious work with over a hundred pages of references and notes, many citing sources never before seen, makes a contribution by bringing these to light. On the other hand, it shares with its useless 1938 predecessor, George Soloveytchik's "Potemkin: A Picture of Catherine's Russia", an overwhelming hero worship of its subject. This leads to an intolerant opinion and dismissal of material not supporting the author's love. Thus, unfavorable material on Potemkin is out of hand labeled, and often with some emotion, "untrustworthy," "prejudiced," "venomous," containing "weasel words," etc.

   Sadly, Montefiore's efforts are compromised by incomplete and out-of-context quotations of Prince de Ligne that self-servingly change the meaning to the opposite of its original intent. For example, the author writes on page 382, "Ligne knew 'very well what legerdemain tricks are', but the achievements were real." However, the quotation he cites continues, "...for example, the empress, who cannot rush about on foot as we do, is made to believe that certain towns for which she has given money are finished; whereas they are often towns without streets, streets without houses, houses without roofs, doors, or windows." One hopes that this was a mere oversight, but the reader is helpless to tell and is inevitably left wondering about the reliability of other citations.

   There is also confusion of the Lake Ladoga/Upper Volga cruise of 1785 with the celebrated 1787 inspection trip south. The author has the English Ambassador Fitzherbert composing on the Volga trip some tricky verse when in fact the incident took place two years later on the Dnieper River, and Count de Segur was the impromptu poet.

   There are many sweeping statements presented as undisputed fact such as the French and Indian War "...set off the events that would lead to the Seven Years War..." (p. 35), the Russian army brought the Prussian army to the "very edge of destruction" during the Seven Years War (p. 40), the Black Sea fleet was well- made (p. 370) and then refutes himself in footnote 33 on page 589, etc. Most historians would take issue with every one of these statements and with dozens more as well.

   The author seems to be confused about the issue behind the "Potemkin Villages" story. The Potemkin Village controversy was not over the achievements in the Crimea and lower Ukraine seen during the land portion of Catherine's 1787 journey (though these too were questioned) but over what was seen earlier during the Dnieper River float. It was the "villages" seen from the river that were alleged to be "fake," (though once again questions were raised about achievements elsewhere as well,) and contrary to advertising claims on the book's dust jacket, the work is completely unpersuasive in laying the Potemkin Village matter to rest.

   The book also frequently seems to loose focus with numerous biographical asides of secondary characters, some quit lengthy.

   There are just too many issues with this book from weak editing to questionable facts, injudicious hero worship, outright errors of fact, an almost Russia partisanship and defensiveness, a peculiar view of history, etc., to make it acceptable. Alas, a trustworthy biography of Gregory Potemkin remains yet to be written.




4. Yes, this biography is flawed. And anyone who abjures imperfect work should avoid this book. But if you care to learn how one man and one woman's passion enlightened and modernized the Russian empire, you should read this book and accept it for what it is--an insightful psychobiography rather than history.

   Montefiore documents the frenetic and flawed love between Catherine, Tzarina of the Russian Empire and Potemkin. He shows how their love bound and locked their souls together in a dance played out through letters that left each no less desperate, but somehow more complete. Catherine tutored the younger Potemkin, mentored his fine mind, and then recognized her protege-lover first as her equal and then as unparalleled founder of the empire that she could adeptly run, but never of her own device create.

   Also, Montefiore shows how Potemkin looms as freethinker over the feudal landscape of 18th century Russia. Not through courage or moral principle did he embrace new ideas and pariahs but rather through audaciousness. Potemkin thirsted for new experiences. He craved proximity to ancient truths, and to their exponents--whether they be Rabbis, Mullahs, ArchBishops or defrocked Priests. And his actions transformed that landscape as he built cities, ships, whole provinces seemingly with nothing but the power of his own will.

