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.

5 comments about Military Memoirs Of A Confederate.

1. This book, unlike Alexander's more recently discovered personal memoir, is only for the serious scholar. His account of strategy, tactics and troop movements is almost completely unleavened with anecdotes or personal reactions. I found it to be very dry, very hard to maintain interest in. That isn't to say it's not an important book -- it is, very much so. There are areas where Alexander's knowledge falters and he should not be taken as a sole source of information, but in general, this is a very detailed and worthwhile account by an intelligent participant. But recreational reading? Not on your life. I'd recommend the author's Fighting for the Confederacy instead.



2. I believe this to be the most accurate, and honest, first-hand account of the Army of Northern Virginia. After reading this book, your perception of certain battlefields will never be the same. Not only was Alexander a true soldier, but also a fine scholar.



3. This book is the work of one of Lee's Lieutenants, General Edward Porter Alexander. Alexander was Longstreet's artillery commander for most of the Civil War. As such, he saw action in the Eastern Theater from 1st Manassas, through to the surrender at Appomattox Courthouse. After the war, he was encouraged by General Longstreet to write a history of his Corps. Unfortunately after completing most of the primary research, very few of the officers he contacted were willing to give him the first person authoritative accounts he wanted. What he instead was to write a memoir that almost 100 years later is still the model of historical writing.
   For historians the danger of memoirs is twofold. First, many authors have an axe to grind and will suffer from "selective memory" in retelling their experiences. Also, but less deliberately, we are all the leading stars of our lives (if you aren't you oughta be). Taking center stage, authors can appear to have a larger role in the subject than they should otherwise have. With General Alexander's book though, there is no romanticism of the "Lost Cause", nor hero worship of the Lee/Jackson pantheon. Alexander dispassionately relates the campaigns he saw, with insightful critiques of the leaders of both sides. He doesn't spare himself from criticism either; you don't often see that in a memoir.
   Anyone with a serious interest in Civil War campaigns should have this book in their library. However, if you are looking for a Confederate mea culpa, or a social history you should look elsewhere. Highly recommended.



4. General Alexander gives almost a blow-by-blow account of each major battle of the War Between the States, complete with Orders of Battle, casualty reports, and numbers of troops engaged. His excellent memory for detail makes for somewhat dry reading at times (if you're not looking for numbers), but remains a classic in War literature. A must-have for any library on the period



5. A very good critical narrative. He breaks it down each battle The ANV participated in. He gives a good account what each commander starting with
   Brig Gen Johnston and Brig McDowell at Manassas(Bull Run) ending with
   Appomattix Courthouse did and how they as commanders could have fought their battle and win. Good insight especially since he was in the command
   tent with General Lee and Longstreet. This is what is lacking with most
   historians now days. He gives very good details but some readers say the
   reading is dry. This is not a daily journal on a privates war. Read the
   Title. It should explain itself. The narrative briefly tells what each
   brigade did if needed to help develop the battle line. He does not get
   into each regimental history unless there is a particular point to make. He does break it down What each army brings to battle and casualties. Very important to my thought. Also there are a few snippets here and there to make things funny. One thing In a way before reading this book I bought the other one his personal journal "Fighting For the Confederacy
   The Personal recollections of General Edward Porter Alexander" This is a
   more personal side of him. It has more personal thoughts and observations on the war and the people he met during the war. I think I
   would have enjoyed The Military Memoirs even more by reading the Personal
   recollections first but that is my take. In any event General Alexander
   is accurate enought with his information that he can still hold his own
   with modern historians today. Even better he didn't let the "lost cause"
   mentality interfere with writing the Critical Memoirs.

2 comments about God and General Longstreet: The Lost Cause and the Southern Mind.

1. Connelly and Bellows offer a fine selection of short essays that deal with the "mentality" of the Southern mind amid the squalor of a defeated nation. I would think those more versed in their Civil War studies would appreciate this more than the casual reader. An appetizing psychological look at the only section of our country that has been a "defeated nation"



