5 comments about Napoleon: A Political Life.

1. Many of us in the U.S., Canada & Mexico, trace our genealogy, culture and religion to Europe. Yet, many Gen-Xers and younger cannot name more than 2 or 3 European capitols. We frustrate the Europeans as much as they frustrate us. To know European history is to understand current trans-Atlantic relations. How can we bridge this gap to our cousins across the pond? Steve Englund's "Napoleon" is a great place to start. No period has had a greater impact on European thought than the 1770's through 1815. Englund brings the reader into the eye of the hurricane.
   
   The author assumes that the reader has completed "Intro to European History 101" at the college level. Englund quickly moves the reader from the banal "Who and What" of history to the intriguing "Why?". Englund's facts and research are impeccable, yet he writes in the humanistic style of a novelist. The book portrays Napoleon not as the brooding figure on horseback, but as the driven immigrant-reformer, speaking accented French, who rises to become Emperor. Napoleon is seen as a tyrannical son of Mars, yet also enlightened governmental innovator. Start your own enlightment with Englund's book.



2. The key to understanding this book is its subtitle: A Political Life. Don't make this your first book on Napoleon. The author is standing on the shoulders of giants, and using the volumes of information that came before him as a starting point in the conversation. He doesn't attempt to provide details on Napoleon's military career, his personal life, The French Revolution, or the state of Europe before or after Napoleon. This is a decent book, as long as you understand it is not intended to be "Napoleon: The Compete Story".



3. I came to this book thinking that it would focus entirely on the political dimension of Napoleon's life. This is not the case. Napoleon: A Political Life might exclude the word 'political' from its title and be just as fitting, for Englund spends a great deal of time on Napoleon's relations with Josephine, his brothers, the exiles, etc.. In fact, in the introduction (at the end of the book), Englund states that he almost subtitled the book "Empire of Circumstance."
   
   The great strength of the book is its writing style. Englund really captures the drama of the Little Corsican's life, and he sweeps the reader up in it. All of the politics of Napoleon's life is, as you would expect, well covered, but so is his personal and military life. Never did I feel overburdened with detail, and never was the text wanting for humour.
   
   There is, however, some merit in the argument posted by some of the other reviewers that the book assumes too much in the way of background knowledge. This is not an introduction to Napoleon for the novice. While I would not go so far as to say that you need have already read another book on Napoleon to enjoy Englund's work, you should certainly have a reasonable idea of the political zeitgeist he worked in, particularly the French revolution and the foreign (especially British) reaction to it. Ideally, you should also have taken a course in French at some point in your life (and not completely forgotten it). Englund has a somewhat irritating habit of dropping les mots francais at random, and often without translation (although most of the more important French phrases are translated, most of the minor ones are not). C'est la vie.
   
   One of my favourite parts of the book was the analysis of Napoleon's legacy: his admirers and detractors, whence he is glorified, and whence he is ignored. Englund is the most balanced Napoleonic author I have yet encountered, seeming to genuinely sympathize with (and synthesize from) those who love and those who hate the l'Empereur.
   
   Perhaps the highest compliment for a book, I plan to reread this one.



4. Simply put, an excellent read in content, wisdom and prose.



5. Steven Englund's Napoleon: A Political Life (available in paperback from Harvard) is a book that should satisfy both the interested lay reader and the professional historian.
   
   It will satisfy the lay person because it tells a fascinating story about one of history's most interesting and influential human beings, and it tells it exceptionally well. In the process, the reader will gain insights into how a topflight scholar advances his or her field of knowledge.
   
   It will please academics because Englund presents a nuanced revision of the current myths about Napoleon, who, after two hundred years, still stirs passions among his admirers and detractors as though he were living today. The author focuses on Napoleon's evolving political thought and strategy and how his contemporaries actually responded to him, not how we wished they had responded to him. A virtue is that Englund avoids smoothing out Napoleon's past choices and actions through hindsight: Englund emphasizes that actual history is messy; it doesn't come in tidy packages.
   
   The greatest of men, the very few like Napoleon, leave behind an altered world. Englund draws on Christian Meier's masterful biography of Caesar. He frequently compares Napoleon to Caesar, but Napoleon left behind many more permanent structures in France and across Europe thna Caesar did Rome: law code, a system to govern the localities from the center, the Legion of Honor, and in Paris, monuments and buildings and sewer system and roads.
   
   People who won't like the book will most likely object to two things.
   
   (1) It's not a history primer. Englund assumes the reader is conversant with eighteenth-century history history though not at the level of the professional historian.
   
   (2) Englund devotes almost as much time to wars and battles as he does to other issues, both domestic and international. But, especially when discussing Napoleon and his times, Clausewitz was right: war is an extension ofpolitics.
   
   Another objection may be that Englund doesn't condemn Napoleon roundly enough. He admires him but sees what disaster his overweening ambition led him to in the
   end.
   