   I am left with a question for the author. What role did self-preservation, and obsession to protect Catherine play in Potemkin's unbounded efforts to extend the Russian empire southward? Did his actions protect his sovereign from intrique and possible deposition? Was he driven by vision or necessity?




5. Potemkin : Prince of Princes
   by Simon Sebag Montefiore
   This book about Potemkin is as broad, expansive, and fascinating as the man himself. It's beautifully researched, based strongly on the correspondence of Potemkin and Catherine the Great, as well as the archives of Potemkin.
   
   Gregor Potemkin was a minor noble who was on the periphery of the conspiracy that brought Catherine the Great to power in Russia in 1762. Younger than Catherine, Potemkin remained among the people who served her, and was seen as a humorous and turbulent young man with a gift for amusing the Empress.
   
   In 1774, they became lovers, and lovers on an epic scale. The letters between them are humorous, loving, passionate, and filled with the details of running an Empire. Potemkin, brilliant, well-read and gifted was a companion for Catherine in a way that none of her other favorites were. He and Catherine were tender towards one another til his death in the early 1790's, even as they both eventually turned to other lovers. Rumors spread that they were married, and Montefiore explores whether this might be true. His conclusion - it's impossible to prove, but their language of love uses the phrases husband and wife in far more than casual way. And the way that they worked together to run an Empire, wage wars in Crimea, and make Russia a stronger Imperial power was one of partnership, not of master and servant.
   
   Potemkin is a fascinating figure - by turns filled with manic energy and diffident - a sensualist who wanted to reside in a monastery, a mass of contradictions. But the book makes a sense of the man - passionate and intellectual, filled with curiosity for innovation, with a gift for friendship. He led the effort to conquer the Crimea, giving Russia an outlet on the Black Sea, which led to important shifts in power in the coming century. Sometimes hiding behind a mask of indolence, he set out to build towns, improve agricultural, innovate in river transport, and set a new diplomatic agenda with the Ottaman Empire, Austria, France and Prussia.
   
   Montefiore discusses some of the myths of Potemkin, especially the infamous Potemkin villages, and tries to show how the foreign ambassadors around Potemkin had reasons to diminish the progress Potemkin had made in changing the newly acquired lands in the Crimea. Occasionally the author is perhaps too willing to dismiss Potemkin's more outrageous behavior, but is frank and honest about his failings as well as his triumphs.
   
   The book is beautifully written, with an energetic and clear prose style. Often you get only books about the dominant figure of a place and era, such as Catherine the Great in Russia during this time. This book add substantial details to the picture of the Russian Court, Russian politics, and of Catherine herself. A highly recommended book for anyone interested in the period. If you need an entree into the period, let me recommend Henri Troyat's Catherine the Great.
   
   A joy! What a pleasure to read a good book.

5 comments about Two Souls Indivisible: The Friendship That Saved Two POWs in Vietnam.

1. James Hirsch has written an inspirational account of two American POWs, Fred Cherry, an African-American fighter-bomber pilot, and Porter Halyburton, a southern white jet navigator. Both were shot down flying missions over North Vietnam and spent seven-plus years in prison camps. The author weaves considerable biographical material on the two servicemen into descriptions of their capture, interrogations, torture and harsh prison conditions. The book draws on extensive interviews with the two flyers, their families, fellow POWs, other military colleagues and close friends.

   The narrative depicts how POWs struggled to maintain dignity, sense of honor to the U.S. military and mutual support in the face of cruel treatment by North Vietnamese captors. This reader has for years wondered what POWs endured while imprisoned. No longer, for this book presents graphic descriptions of horrible prison conditions and physical and psychological torture. Anyone with strong views on the Vietnam War, pro or con, would find this book engaging.
   