2. If you want to know how the Lost Cause syndrome got its start and how Longstreet to his shock became the designated failure of the Confederacy, this is a revealing book. Old Pete survived his crippling wounds incurred by bullets during his great counter attack in the Wilderness but the ink from "Old Jube's" (Jubal Early's) pen created greater harm and anguish to Longstreet as Early effectively destroys his reputation. Early holds a tight grasp of southern history and the Southern Historical Society making sure that no one dared write anything about the War of the Rebellion without his approval. How ironic that the man that moved Alexander's auxiliary guns away during Pickett's charge, the former and inefficient Pendleton, makes up a bogus story about Longstreet disobeying a sunrise attack order on the second day of Gettysburg in a speech shortly after Lee died and blames Longstreet solely for the lost battle and in turn the "cause". Early picks up the ridiculous story to exaggerate Pendleton's story to gross proportions while coloring his own role that is very suspect in not supporting an attack on Culp's Hill on the first day of Gettysburg and he also pushed Ewell in not moving his corps to the right as Lee wished failing to contract Lee's over extended lines. Old Jube was a tough fighter but had a hard time with cavalry particularly in the Valley where Lee finally has Early relieved. Unlike Longstreet and Lee, Early left the country after the war and upon his return made a career out of rewriting history to suit his slant. Jubal Early could have been the Roy Cohn of the post Civil War era.

   Connelly also explains how Lee becomes a greater hero after death and a rallying point for statues and dedications while the south understandably searches for an answer to the defeat of what many in the south tried to remember as a noble cause. Jackson's role is diminished as Lee's appreciative role becomes magnified almost to diety. As the reasons for the "Lost Cause" become justified, Davis and Stephens even write retrospective histories that contrast conveniently with the changing times, States Rights and Rights under the Constitution rise to greater reasons of separation than does slavery for example.

   A devastating loss with so much death, maiming of young men and destruction needed a nobleness that was overwhelmed only by large numbers of Union soldiers and errors of judgement of those other thsn the leaders of the armies. "Lest we Forget" is defined in Connelly's fascinating book.

5 comments about Andrew Jackson: The Course of American Freedom, 1822-1832 (Andrew Jackson).

1. In this, the second (and shortest) installation of three volumes on the life of Andrew Jackson, Robert Remini covers the decade between Jacksonýs ostensible retirement from public life after serving a short ý and miserable ý term as governor of the newly acquired Florida territory to the culmination of his first presidential term.

   The central issue covered in this volume ý indeed, the central issue in Jacksonýs political life, as Remini later concludes in Volume III ý is the presidential election of 1824 and the so-called ýcorrupt bargainý between John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay to deprive Jackson of the presidency despite his commanding lead in the popular vote. For Jackson, it was conspiracy of the wealthy elites against a commoner, and it proved that the American republic itself was in mortal jeopardy. The defeat served as a catalyst for Jacksonýs passionate, almost obsessive commitment to ýreform and retrenchment,ý which Remini weaves together with the character developed in Volume I. It was his quest to avenge the loss of 1824 (and the honor of the American people who had been swindled) and sweep the ýaugean stablesý of corruption and graft in Washington that led to the great democratic movement that bears his name. (It should be noted that Harry Ammon and other leading historians of the Monroe and Adams administrations stridently contest Reminiýs assertion that the Era of Good Feelings was actually the ýEra of Corruption.ý)

   For those of you who puzzled over Washingtonýs obsession with the Monica Lewinsky affair, you will be amused to read that the dominating issue of Jacksonýs first term was the reportedly lascivious nature of Peggy Eaton, the wife of Jackson's old friend and secretary of war. This so-called ýPetticoat War,ý which saw the wives of other cabinet members and senior officials ý mostly notably vice president Calhounýs wife, Floride ý shunning social interaction with Peggy, literally ripped the cabinet asunder and very nearly toppled the government. Remini tells the story with verve and wit, which at times reads more like a Sidney Sheldon novel than a volume in a definitive presidential biography.




2. When we last left Andrew Jackson, he had just quit his job as governor of the Florida territory. Having built his reputation on his military actions against Indians and his rout over the British in the Battle of New Orleans, Jackson now had two goals: first, recovering his precarious health, and second, becoming president.

   In this second volume of Remini's biography of the seventh president, Jackson rises to the pinnacle of his power, though it is by no means easy. First, there is his health: having abused his body over the years in war and duels, Jackson was not in good shape and probably spent the last decades of his life in constant pain which only his vast willpower could overcome.

   In 1824, Jackson ran for president and despite getting a plurality of the popular and electoral votes, wound up losing to John Quincy Adams that makes the 2000 election seem non-controversial in comparison. Getting cheated (as many felt) would lead to a second, successful campaign in 1828, but even this had a high price, as the slander he was subjected to due to the dubious circumstances of his marriage would emotionally wreck and eventually lead to the death of his wife.

   The second half of the book focuses on Jackson's first presidential term, ending with his election to a second term. In many ways the first populist president, Jackson redefined the role of the presidency by expanding the power of the veto (rarely used previously and only in limited circumstances) and attempted to clean up the corruption left over from the so-called "Era of Good Feelings."

