2 comments about Journal, 1955-1962: Reflections on the French-Algerian War.

1. There are a few important works on the Algerian Civil War available for the English reader. Franz Fannon, Alistair Horne's history, the film "Battle of Algiers, and recently Feraoun's diary are the ones that readily come to mind. Feraoun was a western educated Algerian and well accquainted with the French. His desire for an independent Algeria was strong, but tempered by a strong sense of historical reality. He reveals the day to day impact of the violence. It is in this respect that the work is most moving, and reveals the senselessness and degradation that occurs to all people involved, Feraoun eventually a victim himself. An essential view of the psychological costs of guerrilla and anti-colonial war.



2. First, I will comment on the book itself from an American point of view. The book is not easy to read because it is not a book: it is the author's journal he kept during the French Algerian War. Knowing that still, his journal entries, which at the beginning were frequent and detailed, were focused on keeping track of who was killed, tortured or who was doing the killings. It was as if the author, Mr. F.(his notation of using people's initials to hide their identity from I suppose the French secret police), was keeping a testimony of the murders occurring all around him as evidence. This makes for dull reading; however, given the events of 9-11, I made a valiant effort to immerse myself into the author's mind and try to understand this incredibly brutal civil war.

   (...)

1 comments about The Armies of Bolivar and San Martin (Men-at-Arms).

1. This book covers the armies that fought to liberate overthrow Spanish rule in South America. In a fairly slim volume you will find uniform details, a potted history of the various campaigns and orders of battle for some of the major engagements. As with all Osprey books, there are eight pages of colour plates as well as numerous black and white illustrations. This book is an excellent introduction to this neglected area of military history, and if it has any shortcomings it is that it doesn't cover the Spanish armies.

No comments about HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN YET?: The First World War Memoirs of C P Blacker MC, GM.

5 comments about Vespasian.

1. There is no fault to be had with Levick's attention to detail, or her painstaking research. Where Vespasian falls flat, however, is in style and organization. Levick eschews the narrative, and spurns a chronological approach to her subject. She chooses instead a subject-oriented organization; not bad in and of itself (Michael Grant largely pulls that off in The Severans), but her dry style and over-attention to obscure details and constant quarrels with other scholars make the absence of a narrative approach nearly fatal.

   Levick also buries any hint of her own voice or feelings. Obviously, she must have a keen interest in Vespasian to have invested such a large amount of work in the book. Yet none of her interest comes through. Contrast that with historians such as Norwich, Tuchman, or Runciman - a passion for their subject shines through each of their works. The best historians set out with the mindset, "This is a fascinating era of history, and I'm going to show my readers why they should think so, too." Levick seems to have other priorities.

   Perhaps academics can appreciate Levick's work (and perhaps the Italian translation is more gripping); for the amateur, however, looking for an enjoyable, educational foray into Imperial Rome, Levick's Vespasian is best avoided.




2. This book is better termed a history of the Flavians rather than a biography of Vespasian. Despite a glowing review (in the Bryn Mawr Classical Review), I have reservations about the achievement of Barbara Levick in writing this book.

   I was looking forward "Vespasian" since, until now, there has been no biography in English about this emperor. Aside from a history of his reign, I was hoping this new book would provide some insight into Vespasian's personality and his relations with Titus and Domitian. To an extent, Professor Levick fulfilled this expectation but not on the level I was hoping. For example, I was interested in a broader assessment of the fortunes of the Flavians, particularly their rise under Caligula and Claudius and Vespasian's fall from grace. I would have liked more about Titus' education with Britannicus and his presumed presence at the poisoning of Claudius' son. I think the latter instance is pure Flavian propaganda.

   The Judean War is related as a recitation of the facts with little elaboration. We do not get a full picture of Titus's role in the war. He was an inexperienced commander and showed this in more than a few mistakes he made. If Vespasian allowed him the glory of capturing Jerusalem he made sure that his son has a seasoned professional to advise him: Tiberius Julius Alexander. Titus' pivotal role was in handling the delicate negotiations between the parties involved in the Flavian rebellion met with scant attention. Without his traveling from person to person, Vespasian's rebellion would never have happened. The role Queen Berenice in these negotiations is not brought up. Since her brother, Agrippa II, was in Rome until after the Flavian rebellion began, and she was romantically involved with Titus it would have been interesting to have more insight into her role.

