4 comments about G-2: Intelligence for Patton: Intelligence for Patton (Schiffer Military History Book).

1. BG Koch's slim volume reveals the nuts and bolts of the day to day intelligence grind that led to many of Patton's key victories. In down to earth prose Koch explains how the intelligence section went about its job behind the scenes ensuring operational success for Patton's various WWII commands. This volume helps make clear that many of Patton's accomplishments can be attributed to his understanding of how to exercise his staff at its full potential. While perhaps somewhat dry for the general reader this work is particularly recommended for those interested in historical analysis of the military staff as well as the evolution of combat intelligence organizations and methods. It is also useful to Patton students for its insights into "Old Blood and Guts'" genius of command.



2. I found that this book was a bit to thin on details, but that it provided an excellent insite into World War Two battlefield intelligence planning. Certainly this is not a book for everyone, but for those in the field of intelligence (military or not), this is a good read.



3. Military historians universally acknowledge that Oscar Koch was the best intelligence brain of World War II. He was a major reason for Patton's brilliance as a commander, because Patton never made a move without consulting him. This highly readable book offers important insights into Koch's thinking and, perhaps more important, his personal relationship with Patton. It is a "must read" for anyone interested in Patton, military intelligence, or World War II in general. Highly recommended!



4. G-2, Intelligence for Patton is an excellent look at a major factor in General Patton's legendary effectiveness as a military commander. General, then Colonel, Koch had a rare talant for gathering critical information, and Patton was wise enough to depend completely on his council.
   The author, Robert Hays, in collaboration with General Koch, has written an interesting, comprehensive and important addition to WW2 literature. This book has, understandably, been required reading for any number of intelligence agency members, both here and abroad. I highly recommend this book to any WW2 buff and consider it essential for anyone interested in Patton.

5 comments about Lee's Tarnished Lieutenant: James Longstreet and His Place in Southern History.

1. "Longstreet is the one Rebel general who's memory hasn't been romanticized." Yikes. That "who's" deserves grammatical capital punishment.



2. Piston's book is the first modern account of the first soldier of the Confederacy. Controversial both during and after the war, James Longstreet is one of the most fascinating and forgotten figures in American history. Second in command of the Army of Northern Virginia, Longstreet was the only senior officer who was with that army from the first battle at Manassas to the surrender at Appomattox. He was in command of the most famous attack in American history, Pickett's Charge. His most notable victories included Second Manassas, Fredericksburg, Chickamauga, and the Wilderness. After the war, he did several things considered unpardonable sins by most Southerners, some of whom still cannot forgive him to this day. First, he dared to criticize Robert E. Lee and his conduct of the battle of Gettysburg. Second, he reconciled with his conquerors, became a Republican, and accepted appointive federal offices from four out of the next six presidents of the United States, including President Grant, to whom he was related by marriage. Even worse, he became a Catholic in a staunchly Protestant South. Most important of all, he promoted a doctrine of racial reconciliation that is as relevant today as it was 135 years ago.



3. This is a very objective and informative book on General Longstreet who, had he died at the battle of the Wilderness instead of surviving his very severe wounds, may have had a monument on Monument Ave. in Richmond in spite of not being a Virginian. Longstreet fought all the major campaigns of the Army of Northern Virginia from Manasas up to the Wilderness returning after a recovering from severe wounds to command the Richmond theater during the siege and the final stages of the war. Piston points out well that Longstreet was a steady hand for Lee as he called him my "Old War Horse". Enlightened in that he thought of the war in broad strategic fashion suggesting using the railroad and interior lines to reinforce the west with eastern soldiers and he even offered to go himself which he did in time for the battle of Chickamaugua. Longstreet's role in Gettysburg is well discussed particularly the Lost Cause syndrome led by Jubal Early who pins the entire war on Longstreet at Gettysburg. Ironically, Early's original memoirs make no mention of any criticisms of Longstreet until after Lee's death when Early finds a niche to match his abrasive leadership style. Often critics suggest that Longstreet failed in Suffolk, Knoxville and East Tennessee; however, Piston notes that in Suffolk and Knoxville he was laying siege to forces equal or larger than his own that stayed within their works. The attack at Fort Sanders was a severe failure and in the East Tennessee campaign Longstreet performs well but the low point was Longstreet's dealing with personnel in difficult circumstances. Piston demonstrates how Davis micromanaged when he writes of Davis' interference with Longstreet personnel issues. Impressive that after his wounding Longstreet returns for any command that Lee will give him. Piston quickly covers Longstreet's post war career as a businessman, a republican who enters Louisiana's controversial political scene, leads the Police on horseback against a mob only to be attacked himself, his Republican connections and maneuvering for political plum jobs and his final days as a hotel owner and vineyard grower in lovely Gainesville, Georgia. Longstreet's post war writings are covered which had Longstreet been more accurate in his views or memories, his legacy may have stood taller and less challenged.
   His criticisms of some of Lee's decisions and turning Republican cost him dearly in the south but he steadfastly refused to change to suit others. The most endearing part of the book is Piston's telling of Longstreet and Dan Sickles after a joyous round of spirits, they walk each other repeatedly back to each others door refusing to end the night of the two most controversial generals who were at Gettysburg.