   Remini is a great biographer and this book is every bit as great as the first volume. He holds back few punches when it comes to Jackson's negatives, especially his treatment of Indians and his tendency to dwell incessantly on little things (such as the Eaton affair). Nonetheless, this is a generally positive biography, as Remini demonstrates that despite the view that Jackson was an ignorant backwoodsman manipulated by his aides such as Van Buren, Jackson was both intelligent and independent.

   This is the definitive biography of Jackson. If you want to learn of the man or the era, this is a must-read.




3. This is the second book in Remini's trilogy and it's an extremely detailed, well-researched book. So many biographers bury their subject and forget that most readers what to know who their subject *was*, not merely what they *did.* Remini doesn't fall into this trap. He gives the reader a well-grounded and detailed look at Andrew Jackson as a man: his foibles, passions and prejudices, as well as his extreme ambition and vacillating brilliance.

   Remini strikes a beautiful balance when examining Jackson's private life and military/political life. His examination of Jackson's personal life is exceptional, and he weaves Jackson in and out of the narrative with rare poise and skill. The reader can actually picture Jackson in the midst of his political battles, feel his emotions and understand the decisions he made. When a biographer can paint such a vivid picture, the reader will always be rewarded.

   This is an excellent book for the entire spectrum of people interested in Jackson. Whether you are a neophyte or an established Jacksonian historian, there is much to enjoy, as well as new material. The footnotes and bibliography are excellent resources and lead to additional sources for the reader. Highly recommended.




4. The second volume of Remini's celebrated biography is inevitably rather less intriguing than the first. While it's predecessor was largely about military campaigns and duels, this volume is more focussed on such dynamic topics as debt repayment and, especially, the controversy over renewing the charter of the US Bank.

   The controversial election of 1824 is covered in detail and well explained. Remini also shows how the aftermath of that election reshaped American politics - the parties became far more organized. Although the Democratic Party is spoken of as having been created by Jefferson, Jefferson was the leader of a group or faction more than a true party. In a real sense it was created as a party when Calhoun and Van Buren agreed to unite their factions behind Jackson for the election of 1828. The new era of national parties was illustrated in 1831-32, when, for the first time, national conventions were held to nominate presidential candidates. (The Democrats were so firmly Jackson's party that they didn't bother to formally nominate him, meeting mainly to ratify his desire that Van Buren replace Calhoun as the Vice Presidential candidate.)

   Also covered at length is the bizarre 'War of the Petticoats', when Jackson's cabinet was torn apart over the fact that some officials and their wives, spreading lascivious rumors about Peggy Eaton, wife of the Secretary of War, refused to appear at social events to which the Eatons were invited. However absurd the incident sounds, the consequences were significant.

   Along the way, I learned quite a few things ranging from remarkable to trivial. For instance, I had never suspected that Jackson was the first President to veto a bill with a veto message that centered on what he believed to be the faults of the bill. All prior vetos (there were only a few over 40 years) had been based on arguments that the bills vetoed were unconstitutional. Vetoing partially on the merits (Jacvkson also thought the bill unconstitutional) was considered at the time a shocking extension of executive power. I also learned that Jackson had the first 'kitchen cabinet', a term that dates from the tensions in the cabinet over the Petticoat War. The kitchen cabinet, those friends who Jackson trusted more than many of the men in his official cabinet (also called the 'parlor cabinet' at the time) was so called because they supposedly used a back staircase from the White House kitchen to meet Jackson in his study.

   Overall, a strong history with clear writing, a remarkable central character, and intriguing glimpses at the period covered.




5. Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Freedom, 1822-1832 begins with Jackson's return home from Florida, where he served as military governor, and goes through his first term as president.
   
   There are many interesting aspects to Jackson's life covered in this volume, particularly his devotion to his wife Rachel and his devastating grief when she died a few weeks after he was elected president. But the part that I found the most interesting was how Jackson revived the American political system. In many ways he was the founder of the system we still use today.
   
   The 1820s are often mistakenly referred to as "The Era of Good Feeling." James Monroe was president, and there wasn't really any organized opposition. As Remini documents, there was very little good feeling involved except for those officials who were lining their pockets at the expense of the public. Needless to say, there were many people who were upset and alarmed by the corruption and saw it as a real threat to the American republic (remember, it was only about 50 years since the Declaration of Independence and less than 40 years since the Constitution had been written). These Republicans wanted to restore the two-party system, reconstituting their party along the old Jeffersonian doctrines. They soon hit upon the idea of recruiting the most popular man in the country, retired General Andrew Jackson, to run for president.
   