   A discussion about Nerva from Professor Levick is sorely wanting. He is briefly mentioned, which I think is odd for such a pivotal Flavian supporter. I would like to know her ideas about his mysterious contribution to the Flavian cause that earned him an ordinary consulship with Vespasian, the only consulship he did not share with Titus.

   The best parts of the book for me were the last two chapters (Vespasian and His Sons and Conclusion) where Professor Levick brilliantly sums up the Flavians and their impact on history. However, Vespasian does not emerge from this book as a flesh-and-blood personality. Some of the chapters, particularly Restoration of the Roman World, which deals with events in every part of the empire, would have benefited by adding headings in the text. This would provide easy access to the information. I was perturbed over Professor Levick's shorthand in referring to ancient sources. The Annals of Tacitus, for example, are abbreviated TA and the notes are crowded. The source is not immediately identifiable and I wish more intuitive abbreviations were used.

   I cannot agree with other reviewers that Professor Levick selects "boring" emperors. Tiberius and Claudius were anything but boring, and their reigns were pivotal in the history of the principate. I think that there is room for another biography of Vespasian, written in the form of a true life of the subject, and including chapters dealing with the state of the empire, army, art and literature. Ms. Levick's book is not the last word on her subject.




3. I have read all of Barbara Levick's works and find them consistently dry, ponderous and distorted with one-sided theses. To be fair, the work is well researched and intricate, yet is at the same time lacking the spark of fascination so characteristic of Roman history but so difficult to describe. Because a book is devoid of imagination, spirit and narrative for an emphasis on sheer exegesis does not neccesarily make that work particularly "scholarly": in fact, it makes that work boring. More's the pity for Roman studies.



4. The previous half dozen reader reviews of this book (mostly lukewarm) have fallen into two catagories: quibbles by other period specialists and complaints from those who wish Levick would try to impart some readability to her scholarship. Of course the specialists beg to differ, that's what specialists do. No two would ever make the same choices in attempting to capture the same complex period. Those who assert that this book is very "dry" are right, but those who dub it "boring" have missed the point. Try to find another booklength biography of Vespasian in English! If one wants to learn about this man, this is an essential book and for that reason it deserves more than three stars. Levick is a scholar emerita. We can regret that she did not learn her craft in an era when some historians recognize the value of writing for a wider audience than the tiny circle of their fellow cognoscenti, but we do her wrong if we fail to credit her with writing a work that is the first of its kind.



5. I am incredulous that one reviewer would term Caligula, Claudius, and Vespasian as "boring." There are dozens and dozens of boring Emperors. But these guys? Caligula, dressing up as a Pharoh (or a woman) and parading the streets of Rome with a fake falling-off beard. Claudius, proclaimed Emperor by the Praetorian Guards as a joke--that backfired. Except for his choice of wives, such as his niece Agrippina (too bad about that. It gave the world Nero. Oh, and Messalina, the party girl!) he did rather well. And Vespasian himself, who would have thought! He brought stability to the empire, paid off the debts, put a tax on urine, and got to sleep with Antonia Caenis as well. These guys were anything but boring. And given the paucity of solid stuff on Vespasian, I'll take what I can get.

No comments about Christine : SOE Agent & Churchill's Favourite Spy.

5 comments about A Mind in Prison: The Memoir of a Son and Soldier of the 3rd Reich.

1. Dr. Bruno Manz has written an honest, searing story of his experiences growing up in the Third Reich with a father who he loved but who was an enthusiastic Nazi. First person accounts of this quality are rare and valuable, giving those of us who are curious as to how a civilized nation like Germany could turn itself into the soulless, mechanistic killing machine it became under Hitler a look at how ordinary people contributed, by omission or commission, to the coming horror. Dr. Manz has more than atoned for his own omissions by writing this excellent, gripping book, which I recommend to anyone interested in this perplexing episode of history.