4. William Piston has written a fine, highly readable, and fair-minded but sympathetic biography of one of the most controversial leaders of the Civil War. While Lee himself held Longstreet in the highest regard and made the dependable Longstreet his senior subordinate and commander of his First Corps in the Army of Northern Virginia, the stubborn South Carolinian found his reputation tarnished after the war by jealous military rivals who disliked Longstreet's politics and resented his criticisms of some of Lee's command decisions.

   As a military biography, this work offers a fairly comprehensive and balanced treatment of Longstreet's career that effectively demolishes some of the more unfair criticisms of Longstreet as a commander, and in particular takes apart the myth (that emerged in post-war controversy) that Jackson, not Longstreet, had been the senior commander in whom Lee had placed his most reliance and trust (although for a more critical, but still balanced and highly useful analysis of Longstreet's military record, see Jeffrey Wert's biography of Longstreet).

   Reading Piston's book will demonstrate why Lee described Longstreet as "my Old War Horse," and why Longstreet was widely regarded on both sides as one of the very finest -- if not THE finest -- corps commanders of the war. Piston also does a nice job of disentangling the post-war Gettysburg controversy, which emerged out of polemics over Reconstruction politics and the bickering among former Confederate generals anxious to rescue their own reputations while putting Robert E. Lee above any criticism.

   Lee, of course, was a great commander, but he never pretended to be perfect, and Longstreet, in daring to criticize certain aspects of Lee's tactical operations, became a threat to a post-war mythology, the cult of Lee, that became so important in building a post-war, Solid Democratic South and white supremacist post-Confederate Southern identity. As Piston demonstrates, the post-war Lost Cause mythology, in deifying the defeated Lee, required a scapegoat, a "Judas", upon whom the blame for defeat and humiliation could be heaped. As both Jackson and Stuart had been killed during the war, and as most western Confederate commanders lacked the prominence to serve this function, Longstreet emerged for unreconstructed Confederates as the bete noir of Southern military history, both for his post-war Republican politics and his criticisms of Lee, his actual war record and relationship with Lee notwithstanding.

   And in this post-war Lost Cause narrative, Gettysburg became the critical key or turning point upon which all else hinged, as though the outcome of a thousand campaigns mobilizing millions of men, fought over five years across a vast continent, could be reduced to one afternoon on one bloody field in Pennsylvania, or as though (even if that had been true) Longstreet alone could be blamed for Lee's failure at Gettysburg. It is the politics of Reconstruction and Longstreet's place in that political struggle, that largely shaped what became the dominant Southern narrative about the battle of Gettysburg, and the meaning of that defeat in the larger destruction and humiliation of the Confederacy. Piston's treatment of this issue, and his discussion of the evolution of Lost Cause historiography, is brilliant, and deserves attention not only from those interested in the Civil War and Reconstruction, but from those interested in the relationship between politics, historical memory, the historical record, and the writing of history.