   Jackson was a military hero, but he was much more than a figurehead candidate. Jackson was also a brilliant instinctive politician and a strong, capable executive. But the rise of Jackson was about more than the candidacy of one man. The purpose, in Jackson's own mind as well as many others, was to connect his popularity with something large and more meaningful--the restoration of the republican principles of the Founding Fathers and a constitutional form of government that adequately protected the liberties of the people. Jackson built a party organization around himself that soon became the Democratic Party, the direct ancestor of the party that still exists today.
   
   As president, Jackson discovered that the nation had changed greatly in the years since he was a boy soldier in the Revolution, and he adapted his ideas accordingly. He became president of an America that had become a sprawling land with an expanding population and a dynamic and complex economy in which industry was increasingly important. Instead of limiting power, Jackson instead changed the nature of power, shifting it (permanantly, as it turned out), from Congress to the presidency.
   
   Before Jackson, "freedom" meant the right of the individual to enjoy the fruits of his labor without interference by government. During his presidency, freedom came to mean majority rule. A free society was one that conformed to the will of the masses. Since Jackson represented the people (something of a new concept), it followed that his program constituted their sovereign command--what we would today call a "mandate."

No comments about The Mind of Frederick Douglass.

5 comments about Patton And Rommel: Men of War in the Twentieth Century.

1. Showalter is to be commended first for attempting to write a history that he claims as "reader-friendly, by eschewing the academic apparatus that so often gets in the way of the story." On the other hand, to anyone with a bit of knowledge of the era and the personalities, Showalter may have a greater desire to obscure the origin of much of his work. Large parts of Showalter's history are literal quotes of earlier works. He does provide proper attribution once or twice, but for the most part the works he borrows from are unattributed.
   
   His declared goal is to depict "two complex personalities in the contexts of their military cultures and the countries that sustained them. Focusing on the generals, it compares the U.S. Army and the Wehrmacht as military instruments, and American and German ways of war." Showalter never acheives this objective.
   
   Instead he has written summary biographies of Patton and Rommel, occasionally inserting his own opinions of what made each man tick. There is nothing new in his observations, nothing that hasn't been previously opined.
   
   Showalter writes in a disconcertingly colloquial way. Happily there is little of the academic style, which is a plus. But occasionally he throws in a little-used archaic word or, worse, slings jargon that many will not be familiar. He particularly uses a tired baseball cliche that I haven't heard in several decades.
   
   The editing and proofreading are amazingly poor. Take this sentence that appears on page 409: "The other was in Paris, where another more group of officers . . ." Yeah, "another more." Huh?
   
   There are no maps or photographs in the book. Military history without even simple diagrams? It doesn't work.
   
   Ultimately this history doesn't really illuminate either Patton or Rommel beyond what is available elsewhere in more vivid detail. As to providing a comparison between the two men, it never even begins the task. Neither general could be said to embody the warrior's ethos of the age. Both men were unique and had strong personalties and favored what were considered unorthodox ways. Showalter could have done a much better job of examining how the men's individual idiosyncracies played out, but it still would not have fulfilled his original objective.
   
   Overall, I can't recommend this history to the serious student of military history. It is, as I noted above, dully repetitious of earlier works. It brings no revelatory insights to bear on either general or on warmaking in general. Except for the awful editing and proofreading and the occasional lapses of the author into slang and archaic language, it is readable, but it is not overly interesting.
   
   Jerry



2. This is not a bad book if you realize what it really is: a nice light-reading history. This is not for those who already have dozens of books about these two men. It is a book for those who haven't read much history, but would like to get a nice introduction to these two great generals. For that, it's a really good book.
   
   I found that the author of this book seems to favor Rommel over Patton. Whereas Rommel is depicted as a competent professional soldier, Patton is often depicted as someone who is more concerned with his career and rank rather than military issues. The author paints Patton as a man on the verge of mental breakdown, and as a bit of a whiner. If you're a Patton fan, you might want to avoid this book.



3. I bought this book at an airport bookstore, and really enjoyed it. For those that don't have the time to read full biographies of Patton and Rommell, this is the book for you. If you've already read separate biographies of the two, I wouldn't necessarily recommend this book.



4. Several others have already commented on the curious and total lack of maps and photos. How can you have a book on battles and omit maps? Plus, the textual descriptions of key battles, like El Alamein, Tobruk, Kasserine Pass and the Allied invasion of Sicily are good but abbreviated. You can find far more detailed accounts elsewhere. For example, there are numerous books devoted to El Alamein or the Battle of the Bulge. Still, Showalter must be clearly aware that his book adds little new to the existing accounts of the battles it describes. Perhaps this was the reason for the omission of maps?
   