2. This book is basically the author's way of exorcising his personal demons. Manz grew up idolizing a man named Adolf Hitler, whom most Germans believed to be a sort of messiah sent to save them from the devastating poverty and national humiliation following the Treaty of Versailles. The book chronicles how Manz (and many other pro-Nazi Germans then) got to believe in the things he did, and his eventual disillusionment with the Third Reich.

   Did the German civilians know about the atrocities of the concentration and extermination camps? Over the recent years, this question has loomed large in works concerning WWII in the European theater. Manz can't answer for every German during that period, but he gives us HIS story as an offering to further understanding in this matter.

   This book struck a very personal chord with me. Although I was born decades after WWII, I grew up in a country where the press (in fact, every type of media - books, TV, movies, etc.) was heavily censored by the national government. The government told people what to think, what to say, when to assemble, and throws those who defy their orders in jail under the holy name of "national security". As a result, I totally understand how mind-numbing propoganda can be. A population, after all, is merely a collection of individuals living in a state. An individual's morals and personal biases are largely dependent on what information they have available to them. Hitler understood this very well, and with the help of his propoganda minister, Goebbels, managed to shape the thinking of an amazingly large portion of the German population, including the author's.

   Manz is all the more convincing because he doesn't get overly apologetic, but does admit that he's not in any way proud of all that he has done (he was a Hitler Youth, and later a soldier in the German army). He feels very strongly for the victims of the Third Reich (the book is dedicated to them), and although he was never in direct contact with any official programs dealing with the "Jewish problem", regrets that he couldn't have done more.

   It is very touching to read books by those who were on the "wrong" side of the war, especially those with a sense of morality (however late it surfaced) like Manz. This book is an important reminder to us of how dangerous bigotry can be, especially when it is led by an eloquent and convincing tyrant.




3. A Mind in Prison is a powerful and moving personal account of life as a committed Nazi, a soldier on the Eastern Front, and the difficult and painful realization that everything the author once stood for was evil and destructive. The candor of this book is both startling and refreshing because it gives the reader tremendous insight into the corrosive power of Nazi propaganda and ideology. For the author to admit thinking and acting like he did must have been a painful experience, but it gives this account a sharp edge of credibility that might otherwise be lacking. In fact, it is that candor that makes this story so heartrendering. The world would be a much better place if more people would break their silence about the tragedy of Nazi Germany and share their experiences and feelings as openly and sincerely as Dr. Manz has.



4. This book was interesting, earnest, candid and filled with the author's personal angst for having been duped, first by his Nazi father and then by Hitler. I disagree with some of the other reviews in that I didn't find it penetrating or searing. Bruno Manz stabs but fails at soul-searching.
   
   In some ways it is repetitive. The author explains again and again how he was brainwashed into Nazism from youth to young adulthood. He digresses into various life experiences with teachers, schools, childhood friends, military experiences and lesser details of life. All of which he thinly connects to his primary purpose for the memoir, exorcising his personal demons over blindly serving Hitler. Many of those digressions would be unremarkable without that connection. Bruno uses those vignettes to underscore that he was misguided but they fail to reveal, illuminate or prove how any particular incident, mentor or authority figure contributed to his blind devotion to Hitler. In fact, he frequently recounts how he internally rebelled against school authorities, military authorities, rules and procedures that didn't make common sense or rubbed him the wrong way. If that is so, then he should have self analyzed further to determine how and why he dismissed his conscience when it called about Hitler, the concentration camps and the Jews. He continued to follow the grand lie and served as essentially a political officer in youth organizations and later in the military. He recounts that he was never very enthusiastic and harbored doubts, yet he continuously pressed on. Example on pg 69, he describes a school director quoting Hitler's credo, "He who wants to live, let him fight. And he who does not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle does not deserve to live." Bruno expresses misgivings when the school director says that is more religion than a person would ever find in the Bible. He admits agreeing with the anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism of the director but boycotts his classes from then on. Methinks he doth protest too much.
   