   The discussions of Vietnamese torture and abuse of American servicemen make distressing reading in light of revelations about U.S. mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo and the legal justifications for it offered by some U.S. government officials. At times the Vietnamese denied POW status to captured Americans. When Major Cherry refused to answer questions in his first interrogation and showed his Geneva Convention card outlining his rights as a prisoner, his Vietnamese interrogator barked, "Forget about it. You're a criminal." (p.33)

   People have tortured each other for thousands of years. Sometimes torturers sought military advantage; other times, enforcement of religious beliefs; or they simply needed to dominate. Gravensteen Castle's torture museum (Ghent, Belgium) contains an array of medieval Europe's crueler torture instruments, a sober reminder of how deeply ingrained human cruelty is.

   This long history of torture might easily engender cynicism about the Geneva Conventions or any other rules attempting to restrain human cruelty. The drafters of the U.S. Constitution, however, displayed optimism, banning "cruel and unusual punishment."

   According to Hirsch, U.S. POWs evinced similar optimism. Major Cherry recounts his relief that a uniformed Vietnamese was in charge of his capture, for "he assumed that a soldier, even a Communist, was more likely to respect a prisoner of war. According to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 - which North Vietnam had signed - POWs were to be treated humanely." (p.30) Halyburton's wife, a POW activist, optimistically declared: "All we ask is that North Vietnam adhere to the conditions of the Geneva Conventions, that they identify the prisoners they hold, and they protect them from abuse. That's all we ask." (p.210)

   Hirsch cautiously avoids raising any "coulda shoulda wouldas" of the Vietnam War. That's not his story. Yet, the narrative makes clear that support for the Vietnam War was an important psychological need of the POWs and many other combatants. How else to make it through still another day of torture or fighting thousands of miles from home? That psychological need, however, can hardly become the justification for any war. The U.S. political system demands extreme prudence of its leadership when engaging troops and a thorough debate of the issues. Hirsch's book poignantly reminds readers how U.S. troops ultimately bear the consequences of war-making decisions.

   The issue of race figures prominently in the book. Porter Halyburton, a southern white officer, must confront the views he absorbed from a racially segregated society when he cares for Major Fred Cherry, an African-American POW and his cellmate. Major Cherry, in turn, must bury years of racial insults and slights. The account of how both men ultimately bridge this racial divide is truly a message of hope.

   This reader winced, however, at the description of Halyburton's overcoming his segregationist upbringing as being the moment when "Cherry had ceased being black." (p.133) It's not clear if this is Halyburton's or Hirsch's expression. Perhaps the words didn't come out right. Still, it would have been more satisfying in this reader's mind to hear Halyburton exclaim that he, Halyburton, had ceased being white.




2. I read this book expecting a lot of "war" data. But what I received was far beyond what I expected. It was fantastic. It did just what it set out to do, which was capture the comradry and the "Two Souls Indivisible" and their plights together. I have the pleasure of knowing Fred Cherry and he is a wonderful man. After reading the book, I have another level of respect for him and what he has accomplished.



3. I read this book on the advise of a cousin in Montana. And when I finished, I remembered sitting with my mother and crying as we saw Uncle Fred's name on the list of released POW's. I was in my junior year in college at the time. I have kept an article from Jet Magazine of an interview that he gave just after he was released. Much of what he said in that article is in this book; just fleshed out to the full, long, seven years. I knew some of it then; I know a lot more now. I am very proud that this book was written about these two men, my Uncle and Mr. Halyburton. They are living history. And Mr. Hirsch does a wonderful job of presenting them as just that-real history-real people.



4. Hirsch recounts the friendship that developed between two aviators who were shot down in North Vietnam and endured seven years of imprisonment and torture. Fred Cherry was the first black pilot captured by the Vietnamese, a hot fighter jock and a pioneer in integrating the Air Force. Porter Halyburton was a southern gentleman, steeped in the racial relationships of the old South. Cherry was a Major with combat tours in Korea; Halyburton a young Lieutenant j.g. Although they spent only seven months in the same cell, each credits the other with saving his life as their captors slowly bled the will to live from them. The author also recounts the travails of the two wives, of whom one became a leader in the POW movement and the other declared her husband dead and refused to accept his return. The author skillfully avoids both treacly sentimentalism and excessive gore and concentrates on the leadership and mutual support that kept the survivors alive through years of isolation, abuse, and starvation. Certainly worth reading.