   Highly recommended.

2 comments about Nights in Pink Motel: An American Strategist's Pursuit of Peace in Iraq.

1. Nights in the Pink Motel: An American Stranger's Pursuit of Peace in Iraq is the firsthand, personal testimony of Robert Earle, recruited as a strategist by the first U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Though Earle was evacuated from Iraq for medical reasons, he was subsequently requested to return for the specific purpose of writing a message to the president explaining that U.S. policy was not working and suggesting a viable alternative. Multinational Force-Iraq Commanding General George Casey also asked Robert Earle to provide an assessment of the evolution of Iraqi politics, and predict outcomes for the January 2005 election. Working in the offices within Saddam Hossein's former presidential palace in Baghdad's Green Zone, which Earle tongue-in-cheek dubbed the "Pink Motel", he confronted the very real and troublesome obstacles to a peace-building effort. An insider's view of the complex and difficult ordeal on Iraq's long road to stability, Nights in the Pink Motel is fascinating cover to cover, and highly recommended to any reader curious about the behind-the-scenes ever to make Iraq a safer place.



2. Robert Earle shares his personal experiences in Iraq in his latest book "Nights in the Pink Motel." He served as the `thinker' for Ambassador John Negroponte during the transition from the Coalition Provisional Authority to the first post-Saddam Iraqi Government in 2005. In his role as the `thinker', Earle worked with the interagency elements of America - the Department of State, Department of Defense, and other agencies present in Iraq. His perspective in the book is almost diary-like in the fascinating introspectives he provides in recalling his days in Iraq.
   
   For those of us who spent time in the Middle East, Earle's writing brings back the memories of the oppressive heat, the perfunctory military indoctrination to camp life, and the stolen moments of fellowship as we relaxed with friends in the very few hours between duty days. Earle also shares his experiences as he was med-evaced from Iraq back to Germany discussing the fear of his own death and the profound sympathy for the soldier who won't make it home whole, or those who would not even return home alive.
   
   The real value of this book begins with Earle's description of the political environment facing the rebuilding of Iraq. It goes far beyond the Shia/Sunni split. Earle expertly defines the factions within the Shia so that readers appreciate the roles of the leaders such as Muqtada al Sadr.
   
   Earle helps the reader to appreciate the difficulties faced with interagency operations. The military is trained to do things like `neutralize' and `destroy' the enemy, where the Department of State and the subordinate USAID are more interested in restoring basic infrastructure and building democracies. Earle was responsible for writing the Joint Mission Statement for Ambassador Negroponte and General Casey, the leader of the Multi-National Forces Iraq. Earle recalls the viewpoints for each of these factions within the US government and how the two Joint Mission Statements came about.
   
   In a unique twist from most authors, Earle refers to most characters in the book by nicknames such as the `true hero', `1776', or `strategy'. What I initially found quirky, actually helped follow the dramatis personae throughout the book. Most nicknames referred to personality traits; in the context of describing situations, such as the formulation of the Joint Mission Statement, the nicknames perfectly described the attitudes of some of the participants in these brainstorming sessions. Most characters are identified, but some such as `1776', nicknamed because of his head bandage, will forever remain anonymous out of deference for basic human dignity.
   
   Overall, the book is a very interesting perspective from Negroponte's `thinker', giving a rare peak inside the executive decision making that helped shape America's strategy in Iraq in support of standing up the first democratically elected government in Iraq's history. The book content is balanced between the personal experiences in Iraq and the team's strategy development process. My only complaint is the lack of detail of what was actually in the Joint Mission Statement - you learn about the process they went through to develop it, and what the major discussion points, but you don't really know what the major focus areas are for the Joint Mission Statement.

5 comments about Twice Armed: An American Soldier's Battle for Hearts and Minds in Iraq.

1. TWICE ARMED: AN AMERICAN SOLDIER'S BATTLE FOR HEARTS AND MINDS IN IRAQ is for any American reader who would understand, from an insider's perspective, the magnitude of the military and social fighting taking place in modern Iraq. Author King is a war fighter and soldier who negotiated with numerous sheiks and clerics, earning their trust. He captured or accepted the surrender of nearly a dozen of the most-wanted Iraqi personalities from Saddam's regime, and yet was willing to practice the customs of the region so he could gain the people's trust. A riveting story evolves of his years of duty.
   
   Diane C. Donovan
   California Bookwatch



2. Lt Col King is not your typical soldier. He and the unit he led, the 422nd Civil Affairs Battalion, occupy an odd place in the military. Part of the special forces but focused more on dealing with a civilian population than combatants, civil affairs units don't always get the respect they deserve in the Army. More often than not, they come from the reserves. Yet, in today's war on terror, the civil affairs units are more critical to victory than firepower-laden infantry or armored battalions. King clearly respected the Iraqi people, their culture, their history, and their challenges as a society. It made him more effective as a leader of his unit and as an advocate for those Iraqis who saw the invasion as an opportunity to build a better future for their country. Twice Armed is thoughftul, fast-paced, and provides the kind of perspective that has been missing in much of the debate over Operation Iraqi Freedom.
   