5. This biography and the one by Jeffrey Wert must be considered as one of the two best works on the life of General James Longstreet. William Piston's work came first so he get the credit for turning the tide for James Longstreet who have long been a goat and villain of the Lost Cause of Confederacy. Piston proves to be a good writer, fair and honest about Longstreet. The controversy that surround this general are treated with a sympathic outlook, realizing that perhaps, Longstreet was too honest and blunt for his own good during the time and period he was alive. Longstreet made many errors during the war and he did many great things as well. His major mistake was telling the south after the war that Lee did the same thing. I think if the reader read both Piston and Wert's biographies, he got Longstreet pretty well covered.

5 comments about Generals in Gray Lives of the Confederate Commander.

1. Warner does an excellent job in giving short biographies on all 425 Confederate generals, including a picture of each general. An excellent reference guide and a must have for your Civil War library.



2. I remember first reading Generals in Gray as a teenager and have often referred back to the book over the years.

   Warner gives a synopsis of each general , usually containing the following information:

   1. Birthplace and birthdate.
   2. Pre-Civil War life.
   3. Battles served in, promotions, woundings, death (if applicable).
   4. Postwar career (if he survived the war).
   5. Death and place burial.
   6. Brief mention of the general's competency (or lack thereof).
   7. Relationships with other generals (superior, subordinate).

   I have often found the book to be extremely helpful when reading a book on a particular Civil War battle. Doing so helps me to better understand the general when studying a particular battle.

   Whether you have a serious interest in the Civil War or a novice, I highly recommend the book as an excellent reference!




3. This book is a must for any Civil War buff. Learn the good, bad and the ugly about all general officers of the army of the CSA. I keep this book, and its companion, Generals in Blue, handy when I am reading historical accounts of battles of the Civil War. How often, while you are reading, have you yearned to get additional information on a particular general? These books are perfect to provide more information, when you want it.



4. .....but this one sure is. The Civil War is still a current event for many of us. For four long years, both sides were carried by their armies, and led by their Generals. Now, lots of us know about Lee and Jackson, but there were a total of 425 Confederate Generals over the course of the war, and some even I've never heard of. Of these, 299 were serving as General Officers at the end. A total of 77 were killed in battle; the rest died of natural causes, resigned, got fired, etc., etc.
   
   They're ALL here, at least the ones that we can't argue about whether they were really a General. [There are others about whom we can argue, for various reasons--a separate book has come out in recent years...see "More Generals in Gray"]. While Lee has has more biographies than I can count, and many have at least one, for most of these guys, this is all we've got. Here we get pictures, pre and, where appropriate, post war careers, grave sites, and a study of just what the man accomplished [or didn't]. Robert E. Lee gets three and a half pages, but all get a good write-up.
   
   They were a varied lot: six General Lees, six Jacksons, eight each of Smith and Walker. Professional soldiers, lawyers, politicians, even three preachers [Polk and Pendleton, you know; read this and find the third]. Some were heroic, some were drunks, a few were both. Some brilliant, some inept, one or two both. The post war lots of the survivors were as various as the men; poverty and wealth, glory and apostasy, and all points in between. Trivia: Who was the ONLY Confederate General born in Texas? Who was the last living Conferderate General? ONE man answers BOTH questions. [OK, I'll give it to you...Judge Felix Huston Robertson of Waco died April 20, 1928]. The very first American Indian to wear General's stars AND the last General to surrender...he's here, in all his glory.
   
   I can go on all day. The late Ezra Warner, Illinois native and California investment counsellor, published this in 1959...it needs to stay in print forever. While I've had this, and the companion "Generals in Blue", for years, only recently has a trade paperback made it readily available, and affordable. A "thank you" to the publisher, and a huge, everlasting, "THANK YOU" to Mr. Warner.



5. Like its companion volume Generals in Blue, Generals in Gray is an important resource for both the Civil War buff and the serious historian (which is not to say that the two can't be one and the same!). In this volume, which was actually written before Generals in Blue, author Ezra Warner has written the biographies and rustled up the photos of all the general officers confirmed by the Confederate Congress, and a handful of those who weren't for one reason or another.
   