5. I spent the Thanksgiving 2006 Holiday wrapped up in a book that clearly made me appreciate how fortunate we truly are!!! Two Souls Indivisible is one the best written novels I have ever read. James Hirsh is an outstanding writer and does a superb job not only with the development of the two main characters but also captures the torment and hell all of our POW's went thru -- notwithstanding the race relations aspect which is also described in much detail and serves as the underderlying theme. Whether you are a history buff and someone who is looking for a superb book -- this is it. Some of the details are graphic but it is truly necessary so that the reader appreciates the chaos and sheer brutality that these men were faced with. Five stars doesn't do justice -- make it 10 out of 10.

3 comments about General Ulysses S. Grant: The Soldier and the Man.

1. De Capo Press sent me an Advance Reading copy. The book is scheduled for publication in July 2006 and this review is based on the copy. Longacre is a well-known Civil war historian with a large number of books to his credit. This is his tenth book I found published since 2000 with a quick search on Amazon, five of them are biographies of Civil War figures. The problem I have is that his books seem rushed and lack scholarship. This is a standard work on Grant with a couple of reinterpretations, something a very gifted armature could write.
   The events in the book have been told and retold in general histories many times and the book adds nothing to them. The interpretation of Grant's drinking problem is very current thinking and the author struggles to place it as early as possible. Taking the word or the speculation of a single person Grant seems to have a drinking problem in Mexico. His joining the Sons of Temperance, which is not a forerunner of AA, is used as proof of a problem, well before his posting to the Pacific cost. While interesting, nothing to counter this "evidence" is given and the reader is left to accept the author's case or look elsewhere.
   
   The interpretation of Grant's childhood might be the strength of the book. In place of the "Useless" childhood that has been generally accepted. Longacre gives us a mixed bag; Grant is honest to a fault, lacks social graces and has no head for business. Grant is also the best horsemen in the area. A skill that generates respect and money even for a young boy. This seems to ring truer than the town fool who becomes the North's best General and President. Grant is pictured as very intelligent, hard working and easily bored. His parents are shown in a very unflattering light, especially his Mother. Grant is well known to have had problems with his parents and the book bears down on this.
   
   Julia is slower to fall in love with Grant than many stories credit, Longacre has her more resistant to his suite. He stays with the good wife, mother and supporter of Grant that history accepts.
   
   Overall, this is an enjoyable read and a good introduction to U. S. Grant; it is not a serious bio and will not increase our understanding of the man.



2. Dozens of biographies about Grant have appeared in the past decade. The General has experienced a renaissance among historians (and those who aspire to the title.) His reputation has been enriched but the great biography has yet to be written. This book doesn't come close to greatness. It will have to settle for a boring mediocrity which is a shame, since Ulysses Grant was neither dull nor average.
   
   This book brings absolutely nothing new to the table. It's a basic biography with no frills and little to recommend it. Longacre has written half a dozen books in the Civil War genre and they're noted to be tedious and written in an unusually spare style. No fireworks here, no novel interpretations of USG, no new facts revealed. The details of his life are laid out in a mind-numbing chronological style and the author borrows liberally from previous (and superior) Grant biographies.
   
   It's amazing that so many authors tackle the subject of Grant but never unveil anything that wasn't known 100 years ago. Longacre quotes the same old stories that have been told a thousand times previously. His attempts to vary the standard interpretations of Grant fall conspicuously flat, though he's to be commended for the effort. Despite what anyone says, Grant was never an alcoholic and his marriage was happy. Longacre's clumsy attempts to paint the Grant marriage as occasionally strained are desperate attempts to throw some spice into the mix. Similarly, a casual exploration of the Sons of Temperance would have revealed it was not a precursor to A.A.
   