   The purported value of the book is in its comparison of the experiences and, to some extent, the personalities and motivations of Patton and Rommel. Here, other reviewers have also remarked that this is quite a hard task. But Showalter seems to have done a reasonable job, including, I presume, interviews with Manfred Rommel, the general's son.
   
   But at least for me, there were a few new snippets that I have not found in other texts. First was the deliberate decision by the US to restrict the size of the army to 90 divisions. In part because the navy and marines have to be built up to fight the Pacific war. But also, this let the US arm as heavily as possible those army divisions. So the US took advantage of its industrial prowess, to minimise its casualties. Fair enough. But in many other accounts of the war, I've never run into mention of this 90 division limit. I'm not saying it's a secret. Undoubtedly, there must be books mentioning it; perhaps even the official histories of the US army. Still it's surprising to know. Especially because Showalter asserts that one consequence was that after Normandy, Eisenhower was restricted in how aggressively he could march across Europe. Whereas with more troops, he might have been able to attack earlier into Germany.
   
   Another useful insight was about how Patton and Rommel were regarded after the war, by the militaries of the US and West Germany. Books on World War 2 tend to end their accounts shortly after the end of the war, naturally. So it was interesting to read that ironically, Patton was more highly regarded than Rommel by the Bundeswehr. While the reverse tended to be true in the US. Typically, it is not easy to get any detailed accounts of the Bundeswehr, written in English. Partly because peacetime militaries generate less interest than wartime. But perhaps also because the Bundeswehr deliberately kept a low profile after the war, to discourage militarism. So Showalter's descriptions of Bundeswehr assessments, if accurate, are quite interesting and fill a gap in the general knowledge.



5. You can see in these 420 pages the author deep knowledge of the history of World War II and a book that provide the right level of information in narrating the lives of two great generals of this war. Both these generals, as you will see, had very different backgrounds, different ways of commands and personalities and it is inevitable to have more sympathy with one them after reading the book. To be a General is a huge responsability which requires several characteristics depending on the job or task, that general will execute. What I admire about Rommel was his previous experience in World War I and for Patton, his knowledge of history and his sense of humor. Patton was an old fashioned soldier, a romantic warrior, with an undoubtedly very peculiar personality. Rommel was an exceptional leader and Feldmarschall that could not flank Hitler's lunatic ideas, finally paying with his life.
   I just have one complain with the book, and it is the absolutely lack of maps or bibliography, at least in the paperback. Despite the later, this is a book to recommend.

No comments about Genghis Khan: History's Greatest Empire Builder (Military Profiles).

5 comments about I Could Never Be So Lucky Again: An Autobiography.

1. I found this book to be two things. First, it was a wonderful overview of US air history delivered by an indisputable authority on the subject. Second, I learned a lot about a true American hero, both in achievement and personal life. How refreshing to discover a humble, brilliant, down-to-earth individual who made such a positive impact on our country! The book was well written and easy to read. In some places it threatened to be tedious, but nothing serious (hence the 5 star recommendation).



2. I had the great pleasure of meeting Gen. Doolittle in 1985 at the Anatole Hotel in Dallas Texas at the dinner in honor of him sponsored by George Haddaway. Years later I got to know CV Glines and see him regularly now.

   This is the most thorough biography I have seen on Gen. Doolittle and CV worked closely with the General and later his family. The book answered one of my lingering questions about "The Raid on Tokyo": Was the Hornet spotted AND reported by the picket boat that they sank? The answer came when an outbound flying boat passed underneath the B-25s as they approached Tokyo.

   I am not looking forward to the portrayal of Gen. Doolittle by Alec Baldwin in the new Disney Movie "Pearl Harbor". I have a sense of dread and foreboding about what Disney may do to the facts




3. This book definitely stands out as one of the superior autobiographies to come out of a major World War II figures. Its come a bit late but I found it to be quite rewarding reading material. Perhaps he was right, he would never be this lucky again since his life story appears to be filled with eternal good fortune, blessed by a first class mind and abilities. I was surprised to learned how much time he spent in Alaska (my home state) and many other details of his life which most readers will not know about. The book proves to be quite addictive and I frankly, read it in a single sitting. The man have done and experience so much stuff that it must have seem to be like a dream to him, looking back. I considered the book a must read material for anyone interested in a major World War II figure or anyone with any interest in aviation history.