   Don't get me wrong, Bruno Manz clearly, genuinely, honestly apologizes for his personal role in Germany's evil shame. He denounces all that he was and embraces all that he has become since the war and particularly while living in America. But in the end about all that Bruno confirms is that, at least between 1915 and 1946, Germans were weak for rhetoric, easily swayed by romantic and heroic figures, and followed the crowd. He doesn't dig deep enough to reveal how that was possible. Were they greedy, mad, angry, vulnerable, ambitious, fearful, bombastic, maniacal, weak, bloodthirsty, gullible? Personally, he was swayed by Dad while impressionable and later by Hitler via Goebbels propaganda machine. OK, we already know that about every German during WWII. Bruno, why and how were you vulnerable to that when the rest of the world was not? Why do some Germans today continue to deny the Holocaust? Why is there an element that still deifies Hitler and anti-Semitism?
   
   I suspect that Bruno cannot to this day accept his own cowardice. He never dared to disagree or question his father, although he credits his mother and older brother with being able to avoid anti-Semitic hatred and Hitler worship. He wouldn't dare question his Nazism or the Fuhrer because he very likely knew it would mean his death or imprisonment. Hmmm, that may be the self evident truth every German citizen who willingly participated in Nazism has to face. They didn't take any contrary action because it was someone else who was being victimized and they were cowards. So, while he may have achieved some catharsis, I doubt that he completely exorcised the regret and shame he aimed for. Still, the book has some value derived from its basic honesty and first person account.



5. very well written and detailed - I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in the Third Reich

5 comments about Vietnam, 1969-1970: A Company Commander's Journal (Texas A&M University Military History Series).

1. this book is the best book ive ever read.This book started out in hawaii lee was a luitenant at the time but he wanted to upgrade his level in office so he was asked to become company commader his journey through the viet kong was very exiting it was full of action and outrage his tale was very inspireing he stood up for his men and became very popular as bravo company commander and became one of the best plotoon in vietnam his wife lived in sanfracico her name was linda when lee move out of the states his wife was pregnant with there girl rosallie.he was waiting to come home after 8 months in the war he was a month awayfrom coming home to the states when he got a rear job which he was waiting for and then took his long ride back home to sanfracisco.



2. I missed the Vietnam War by a year or two. I served as an 11B from 72-78. I always wondered what it would have been like to have been there in a rifle company. Plenty of books about SF and LRRPs, but not very many written by a real platoon leader. I never had a tremensous desire to be an elite soldier in an elite unit (if I could have even made it). I only wanted to be a rifle squad leader. This book really made me feel what it would have been like. What I missed. It is a real world book. Not a battle every minute book filled with stories of great exploits. Just a real world grunt in Vietnam book. I recommend the companion book "The Only War We Had."



3. I missed the Vietnam War by a year or two. I served as an 11B from 72-78. I always wondered what it would have been like to have been there in a rifle company. Plenty of books about SF and LRRPs, but not very many written by a real platoon leader. I never had a tremensous desire to be an elite soldier in an elite unit (if I could have even made it). I only wanted to be a rifle squad leader. This book really made me feel what it would have been like. What I missed. It is a real world book. Not a battle every minute book filled with stories of great exploits. Just a real world grunt in Vietnam book. I recommend the companion book "The Only War We Had."



4. I've had these books for more then 20 years now - taking them with me through flood and fire. The first is SECOND 6 months of his tour while, "The only war we ever had: A company Commanders Journal" is the FIRST 6 months of his tour in Vietnam in 1968-1969.
   
   M. Lee Lanning was the youngest person ever to lead an entire Company of 200 soldiers even though he was only a First Lieutenant, all at the age of 23.
   
   I find these books truly fascinating - they show the horror, the boredom, the friendships made and the attempts at comedy used to stay sane during wartime. I never thought that a "War Memoir" would ever capture my attention, but this did it. Many (if not most) war books are written by the pencil pushers or REMF's and not someone who actually held a rifle and saw the enemy.
   
   Each page is straight from the diary that his father gave him before he shipped out - then what follows is his memory of that day.
   
   One of my favorite excerpts:
   
   "Our move was delayed when one of the FNG's (F-ing New Guy), who had joined Bravo Co. at Crystal (their main base) a few days before, saw something in a clump of bamboo. Seconds later he approached me carrying a heavy, cone-shaped object that I immediately recognized as a 105mm artillery round. From it's shiny exterior, I deduced it was a "dud" from our fire before assaulting the bunkers.
   