   Essentially this is a dull book about a great man. Don't bother with this trifle. If you already know about Grant this book will teach you nothing. If you're new to the subject, look elsewhere.



3. This is a strange book, as it gives the impression that the only reason for it being written and published at all is to act as propaganda for the theory that Grant was an alcoholic. Longacre seems positively obsessed with the "drinking issue," showing scant interest in any other aspect of Grant's important and compelling life story. Every negative story ever told about Grant's alleged problem with the bottle, no matter how questionable, or even discredited, it may be, is trotted out as solid fact, while any evidence to the contrary is either ignored or casually belittled. This is not a biography; it is a prosecutor's argument to a jury.
   
   Grant's pre-war life (nearly forty years!) is given merely a brief, shallow assessment, his post-1865 years are ignored entirely, (probably because tales of Grant's drinking sprees become few and far between after the war,) and the bulk of the book--Longacre's account of the Civil War itself--says nothing that you could not find in a million other books and magazine articles. In fact, most of "The Soldier and the Man" reads like Brooks Simpson's "Triumph Over Adversity" after being pickled in alcohol.
   
   In short, unless you share Longacre's single-minded fascination with the notion that Grant was nothing but a white-knuckled drunk, you will find little in this book to excite your interest.

5 comments about Cavalier in Buckskin: George Armstrong Custer and the Western Military Frontier (Oklahoma Western Biographies).

1. I have been an avid reader of Custer related literature
   through the years and this is simply the best book on the market
   on George Armstrong Custer. As a graduate student at Mississippi
   State University and taking a course on the American West I gave
   a lecture on Custer and recommended this book to the class.
   Mr. Utley gives great detail on Custer's life. As with any
   reader of Custer the debate rages on about General Terry's orders
   to Custer and if they were obeyed or not. The author brought
   out something I had not read before and that being the affidavet
   of a cook who overheard a conservation between Terry and Custer.
   A great book on Custer and especially on the Battle of the
   Little Bighorn. Also, being a Civil War buff I liked the way the author mentioned how former Confederate generals were some
   of Custer's biggest defenders after the battle.
   If one were looking for a starting place on Custer this book
   would be the one.



2. This biography of George Armstrong Custer devotes most of its pages to his post Civil War career. Most people only know that he died at the Little Bighorn battle; they know the legend or the symbol, not the real person. Chapter 1 discusses his legend from 1876 to the present. Before his last campaign Custer charged the Grant administration with fraud and corruption. So whether he was a "victim of Grant's Indian policy" or a "foolhardy glory hunter" depended on the politics of the beholder.

   Custer's postwar career depended on the support of Sherman and Sheridan ("Custer never let me down"). Since the Indians kept far away from the railroads, building the Northern Pacific railroad would ethnically cleanse the northern Dakota territory. The railroads were given tens of thousands of square miles of land ("sunblasted in summer, frozen in winter" p.125). They could not be sold to settlers until Indians were removed and neutralized. Settlers would then buy railroad lands, then use the railroad to transport their produce and supplies. The army's task was to implement this political policy; they only followed orders. There were treaties such as at Medicine Lodge in October 1867. But the Indians had no idea that they were giving up the country they claimed as their own (p.59).

   The announced purpose of the Black Hills Expedition of 1874 was to find a site for a new fort, and for scientific exploration. The discovery of gold meant that miners would flock to these Indian lands via the Northern Pacific. The chief geologist, and Lt. Col. Fred Grant, cast doubt on this report: it might have been planted (p.141)! These lands could not be developed while the Indians held title, unless a war was created to negate the treaty (p.147). The Interior Dept. issued an ultimatum to the Sitting Bull bands: move to the Great Sioux Reservation or be driven in (p.156). But the Indians were immobilized in winter! Their failure to migrate was used to start a war. The military campaign started in April 1876. Custer believed that the Indians should be civilized into Christian farmers, but "if I were an Indian I often think that I would prefer to adhere to the free open plains rather than submit to a reservation" (p.149).