4. Childhood in the wilds of Alaska, early aviation pioneer, test pilot, Shell Oil executive, Tokyo raider, 8th Air Force Commander, and so much more. When American hero James Doolittle passed way in 1993, he completed a life that would be difficult for a dozen men to replicate. Though acknowledged in history as the man who led the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo, Doolittle's autobiography, I COULD NEVER BE SO LUCKY AGAIN, shows that there was much more to the man than his daring bomber mission. Raised on the Alaskan frontier, Doolittle eventually relocated to California where he garnered a reputation as a prankster and daredevil. During the First World War he joined the fledgling Army Air Corps. Though Doolittle was retained in the United States throughout the war, he chose to remain in service and help advance military aviation. In the years that followed, Doolittle was a key figure in the development of more advanced avionics, instrument flying, and proponent for 100 octane gasoline for aircraft. Aside from breaking cross country flight records and chasing Mexican bandits in early air-to-ground missions, Doolittle tourned South America as an aircraft salesman.
   
   I COULD NEVER BE SO LUCKY AGAIN is not just about Doolittle's military adventures. In the book he is an advocate of higher eduction. He accomplished a two-year masters degree in one year. So as not to waste the remaining year the Army alotted him, Doolittle went on to get his doctorate at MIT. His statements about the value of advanced education are as true now as they were then.
   
   Though he shed active duty for a higher paying job at Shell, Doolittle continued to log flight hours for Shell and as a military reservist. Seeing that war was inevitable, Doolittle rejoined the active ranks and pulled off 1942's gutsy attack on Tokyo. Any average man, after receiving his Congressional Medal of Honor from the President, could have called it quits then and there. Not Doolittle. He went on to command various Army Air Force units in North Africa and Europe. He argued with General Eisenhower and frequently corresponded with General George S. Patton.
   
   Doolittle remained active throughout his life. Indeed he was a consultant to numerous firms and on the board of directors of several more. He was called to head various government commissions throughout the remainder of his life. In addition, he was a loving father and devoted husband.
   
   In summary, I COULD NEVER BE SO LUCKY AGAIN is an autobiography, military narrative, aviation technical development history, and a guide as to how to lead an ethical and fulfilling life. At times some of the chapters bog down when Doolittle inserts whole passages of archival correspondence. No matter. The autobiography is a great work by a great and modest man. The title of the book reflects that modesty as Doolittle writes that I COULD NEVER BE SO LUCKY AGAIN is reflective of his marriage, and not the Tokyo Raid. We miss you Jimmy.
   
   Buy the book.



5. One of the sad things about books, especially non-fiction books, is that sooner or later they always slip into the past and few people ever read them again. The same seems to be true of America's great heroes, most of them anyway. They too seem to slip into the past and before long they too are all but forgotten. If you said to most Americans today, for example, "What do you know about Doctor Doolittle?" They would likely say, "Oh, he's the amazing fellow who talks to the animals." True, but there was once another Dr. Doolittle, one much more amazing than that other fellow, and this is his story - the story of an aviation pioneer, a war hero, and a truly great American.
   
   Jimmy Doolittle was born in California, raised in Alaska, and attended high school in Los Angeles, but his real story began when he dropped out of UC Berkley and joined the Aviation Section of the US Signal Corps during World War One. That war ended before Doolittle could see action, but in the years that followed he would be the first man to fly across the United States in less than 24 hours (1922) and then in less than 12 hours (1931); win, among others, the Schneider Trophy (1925), the Bendix Trophy (1931), and the Thompson Trophy (1932); earn one of the first doctorate degrees to be awarded in aeronautical science (MIT/1925); be the first airman to fly an outside loop (1927); help develop the aircraft instruments needed to allow pilots to fly safely in all weather conditions; become the first airman to fly an airplane from takeoff through flight and landing on instruments alone (1929); set the transcontinental speed record for passenger flight (1935); Convince Shell Oil to develop facilities for the production of the 100-octane gasoline needed by America's war planes during World War II long before there was a market for it (termed by some at the time as "Doolittle's Million Dollar Blunder"); Lead "Doolittle's Raiders" in the first attack on the Japanese homeland following Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor (April 18, 1942); and command the 12th Air Force, North Africa (1942), the 15th Air Force, Italy (1943), the 8th Air Force, England (1944), and the 8th Air Force, Okinawa (1945). Along the way, Doolittle was awarded, among other things, the Congressional Medal of Honor; the Distinguished Service Medal and the Distinguished Flying Cross; a fourth general's star; and the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
   
   This is a great book about a great American who should not be forgotten. (BTW - If you read and enjoy this book, you might try reading "Yeager." Although their lives were somewhat out of phase, in time, Doolittle and Yeager appear to have been kindred spirits.)

5 comments about And I Was There: Pearl Harbor and Midway Breaking the Secrets.