   The FNG, proud of his find, had no clue what he was cradling in his arms. As calmly as possible, I told the man to walk back into the jungle for at least 50 meters, gently place the object on the ground and return to my location. The tone of my voice, and the fact that all the others were scrambling for cover, definitely got the troop's attention.
   
   Without a word, he followed my instructions. I braced for the expected explosion as he turned away and slowly walked towards the jungle..."
   
   If you get this make sure you also get "Only War We Had: A Platoon Leader's Journal of Vietnam" that is the first of this series - it contains his journal entries from the first 6 months of his tour.



5. The first book, that goes with this one is; The Only War We Had. Both these books are a compelling read, and I enjoyed them very much. The author writes directly from his journals keep during his 12 months in VN. He quotes the journal day by day and then expands on that from his memories of the events. His memory is reenforced by letters to his beloved wife.
   As a vet myself (91b20) I really enjoyed this book, but being an enlisted man, I am reminded this is written by an officer.
   That's not meant to be criticism, just an observation. It sounds like he was a remarkable officer.
   And excellent history of man and his commands. I'm really glad I read it. I noticed he has made some TV appearances on the history channel. I assume as an expert on VN., makes me want to watch for those.
   Thanks for your service Col.!

5 comments about I Am a Soldier, Too: The Jessica Lynch Story.

1. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. Boring. Whoop-de-do. Soldier deploys, soldier captured early in war, soldier part of fake PR rescue mission, soldier turns "selfless-servce" into big bucks book rights. Being a speedily written book based only on information supplied by Jessica Lynch, army PAOs, and whatever was available from the wire services, there is no delving into the deeper stories, like "Why was a supposedly combat ready unit of combat service support personnel lost and so easily attacked?" (hint-because it was a combat service support unit) or "What is the truth about the alleged compromising barracks photos?" or "Why was this 'rescue' videotaped and then the videotape released to the news media?" No, this book delves into none of these, rather taking the route of cashing in on some quick bucks before the the American public forgets who she is. There is nothing of substance here, only a made for TV movie.



2. When I first heard about the Jessica Lynch incident, i thought like most other soldiers at the time we thought she was a hero. THat was untill the facts came out. I served with the rangers when the jessica lynch incident happened, and most of us had already heard about the mishap. When the facts finally came out most of us were angry. Ive read the ghost written book, and seen the ghost written movie. For those of you who dont know what ghost writter mean its a book about a person or biography that written bye another person without much or any input from the actual person. However the actual interviews and personal statments of lynch are mostly diffrent. After the stories of the other people involved in the incident came out i knew she was no hero and that the real heroes would never heard from.
   
   The resons for Lynches hero status are for 3 reasons in this order.
   Pretty face
   A Women
   Politics
   
   For those of you who still believe shes worthy of a bronz star i will explain why she not. Most of these facts came from her interview with times and other television media (though i hate times i will use them anyway.) All these facts here down are by Lynches own admission.
   
   1. Didnt fire her weapon. Most will say her m16 malfunctioned and it did, though the trouble it had was the most common malfunction and easily fixed, a bullet got stuck in the chamber. This problem is easily fixed and usually caused by dirt (aka) sand or not enough lube. (why they didnt maintian their weapons is another good question) Every person in the armed forces from navy army air force to marines is taught sports (slap pull observe release tap squeeze) in basic no matter what their mos. Its one of the most important facet of military basic training. If she wanted to fix it all she had to do was pull the chargiing handle back, but nope she paniced.
   
   2. She tried to get another soldier in the humvee to fix it in panic but when they didnt (because they were to busy shooting) she threw down her weapon.
   
   3. She then curled up in a ball and started crying
   
   4. She had atleast 45 minutes to get over her sulking and atleast hand out ammo, reload weapons or even fix her own m16. (i might be wrong on time frame of ambush)
   
   5. she countinued to sulk as each of her fellow soldiers died around her.
   
   6. she surrenedered. Though i cant hold it against her for surrenedering.
   
   7. she came back home proclaims herself a hero with help of media and makes million dollar book and movie deals off of her dead friend, which wouldnt bother me so much if she actually did something heroic. And do give me the bull she want to be left alone, got to here website aka shrine to herself and look at the opening picture.
   