   There were 425 men who served as Confederate generals. Nearly one-fourth of them died in the war. Boy generals, men promoted before they reached the age of 30, were plentiful, and nearly half of them were killed on the battlefield. Looking at their photographs, one can scarcely fathom the experiences they endured at such young ages. They look like college lads.
   
   Several of the generals profiled by Warner especially stand out for me. There's William Flank Perry, for example, the philosopher-general, who enlisted as a private in 1862 and was commissioned a brigadier in the war's final months. After the war, he taught philosophy at Ogden College in Kentucky until the turn of the century. There's Alexander Reynolds, who at war's end entered the service of the Khedive of Egypt, and so must've known the tragic Federal General Charles Pomeroy Stone, of Ball's Bluff infamy, who did so as well. There's General John McCausland, who with his huge handlebar moustache and heavy eyebrows looks for all the world like Yosemite Sam of cartoon fame. And there's the boy general Thomas Benton Smith, a youngster whose fate breaks my heart. After he and most of his brigade surrendered during the Battle of Nashville, a Federal colonel tried literally to beat Smith's brains out. His brain exposed, in a coma, Smith was expected to die. But he somehow survived, only to spend the rest of his life, some 48 years, in an insane asylum.

5 comments about Jungle Ace: The Story of One of the USAAF's Great Fighter Leaders, Col. Gerald R. Johnson (The Warriors).

1. Just finished reading this book a few days ago, and I've got to say that it's one of the best WWII non-fiction books I've ever read. Not only is it easy to read and exciting, but Mr. Bruning skillfully covers some of the more technical aspects of Johnson's air combat battles.

   Good for hard-core WWII air combat nuts (like me!) as well as the average reader. Anyone with any interest in combat aircraft, WWII, or great reading material in general will love this book!

   -Scott Rudi




2. What Bruning has done in "Jungle Ace" is remarkable: he manages figuratively to bring to full flesh-and-blood life a man who has been dead for nearly 60 years. When I finished reading this biography, I felt I knew and understood Gerry Johnson: felt the weight of the command burden he carried, the exhilaration of victory in combat, the self-doubt when losses occurred, the grinding boredom of life in the SWPA, and the never-ending homesickness. I also got a sense of what he would be like in different situations: as a friend, as a commander, as a classmate.

   This is exceedingly hard to do, but Bruning has done it: he somehow got long-ago memories jumpstarted, got people talking. While I accept that some of the quoted conversations probably did not take place word for word as presented, I feel the approach helps the book make the man more real. Charles Martin, in his bio of Tom McGuire, did the same thing, and it worked for both authors.

   Thanks, Mr. Bruning for bringing a too-little known hero to light. You can be sure that my children will read about Gerry Johnson. When will you write another aviation biography? How about Charles H. MacDonald of the 475th FG?




3. Col Johnson was probably the best pilot of WWII. He was a P-38 pilot in the South Pacific and became a full Colonel and had 24 victories by the time he was 24 years old. It is a compelling true story with a tragic ending. I am very pleased this book was written because so few people have ever heard of this great leader,



4. I enjoy the book especially about the air war situation at Leyte Island in the Philippines during October through December 1944. However, I wish the author had given a complete casuality list of the 49th Fighter Group in terms of the following items:
   
   1) Killed in action by air combat.
   2) Killed by ground fire or by gunfire from enemy ship.
   3) Killed in flying accidents due to the conditions of the airstrip on Leyte Island or because of enemy action.
   
   4) Orignial group who start off at the Leyte airstrip in October through December 1944 and how many were left?
   
   5) How many replacements did the 49th Fighter Group recieved and how many died in action or in flying accidents due to enemy action or some other mishap during the same time period?
   
   If they tried to emphasize these battles like a meat grinder, then please give a complete casuality list; otherwise, the only time I hear of a meat grinder battle is those fought by the Germans since we have no hestitation about printing the German dead, wound, and POWs.
   
   They should have made books like this years ago. Then we would know the horrors of World War II instead of glorying it through our culture for the last 62 years.
   