1. First and major portion of book covering Pearl Harbor is excellent. However, after Layton's death, the book was continued from his notes and descriptions of campaigns after Pearl Harbor suffer in quality by comparison.



2. Before you jump on some revisionist books about Pearl Harbor, like Stinnet's Day of Deceipt, you should get it from the horses mouth! Layton, et al, tell a little known side of the war in the pacific. His opinions of some famous naval personalities like Stark and R.K. Turner will really have you thinking about how war is run when powerful, ambitious officers are running the show. It's a shame that lives had to be wasted while the U.S. got its act together to finally win the war in the pacific, but Layton's tale will give you a new perspective and supports much of what was previously written, like Prang's "At Dawn We Slept", about the debacle of Pearl Harbor and the genius that followed at Midway. Buy it!



3. Edwin T. Layton served as Fleet Intelligence Officer for Admirals Kimmel and Nimitz. He, along with the other members of station Hypo, were assigned the task of breaking into Japan's secret codes, especially their JN-25 cypher. Through exhausting efforts by its members, they were finaly able to penetrate enough of the JN-25 code to make reasonable assumptions as to what the Japanese navy was planning. "Magic" was the term used for the intercept and decryption of these secret codes.

   However, no decoding was actually done at Pearl Harbor, because there was no "Purple" decoding machine there. All intercepts had to be sent to Washinton for decryption, and Hawaii relied on Washington for their information. Layton's thesis is that Pearl Harbor was denied vital intelligence which, if issued in a timely fashion, could have alerted Pearl Harbor to the impending attack which occurred on December 7, 1941. Although I agree with some of his thesis, I also believe that the Pearl Harbor commanders made terrible mistakes of their own which also contributed to the unpreparedness of Pearl Harbor.

   One message that Washington failed to send Pearl Harbor which I believe, along with Layton, could have alerted the fleet to the attack was the so-called "bomb plot" message. In a nutshell, this message divided Pearl Harbor into several sections and placed ships in each section; almost like laying an invisible grid over the harbor. Of all the messages that Pearl Harbor failed to receive, this was probably the most important.

   However, with this stated, I also believe that the commanders made grievous errors of their own. On November 27, 1941, a "war warning" message was sent to both commanders at Pearl Harbor. Both seemed perplexed and unsure of the course of action to be taken. Why was this? Both Admiral Kimmel and General Short were high ranking members of the military, yet they both dragged their feet when they received this message. Short simply ordered defense against sabotage instead of ordering an all-out alert, while Kimmel failed to order any further long-range patrols, plus he didn't order the battle force to sea. They seemed incapable of making any independent judgement of their own. Instead, they needed to be told directly what to do. These omissions are unforgivable.

   Inter-service rivalry also played a role in the failure. As pointed out by Layton, there was very little inter-service cooperation or sharing of messages, so most of the time, one usually didn't know what the other was doing. Further, during the Midway operation, a rivalry betwen station Hypo and the Washington-based intelligence unit nearly cost us the battle, but fortunately, Layton and commander Joe Rochefort were able to convince Nimitz that Hypo, not Washington, was correct.

   I thought this was a good book, but I disagree with Layton's assertion that Kimmel and Short were scapegoats and had no clue what was happening. Granted, there was some intelligence that was definitely denied to them, but they should have been able to interpret events on ther own, namely the war warning message. This book is a good counter-argument to other works, such as "At Dawn We Slept". The information about the battle of Midway is especially interesting, plus the story of the codebreaking activities was well-done.




4. And I was there.
   This is a great book by one who was there, Adm Layton. He was Adm Kimmels intelligence officer at Pearl Harbor.
   He shows how the incompetence of the Navy in Washington led to the surprise attack at Pearl, by the Navy, specifically adm Stark and Kelly Turner, not giving Pearl the vital information they had about Jap intentions, but refused to give Pearl. The Navy also had 2 intelligence groups fighting for the information, and control, evaluating, and dissemination of the information. This too sabotaged the intelligence efforts, and does to this day.
   Gen Marshall is also responsible for the debacle. He was reprimanded, but Roosevelt set aside the Congressional verdict on him.
   Kimmel was judged not guilty of any wrongdoing by the Navy, but found derelict by Congress, a tragic miscarriage of justice, due to lies under testimony by Stark, and Turner.

   The Redmon brothers are faulted too for ousting the most brilliant Navy intelligence officer, Rochefort, who correctly guessed the time and location of the Midway battle.

   Another tragic aftermath of Pearl, was the loss of Wake Island. Kimmel had a carrier task force sailing to resupply and relieve the garrision that was under attack by the Japs. This would have surprised the Japs and could have sunk many Jap ships, saved Wake Island, and kept open the supply lines to the Phillipines. Unfortunaely, Kimmel was relieved, and Adm Pye replaced him Pye lost his nerve and cancelled the mission.