   Some of you might say well she never experinnced combat before and just broke down, while that may be true its not deserving of a heros status let alone a bronz star. She broke all of the core army values and then some.
   What makes me mad is that she was made out to be a hero, though there were several others people during that incident that did way more then she did and are deserving of silver and other medals.
   
   THe real heroes
   The soldiers in her humvee that protected her and shot at the bad guys while she sulked.
   Pfc Miller who was in a humvee few trucks behind her who deserves a silver star for taking out a mortar position with a "cough" malfunctioned rifle that he fixed.
   the other soldiers who died fighing.
   The rangers and seals who rescued her
   If you can trust the story, the doctors who protected her.
   
   The double standard
   
   Though i cant remeber her name off hand, the black female pow and 2 other soldier who were captured while fighing long before Lynches story. They didnt get bronz stars or a heroes welcome, why because their not a pretty face.
   
   And for those bush basher out there, no i dont think this was a propoganda thing to flm the rescue inbed reporters asked to come along with the rescue unit and they did. The hype over the incident was mostly the media doing, aka fox and cnn. The pentagon didnt put out the same number of release for the previous POWs.
   
   If you want the truth about the incident read her interviews right after the incident aka times and walter i think was the other one. The book itself is a sham.



3. This book is just what it claims to be, The Jessica Lynch Story. And she IS a soldier. All the reviewers who have chosen this format to start spouting political agendas based on their own theories are in the wrong place. People read reviews to decide if they want to buy a book, if they want to hear a bunch of media spin and MIS-information, then they can watch TV or read the New York Times.
   If Jessica had been a man and been rescued, that soldier would still have been given media attention, and probably a book deal. The battle that was fought during the time of her capture was one of the bloodiest and most deadly for our troops. Whether or not she actually fired her gun does not matter to me.
   Any solder serving in our military is already a hero. Anyone brave enough to sign up and go to war for our freedom, including the rights to speak about whatever we want, are my heroes.
   The people who sit home in front of their computers and televisions, spouting off arm-chair politics without knowing the truth are not educated enough in the facts to declare who is a soldier and who is a hero.
   So while I got off track in trying to compensate for the political reviews, suffice it to say that this book is an easy read. Well told from a young girls' perspective and something I would have never wanted to endure as a 20 year old girl; Rick Bragg has the perfect style to compliment the story.
   
   Soldier: 1.a person who serves in an army; a person engaged in military service.2.an enlisted man or woman
   Hero: a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal.



4. At first I didn't want to read this story. This woman was subjected to some great cruelity, and there is not much pleasure in reading about that. Lynch was a young West Virginian teenager when she enrolled in the U.S. Army. Her recruiter told her she could see a little of the world and earn some college money. Fast forward two years, and Jessica is in the battle of her life. Her humvee in racing away after an ambush and then an RPG slams into it causing her best friend to die and her to be critically injured. She is then subjected to three hours of cruelity by Saddam's Fedyeen. The Iraqi doctors at the hospital try to save her and then she is "rescued" by U.S. Special Forces. The rest of the story is about her homecoming.
   
   Jessie's story shows the cruel nature of war. Some of her fellow soldiers were executed in front of her eyes. She was abused for three hours by the Fedyeen. Jessie wishes this war was never fought because she lost her best friend. It also shows the friendship and sympathy she gained nationwide and especially in West Virginia. A nice story about the difficulties of the Iraq War.



5. I just saw on the news that she said this was fabricated. While I think what she went through was horrible, and she did survive it. There are a few issues. First of all she was out of it most of the time according to her. She did not fire a single shot. There were several real herose in the book who endured torture and stuff like that. It was dumb luck and she made money because of it.

1 comments about Memories from the Out House Mouse: The Personal Diaries of One B-17 Crew.

1. "Out House Mouse" was one of the most famous B-17s that served with the 8th Air Force in WWII. Its record of 139 missions without an abort was the second best in the entire Mighty Eighth. Its final assigned crew was headed by LT. Joe Harvey, the author's father. MEMORIES FROM THE OUT HOUSE MOUSE is the combat log of that crew's missions, assembled from the diaries of LT. Harvey and the other eight crewmen of that legendary bomber.
   