   Just before his last campaign Custer testified against the actions of Secretary of War Belknap. Was he looking for some heroic action to gain popular acclaim? Was he suffering from any ailment that could affect his judgment? Chapter 9 discusses the "Judgments" on the defeat. Utley wonders if Custer received his chest wound at the beginning of the battle, and this demoralized and confused their defense? This would account for much that is puzzling about the battle (p.199). Those paintings of "Custer's Last Stand" are imagined. The Sioux fired their rifles and arrows from long range while concealed (p.190). They were too smart for a "Charge of the Light Brigade".




3. This is a very short biography (just under 200 pages, not counting the pictures) of one of the most flamboyant and controversial military figures in our nation's history. Volumes could be written about George Custer, and indeed have been, and yet still there could never be a consensus as to the man's character, his skill as a warrior, and the amount of blame he should shoulder for charging headlong into immortality when he and part of his regiment were wiped out at the Little Bighorn. Custer is one of those figures on whom it would be difficult to write a good biography in 500 pages. Somehow, Utley has done it in 200.

   This work is by no means thorough, but rather provides a good introduction and outline of Custer's life. Not a lot of detail is provided about any one phase of Custer's adult life--boy general, frontier greenhorn, Indian fighter extraordinaire--and yet there is enough information here to get a good idea of what Custer the man must have been like. I think it is outside of the scope of this book to psychoanalyze this complex individual, or to analyze his several controversial achievements, from Civil War battles to an Indian attack on the Washita River to rushing into battle at the Little Bighorn without the necessary reconnaissance, and yet Utley manages to put things into a perspective that at least seems reasonable and fair, if not conclusive. His section on the Little Bighorn battle is concise, to the point, and objective, and, though he tends to imply that the blame for Custer's death cannot be fixed entirely on Custer's rashness, yet he does not attempt to deify or exonerate the man wholly from blame.
   
   This book was meant to be a short introduction into Custer's life, and in that it fills its purpose completely. For students seeking a deeper and more thorough understanding of Custer, however, a larger work is needed. Still, this book is immensely valuable in that it provides a short, objective, and concise narrative of the life of George Armstrong Custer.




4. Robert M. Utley is probably our most thoughtful scholar of George Armstrong Custer and his ultimate demise at the Little Bighorn in 1876. He has studied Custer since a boy, including writing his Master's thesis on him and spending years as a guide at the Custer Battlefield site in Montana. One of Utley's purposes behind writing this book was to "coerce me into deciding what I thought" of Custer. It's pretty obvious by the end that he thinks pretty highly of him, despite all his faults. Custer was a man full of contradictions: he demanded obedience to orders from others but didn't feel he needed to obey orders himself; he could be cruel to some while favoring select others; he was generous and selfish, egotistical as well as modest. (Perhaps the biggest contradiction was how one of the most successful Civil War cavalry generals could come to so ignoble an end.)
   
   Men either hated or loved him; few were indifferent - thus the controversy regarding his actions on the Little Bighorn. Utley believes that Custer acted as one would expect a self-assured, ambitious, enterprising (critics, of course, would use different adjectives: self-serving, glory-seeking, impulsive) officer to act at the Last Stand, even though he had limited information, and finds more fault with Reno's and Benteen's inaction at the crucial moment when more decisive action may have saved the day. But no one will ever know with total exactness what happened that day, which is why the legend of Custer looms so large. And for Utley that is the "significant Custer," the one that has made the biggest "impact on human minds." Utley writes about that Custer with critical admiration, and one appreciates the controlled, clear-eyed appraisal. It's the best short biography on Custer out there.