   In the book Kenney Reports, Colonel Merian Cooper, who was General Kenney Chief of Staff, had worried that we were sticking our necks out if we invade Leyte. After reading Jungle Ace and some other books about how the Army had failed to secure a quick capture of the island, Col. Cooper was right. The battle of Leyte Island went on for nearly three months which was just as long as the battle for Normandy. After their defeat at the Battle of Leyte Gulf, the Japanese had other chances to destroy our shipping and airfields in order to bring the American invasion of the Philippines to the point of defeat if they had use their air power more efficiently.



5. My uncle is the Stanley Johnson briefly referenced in this book, who went MIA in Nov '43 while flying as Maj Bong's wingman. Somehow I feel he would have been honored to read this book. I wish my grandparents (his folks) could have read it too. It helps me to better understand what his final months were like, and what he and the others there accomplished. Thank you, Mr Bruning.

5 comments about Murdering Mr. Lincoln: A New Detection of the 19th Century's Most Famous Crime.

1. Charles Higham's research connects various Copperhead merchants to the Confederate Secret Service, but fails to convincingly tie any of them to John Wilkes Booth. The book is worth reading primarily for its exploration of a new angle to Lincoln's assassination: Copperhead commerce with the South, reluctantly approved by Lincoln as necessary to the Union to finance the war, provided a cloak for an assassination conspiracy.

   Mr. Higham almost certainly has several things wrong. He assumes the plot to kidnap Lincoln was always phony and a cover for murder. But why would Booth write in his diary, "...we sought to capture (and changed to murder at the end)"? Why would Arnold and Surratt, years after they were safe from the law, provide details of Booth's planned abduction? It's also a huge stretch to say Surratt traveled 24 hours from Elmira, N.Y. to Washington on April 13-14 and spent only 5 hours in the city, most of which was devoted to getting his hair cut and watching a transvestite show.

   Finally, as with every single historian to have written on the case since 1865, Mr. Higham is willing to assume that Booth entered Lincoln's box without having determined in advance that Parker, the guard, would be absent. This, despite his precise timing of the gunshot to coincide with a laugh line in "Our American Cousin" and with Paine's assault on Seward. Booth acted according to a presumption to which he was not entitled, i.e. Parker would not be guarding Lincoln. He had to have known this.




2. Charles Higham has long seen conspiracy theories under his bed. For most of us, going to bed means counting sheep and drifting off into a restful sleep, but for Higham it must be an entirely different experience. Perhaps his sheep all wear swastika armbands on their legs, baaing in syncopation with goose-stepping spies on their way to conspire with their Hollywood friends. Now, after a long and fruitless career hacking out spy laden fiction about Hollywood's brightest stars, he turns his attention to Abraham Lincoln. The switch from Hollywood figures to political icons is consistent with Higham's long rumored belief that every celebrity was not only a Nazi spy, but a closet homosexual intent on destroying the pillars of democracy. No matter - Higham's book is without merit. This book is no more than a long supposition bracketed by historical gobbledygook and pounds of manure shoveled up from Higham's seemingly endless supply of self-created excrement. Surely, he needs some fiber in his diet, and a backbone to go with it. A soul would help, too. But we need to keep in mind a fundamental truth when considering Charles Higham's long and lucrative career - he has the right to publish what he wants. Freedom is everything, and we need to accept that, even if it means that any deranged fool raised in a leper colony by a homosexual Franciscan monk from Mars can bellow about the conspiracy that occupies his dreams. Yes, they shoot horses and diseased cattle, but not people, and so the diseased are allowed their bellowing. Such people have the strength of their beliefs, and no dialogue from the rest of us will convince them that they are wrong. We should pity them. In any event, it appears obvious that Higham has reached the end of his career. He will still publish, of course, but he is much reviled. His "lack of journalistic integrity" (as historian Tony Thomas so aptly stated) is well known. At best, we should all pray that one day such illnesses are defeated and that one day Charles Higham will finally rest in peace.



3. Those interested in the politics behind the war will find Higham's work at times fascinating and horrific. The book really brings home what happened apart from the battlefront. As revered as President Lincoln is today, he made some decisions that would make 21st century citizens of a democracy cringe. Alternatively, Lincoln's detractors and political opponents did the same. It seems unfathomable to me now that Lincoln could have been hated by so many, and this book really pierces the veil of the myth surrounding his presidency and the unity of all those in the Union.