   LT. Harvey's diary serve as the backbone of this book, which is chronologically arranged from 1 January to 19 June 1945. Following Harvey's diary entry for that particular day/mission, the other crewmen's reminiscences are given, arranged by the person's location in the B-17 (i.e bombardier, navigator, co-pilot, top turret gunner, etc.). Newspaper articles relating to individual missions are included after the crewmen's entries.
   
   By the time Harvey's crew was assigned to the 91st BG, the days of soul-crushing mission where loss rates ran to 50% or better were over. Encounters with Luftwaffe fighters were rare; flak was the main enemy. During most of "Out House Mouse's" last missions, the 91st lost few aircraft. Consequently, much of the material in this book isn't that exciting; it is, however, terribly repetitive.
   
   Robert Harvey is to be commended for the effort he put into compiling this log of a typical late-war Mighty Eighth B-17 crew. It is a fine tribute to his dad and the other "Out House Mouse" crewmen. Unfortunately, the source material just isn't that gripping.

5 comments about Jefferson and the Indians: The Tragic Fate of the First Americans.

1. I felt that this was an excellent book on Thomas Jefferson's views toward the native people of North America. It illuminated many parts of his feelings toward native people and their place in the "American Republic." I felt that it also raised many questions about his participation in early land speculation with Henry, Washington, and Franklin as well as his role in the eventual displacement of native people. Anyone interested in early colonial policy toward natives will surely love this book.



2. Many works on early United States history tend to give Indian affairs less attention than it deserves. There are two recent books with which I am familiar that help correct this situation. The first is Robert Remini's study of Jacksonian American, "Andrew Jackson and his Indian Wars". The second is Professor Wallace's book on Jefferson's relationship to the Indians, which I am discussing here.

   Remini's and Wallace's book can be read together because both tell parts of the same sad story. Expansionist pressures from settlers and the fear of the United States of Indian attacks, particularly when incited by hostile European nations led to a policy of land cessions, wars, and forced removal westward of the Indian tribes. The process culminated with Andrew Jackson's Indian wars and presidency, the subject of Remini's book, but it was effectively put in place by Thomas Jefferson, as shown by Wallace.

   Jefferson and his Indian policy, however, seem to me to present a more complex case than Jackson. As Wallace's book shows, Jefferson was indeed a polymath, a scholar and intellectual as well as a, paradoxically, man of power and position. Jefferson took a genuine interest in Indian archaeology, culture and language and made himself or encouraged others to make, scholarly and enthnological contributions that are still important towards understanding the Indians.

   Jefferson, even on Professor Wallace's account, had compassion for the Indian tribes and an interest in their well-being, even if this interest was overshadowed, as it was, by his desire to obtain Indian land for the new nation and even though his view of Indian interests was misguided and partial.

   Wallace's book traces Jefferson's early relationship with Indians beginning before the revolution when Jefferson was a land speculator in the then Western United States. He explores in detail Jefferson's writing on Indians, particularly his writing on the Indian chief Logan in his "Notes on the State of Virginia." Jefferson's partial reading of the fate of this "Noble Savage", according to Wallace, shows the ambivalent character of Jefferson's approach to the Indians.

   Wallace describes in detail Jefferson the politician approaching Indian affairs in the original United States territory and in the Louisiana purchase, which doubled the size of the United States. The announced goals of the policy were peace, land cessions and civilization for the Indians. Too often, these policies became simply the means for tribal destruction and deprivation and for the removal policy, for both the southern and the northern tribes, that culminated in the administration of Andrew Jackson. (again, see the Remini book.)

   There are some fascinating quotations in the book that illustrate Wallace's points that are set aside and emphasized in blocked-type and quotes. It is a good way of gaining focus. The book has a wealth of documentation and is not simply a political history. As I indicated Jefferson was a complex individual and this book shows him, focusing on Indian affairs, in all his personal and political variety.

   Wallace has a clear feeling for the tragedy of the American Indian. Yet his book is balanced in tone and does not degenerate into ideological or special pleading. His opinions are stated clearly and eloquently in his introduction and conclusion and in his discussions of the events described in the text. The book has the measure of a scholar and encourages the reader to reflect for him or herself on the record.