5. This is a great concise work of biography and history, written by one of the greatest living historians of the American West. I think some of the reviewers miss the point:this is a biogtraphy first, and an analysis of Little Bighorn secondly. This is probably the best bio of Custer for the interested to start with because of its meticulous research and the brevity of its length. Once you read "Cavalier in Buckskin" do not be surprised if you seek out Utley's other fine works of Western and Native American history. Utley's a class act, and so is this fine work which combines the best of academic and popular history. If you're at all curious-READ IT!

5 comments about Tommy: The British Soldier on the Western Front 1914-1918.

1. Another revisionist tract that seeks to glorify the British Tommy though spinning defeats into victories, bumblers into geniuses, and incompetence into acumen. Overly long, redundant and without a single unifying theme, this book is more demanding on your patience than critical faculty.



2. Richard Holmes does a TV series in the UK called War Walks.
   In the series he basically walks through a battlefield pointing out where a particular action took place, where a dug out or ridge was and then turns to camera and deliver a short, precise monologue.
   He dresses smartly, invariably wearing a tie or cravat; with a neat trimmed grey moustache and fixes the camera from behind silver framed glasses. When he speaks to the camera his voice carries a gravitas and intensity that conveys respect and concern with cold hard truths. He has the same persona on the page and this is what drives Tommy forward
   
   Holmes is like a kindly uncle who knows every minute detail on his subject and will tell you everything you need to know, in a slow studied manner. Despite his slow, at times ponderous style, or perhaps precisely because of it, he ignites your interest and takes you through the story, even when it gets a little complicated and dull, regimental names and badges for instance.
   
   And like a good story, told by a kindly uncle, it stays in your head, the characters vibrant and their lives and deaths meaningful and justice done to them.



3. Richard Holmes, the author, provides a fascinating, masterful portrait of British soldiers' everyday lives during WWI. This book is about the British army itself; it is NOT a campaign history, a strategy essay, or a biography.
   
   Despite the plethora of books produced about Britain's WWI effort, Holmes manages to include a great volume of hitherto negelected information. Some of these topics include: commissioning, pay, ranking differences (permanent, temporary, brevet), compulsory requisitioning of horses, medical treatment, replacements, promotions, religion, liberty, leave, discipline/punishment, mustache regulations, combat training, demobilisation, and return to civilian life.
   
   Thankfully, he also explains the highly complex war-time formation, structure, varying roles, and evolution of battalions, regiments, brigades, divisions, corps, and armies. Holmes also defines the differences between formation types (regular, Special Reserve, territorial, and New Army). In addition, he also relates the jobs of various staff and admin unit members (e.g. Chief of Staff, Adjutant, Regimental Sergeant Major, etc.).
   
   Besides all the above, the book includes the more commonly discussed trench life routine, weapons, personal accounts, a typical attack, morale, and the army's various branches (infantry, artillery, sappers, cavalry, tanks, machine guns, supply, general staff, etc.). The author unusually presents a few striking, small-scale examples of successful cavalry charges and a costly episode of firing guns by direct sight.
   
   This is an excellent, well-researched book that is a pleasure to read. Bravo!



4. This is a must-read for anyone interested in the Great War, the Western Front, or the history of the British soldier. In his wonderful narrative style, Holmes weaves numerous first-hand accounts into a smoothly flowing story that never becomes ponderous despite the enormous size of the book. Highly recommended.



5. "Tommy" is Richard Holmes's exploration of the experience of the British soldier and the British Army on the Western Front of the Great War, 1914-1918. Through a narrative rich in detail and anecdote, Holmes provides context and some necessary correction on the life of Tommy Atkins, prototypical British soldier, at war.
   
   Holmes, an experienced historian, has provided a study very much in the vein of "Redcoat", his earlier work on the British Army from Waterloo to the Crimean War. In this book, Holmes details how the small standing British professional army of 1914 became the mass army of 1918 and how it generally acquitted itself fairly well in four years of horrendous combat with the elements, its own bureaucracy, and the German Army. It is a story of the men who became soldiers, their weapons, their leadership, their food, medical care, and their sense of the fighting. Holmes includes a fascinating collection of photographs of the Western Front.
   