   When one really ponders what Lincoln did - suspending the writ of habeas corpus, prosecuting publishers printing unfavorable information, trading with South, etc. - one realizes that Lincoln - just like everyone - is neither complete hero nor complete villain - but a convoluted mix of gray areas.

   But a reflection on Lincoln is not an intended objective of this book. Nor does it foster an argument that Lincoln deserved death. The focus here is the plot to de-throne Lincoln and make peace with the South, hatched by shadowy Confederate sympathizers, fringe Confederate spies, the European aristocracy, and some out-and-out crazies, like the chief villain George Sanders and assassian John Wilkes Booth. This objective is fulfilled in excruciating detail.

   Also deeply disturbing was the revelation of the "Young Americans" Hitler-youth-type organization, the assertion that Stephen Douglas planned for a military coup d'etat over Lincoln, and the whole affair between Confederate exiles conspiring with British/Canadians to incite war with England.

   A fascinating story is marred by the author's continuous barrage of trivial details. He throws so many names, places, and things at the reader that even the most astute Civil War scholar would be overwhelmed.

   The book reads like a novel and while that is good for easy reading, one has to wonder how the author dug up so much granular information 150 years later. The source notes - a paltry half-dozen pages at the end - do nothing to convince me that the author did in fact thoroughly validate the accuracy of his assertions. Personally, while I think the book does contain many facts, I have to consider it more a historical novel, like Gore Vidal's "Lincoln", than a history. "Dark Union", another recent and similar book on Lincoln during the war, is much better annotated.




4. The editorial review says it all:
   
   Conspiracy theorists and Civil War buffs may want to take a gander, but overall this book adds little to our understanding of the assassination.



5. A well written book with a flair for the extreme. The author has taken numerous facts about the assassination and it's particpants and stretched them with assumptions that are conceivable but not proven. A wonderful story, but a disclaimer should be attached allowing readers to understand that some facts have been stretched to offer the story of a dynamic conspiracy, a thrilling hunt and final solution. A great read and it would certainly make a great movie, ala Otto Eisenschiml.

4 comments about AN INNOCENT AT POLEBROOK: A MEMOIR OF AN 8TH AIR FORCE BOMBARDIER.

1. A beautifully written, step by step account of Steven's experiences as part of a bomb group stationed in England during World War II. Not only does he let you feel the tensions that derive from takeoffs to bomb runs to returns to base of each mission, but the content is almost lyrical in its descriptions.

   I recommend it highly.




2. Charles "Norm" Stevens is a gifted writer. His descriptions give you the sense that you are there experiencing the life of one bombardier in 1944. The scent of shaving cream, the aromas in the plane, the suspense waiting for the plan of the day to be revealed, the views of the land below, peaceful, and chaotic, all are masterfully described by Lt. Stevens. The most routine actions are colorfully written with anticipation leading to the final mission and the return home. This memoir is a "good read" and one to be recommended.



3. Mr. Stevens writes with refreshing honesty. He claims his book is not about heroics but the bravery and courage of his own and the other men in the 8th Air Force touch the reader in a way books written to impress or excite cannot. He shows us real ordinary young men at war in a way only those who have been there could know. A must read for students of history and WWII.



4. While the descriptions of his exploits in WWII were OK, he reminds me of the character that Telly Savalas played in the "Dirty Dozen". He judges everyone by his high moral standards and sticks his nose up to anyone who doesn't measure up. Of course, he did push the toggle switch that dropped about a quarter million pounds of bombs on women and children. He said that bothered him a bit but, what the heck, it's war right? I think he should rename his book "Bombing for Jesus". Not the kind of guy you would want to hang around with.

No comments about Minister to the Cherokees: A Civil War Autobiography.

1 comments about And the Wind Blew Cold: The Story of an American Pow in North Korea.

1. Excellent to read if you want to know about the daily lives of the POWs in Camp #5 in the Korean War.

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

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

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




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



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



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

No comments about Unless Victory Comes: Combat With a World War II Machine Gunner in Patton's Third Army.