   There are those who are skeptical of the public's recent interest in American History, as shown by the success of McCollough's John Adams as well as other popular historical works, on grounds that it is a new attempt to promote American exceptionalism and to avoid considering the tragedies of our past. I disagree. I think, this interest in history shows a renewed love and interest in our country with no desire to minimize its failings. Wallace's book to me shows both love of our country and a sense of one of its major tragedies.




3. Part of the Jeffersonian fascination involves the many facets, ambiguities and paradoxes he presents: the libertarian who owned slaves; the budget-slashing, small-government advocate who was a personal spendthrift, perpetually teetering at the brink of financial ruin; the shy and ineffective public speaker who was one of the most ruthless and scheming of backroom political operatives; the reclusive scholar and intellectual who spent two hours a day on horseback, and apparently indulged surreptitious passions in the slave quarters. Professor Wallace gives us a little known side of Jefferson: the student of Native American culture, history and language, who took quite deliberate measures to destroy them. Jefferson, who apparently was sincerely fascinated with the Indians, and sympathetic to their plight as they vanished under the burdens of disease, debt, whiskey and the murderous encroachments of frontiersmen, did little to protect them and their way of life, which was incompatible with Jefferson's expansionist, egalitarian vision of a nation of white protestant yeoman farmers. At best, Jefferson hoped that the Indians could be assimilated into white society, as were the Cherokee before Jefferson's successors allowed them to be dispossessed. A fascinating book with some great sidelights (for example, I had no idea that Siouxian tribes at one time lived in Virginia).



4. While I found the book, on the whole, to be an interesting entry in a historical space that is lightly populated; meaning that few books are written about the Indian culture during Colonial times and the impact of expansionism on their culture, I felt there were aspects of the book that adversely affected its quality:
   
   1. The detail surrounding the land, colonial speculation (including Jefferson's holdings) and the treaties to expand the colonies' territory to be excessive and ineffective in their attempt to connect Jefferson's said holdings with an overall strategic conspiracy.
   2. The book's focus on Jefferson's interest and approach to the American Indian, while interesting and keeping with the title, limited the potential of the book which, I believe, would have been better served if the premise focused more on the colonies' overall perspective and dealings with the Indians. This would have included a more extensive overview of the interaction of the specific tribes, the impact of the six nations and how this interaction diluted or enhanced the Indian culture.
   3. I don't believe that it is contradictory for a man of science (based on Jefferson's interest in language and culture correlations and origin), to suggest that certain tribes represented a real threat to the safety of citizens that were, technically, the responsibility of Virginia and,eventually,the United States. Decisions to support eradication of "bad" elements versus those tribes that were cooperative seems logical given the reports that were received and magnitude of the violence that was observed.
   
   Having said that, the chapters regarding the tracking of language patterns, formulating questions that would uncover additional information about tribal history and Jefferson's desire and passion to explore the role of the Native American and determine whether there were connections with the Welsch were fascinating and were great reading.
   
   Overall, while I enjoyed the book, I sensed too much intent to discredit Jefferson and too little effort to suggest the overall importance of Jefferson's desire and approach to collecting and preserving data on the American Indian.



5. The detailed review by Robin Friedman (below) gives a fair and ample account of this book's content and quality. I'm afraid Thomas Jefferson does not escape with his reputation intact, but I doubt that AFC Wallace intended to besmirch or belittle him for any political agenda. Jefferson was my hero in high school, but almost nothing I've learned about him since then has polished his image. John Quincy Adams, who knew him well, slowly came to regard him as hypocritical, cunning, self-absorbed, given to magnifying his own exploits... what today might be called "narcissistic". Wahington detested him in his later years and cut off communication. Obviously, Jefferson can't be blamed for the uses later generations have made of him to justify secession, states-rights conservatism, racist forms of populism, etc, but history does provide a lens for interpreting his ideologies and for finding that aside from the noble rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson's legacy is mostly pernicious.
   This is, however, a very well-written and readable book, superbly researched, and not at all tendentious. Don't read it alone! (Of course, if you read it at all, you've probably read other books on Jefferson and on the 18th C). Take a look at FORCED FOUNDERS as a counterweight.