   Holmes has done his extensive research. The traditional regimental system comes in for some considerable praise for its contribution to unit cohesion and morale. The willingness of the Army to adapt to the demands of mass warfare, on a scale not practiced by Britain in over one hundred years, is commendable if often uneven. The leadership of the Army, especially after the first year of war, generally did as good a job as the circumstances of combat allowed. The fate of mounted cavalry and the introduction of modern warfighting technology such as tanks, airplanes, radios, and indirect artillery fire are discussed. Above all, the stubborn and patient devotion to duty of Tommy and his fellow soldiers shines through.
   
   At roughly 700 pages, this is an exhaustive if not exhausting study that will appeal the most to those with a keen interest in the First World War, especially to those looking for the story behind the battle histories. It is highly recommended as a reading experience to students of the history of the British Army.

2 comments about Guests of the Kremlin: Updated in 2007 with Pictures, Maps and Introductions by Mario L. Sacripante and Sam Sloan.

1. I actually read the first virsion of this book, written in the 40's. I had to get it on loan from a collage library, because it was out of print. Oh, how I wanted a copy of this book. Ski York (one of the Guests of the Kremlin) was my mother's cousin. I tried to get an old copy of the book, and I actually saw a copy for $900.00. We are all lucky now, to be able to get a copy for approx. $25.00. The book will interest you so much, that you won't want to put it down. If you want to know what it was really like in Russia - in those days - the book has it all. It also has some good laughs in it. Of course, there is lots of action in the book as well. The nice thing is that the action really happened. I especially enjoyed it because I saw my Grandfather in Ski York. (name was changed from Cichowski) My Grandfather was Ski's - Father's brother.



2. My father actually has copies of the original book. One to keep and an extra to loan, only to trusted friends and family. We searched the world over for those two copies years ago. The book is an incredible read and study of communist Russia when no Americans could know the truth about how the people survived in that country. An entire college course could be taught with this book as the centerpiece. I almost flipped when just a random search showed this had been reprinted in 2007. Just this morning I was talking about it with a college student who is taking a Russian history class this semester. My dad was going to loan him a copy but now he can have his own and I know he will love it.
   If you love history you will love this book.

3 comments about Down South: One Tour in Vietnam.

1. This is the single best book I have read yet of the Marine experience in Viet Nam. Hardwick does an outstanding job of communicating the episodes of sheer terror that punctuated the more routine aspects of his tour. Uncommon valor is described as unremarkable, a refreshing change from the current political diatribe.



2. This is a must read for all individuals. For those of us who did not serve in Viet Nam, this book puts you on the front line. Very well written, I couldn't put the book down.



3. I have read a lot of Vietnam war paperbacks. Hardwick did a good job for his first book, and I generally enjoyed the read. However, there are many of these books in the book stores. This is the first one that I have read which takes the point of view of a forward observer for arty. I learned some new perspectives from his point of view. Generally in all these books, America puts its young men (and women) at risk. We need to be careful if these policies are just.
   
   Hardwick came to hate the war. He did some pretty stupid things in the war. One was targeting the farmer with bombs. The farmer and his water buffalo may have been in restricted territory, but that didn't give him the right to drop a bomb on him. Hardwick came to realize the hopelessness of this war. An OK read of the Vietnam War.

1 comments about HONDURAS TO HAITI: FIVE YEARS IN THE LIFE OF A SPECIAL FORCES SERGEANT.

1. SFC Johnson, Ronald W. wrote this book with the truth in mind. I have worked with him in 7th Group Special Forces. I am a cook for the great Green Berets. This book is my favorite book because i can relate for the events inside because of the men SFC Johnson and I have worked with even though I am just a support soilder.