   MacArthur is noted, as being in charge of the Phillipines, and being under orders to attack Formosa with his B17's when Pearl was attacked. He had a 9 hour warning after Pearl had been attacked, and had been told to attack. It was not until years after this book was published that the records of why Mac did nothing in the Phillipines were found. He was paid $650,000 by Pres Quezon of the Phillipines to do nothing, as he wanted to be neutral. MacArthur lost the Phillipines, a far more important strategic outpost than Pearl, as well as half the B17's we had, and 1/5 of our fighters, on the ground, just as what happened at Pearl, only 9 hours later, after he had multiple phone calls from Washington to attack the Japs.

   The battle of Guadalcanal and other Pacific battles is also gone into in some detail
   It was Nimitz, not Mac Arthur that devised the island hopping idea.
   A great book by a hero who was there.




5. As the Fleet Intellegence Officer of Admirals Kimmel and Nimitz Edwin Layton was in a unique position to see and to understand what was going on regarding the battles at Pearl Harbor and Midway. This welcome reprint to the 1985 book has to be considered one of the more definitive books of the couple of hundred on the subjects.
   
   Layton was a language officer stationed in Japan before the war to learn Japanese. He followed Japan and the Japanese developments closely. He was at Pearl before the attack and remained there throughout the war. He was on the Missouri at the Japanese surrender.
   
   There are a series of revisionist history books that propose such things as Roosevelt and Churchill conspiring to let the Japanese attack at Pears. Yes there is evidence that we had some intelligence pointing to the Japanese attack. But you have to look carefully at how much material there was, how many messages had been intercepted, how few had been translated and you come up with the basic understanding that it just hadn't been put together. A lot like the situation with 9/11, Monday morning quarterbacking is much easier than being in the midst of the game.
   
   Layton was there, he knew what Kimmel and Short knew, indeed he had briefed them with the material on hand. Could they have been better prepared, yes, Layton says, if Admiral Richmond K. Turner had forwarded the information. But like any inter-departmental power struggle, Turner held the information to himself.
   
   I was also surprised by the relatively little animosity shown towards the Redman brothers who bounced Rochefort and Safford out. Indeed Layton points out that the do it themselves style of Rochefort and Safford probably wouldn't have done a very good job of managing the Navy Radio Intelligence activities that grew to almost 8,500 people by the end of the war.
   
   All in all, a must read for anyone interested in what happened at Pearl and Midway.

5 comments about Going Overboard: The Misadventures of a Military Wife.

1. Awesome, funny quick read, could not put this book down. I loved it and wanted more, write more!!! It is great to hear or read about other peoples "adventures" with military life and put a humorous spin on it instead of dwelling on the negative! I loved it and would love a sequel or more stories!!



2. Sarah Smiley does a wonderful job of relating military family life. It's great to know that there are other women and families out there who are dealing with the same everyday issues. I love that she's unafraid to put her feelings and actions out in print for the rest of us to read. It's great knowing that I'm not the only one who hates waiting at Pass and Tag or who has family and friends who have no clue about our lives as military spouses. I can't wait to read more from this entertaining writer!



3. This book was written for idiots! Should be considered a fiction novel. Don't waste your time if you want to read a book about military wives read either "Under the Sabers" or "Home Fires Burning". This author should stick to writing magazine columns.



4. I love Sara Smiley! This book is so refreshing after reading so many serious or do this and not this military wife books out there. I think my experiences with military life and deployment are funny. It is what it is but I knew that getting married to my soldier. This book entertained me so much i bought it twice (one to pass around) and the other I have to keep to read again. Thanks for the great book!! HIGHLY recommended. You can find a lot of how to's and guides online but for entertainment on what it is REALLY like to be a military wife is right in the book!



5. I was so excited to read this book, especially after meeting Sarah Smiley when she was a guest speaker at a military spouses group I was a part of. However, after reading the book, I was disappointed. While I admire her honesty (although I wonder how much of that "honesty" is driven by the need to spice up the book to improve with sales"), I would be so embarrased if I were Sarah. I am a military brat AND a military wife and have dealt with my own deployments. My husband deployed when our son was just 5 weeks old and our daughter was 2 1/2. I DID NOT FALL APART!! Nowhere near!! It's difficult, yes but there's no honor in the way she behaved! I'm teetering between sympathy for Sarah and disgrace. What a mess! I really expected more from the book though! I'm glad I didn't spend much on it!