   Lt Col King isn't Ernie Pyle, but he does have his moments. His description of an ambush and feelings about losing an Iraqi bodyguard, Fallah, is heartfelt and moving. It hits you where you live, which is more than can be said about a lot of memoirs coming out of Iraq. Nevertheless, the book is choppy and he often doesn't provide the context that would help the reader understand what he's doing and why. Twice Armed also needed a better editor and proofreader. Typos are understandable from a small publisher, but they're frequent enough to become distracting.
   
   That said, Lt Col King is one of those honest-to-goodness soldiers who makes you proud of your military, proud of your country, and angry that more people don't share his understanding of the challenges before us or his commitment to overcoming them. Twice Armed won't win him any writing awards; he'll have to settle for being a great American in the truest sense of the word. Either way, we owe him a debt of gratitude for writing the book, relating his experiences, and sharing his thoughts. Read it. You'll be pleasantly surprised.
   
   Also worth reading: Waging Peace by Rob Schultheis, a writer who embedded with a Civil Affairs Team from the 425th Civil affairs Battalion.



3. There have been many books written about the war and the present situation in Iraq by soldiers, reporters and politicians but author R. Alan King gives us an insider view that is seldom, if ever, reported. His memoir "Twice Armed: An American Soldier's Battle for Hearts and Minds in Iraq" takes the reader on a personal journey that opens up questions about what happened in Iraq and what is going on now. He looks at what went wrong, what worked and also points out what we should do in order to win the hearts and minds of those in Iraq.
   
   Seldom has there been such a riveting and insightful memoir that captures history right off the front pages of recent history. This book gives us a different view then what we have been getting from the TV or the newspapers or even from the White House. His dealings with local people show a sensitive social and religious tolerance that makes for good diplomacy and good soldiering. Men like King are certainly not common in the ranks. They should be treated as rare and valuable government assets but too often they are ignored. It amazes me that our leadership chooses to ignore such men and continues to pursue policies and actions based on their limited blinded understandings of the real world.
   
   It gives me some hope that perhaps there are other military minds out there who are making a difference. My fear is that we have lost the righteous momentum for solving the huge problems in Iraq and now are scrambling for any escape from this dangerous arena.
   
   I enjoyed reading Lieutenant Colonel King's accounting of his experiences in Iraq and his views on the situation there. I highly recommend his book for all American's to read. They might come away with a much broader and knowledgeable view of what is going on in Iraq and perhaps why things are as they are. This book deserves the MWSA"s top book rating of FIVE STARS! A MUST READ BOOK!



4. Lt. Col King is clearly a dedicated and studious person. Would there were more like him in the US miliary.
   He has a good story to tell and he tells it clearly and simply. I wish him well in his future endeavours.



5. You don't hear about what Alan King does in the media. It's not sexy and doesn't involve divisions of our boys getting blown up. But this text is a phenomenal example of the complexity and difficulty of the ground level diplomacy that is required to build a nation as fractious as Iraq.
   
   Despite the numerous difficulties, King managed to establish important relationships with religious and sectarian leaders at all levels. His repoir with the local leaders was so great that many of the "Most Wanted" list walked into his office and surrendered. The effort in Iraq was deeply affected by his presence. - Semper Fi

5 comments about The White Tecumseh: A Biography of General William T. Sherman.

1. Prior to the Civil War there had been a major change in how wars could and would be fought. The Civil War was the first major war to be fought under this new paradigm. (The next big shift would come in WWII).

   I think William Sherman understood how to fight the Civil War better than any other soldier on either side. He was brilliant both in seeing how to win the war and applying that knowledge. And his campaigns were among the most brilliant of the war.

   This book is a well written book that gives a strong picture of William Sherman, concentrating mostly on his time during the Civil War itself. And it is a fascinating story told very well.

   Decent maps provided although they could have been a lot better.




2. A readable book. The author's "hobby horse." i.e. mental illness in the Sherman Family, ergo, Sherman himself, is pretty thin. This is certainly not a "end all" work on the life of this particular general, but it is well worth reading. I was not overly thrilled with the author's transitional techniques at times, nor his speculations as to motivation as he, the author, did not give us enough actual proof. Would recommend the book for your collection, but would not recommend you try passing yourself off as a "Sherman Expert" after you have read it.



3. This is a biography of William Tecumseh Sherman by Stanley P. Hirshson, Professor at Queens College, City University of New York. On the surface, it seems to be an un-biased story of the life of a very complicated man.

   Like so many Civil War generals on the Union side, Sherman was almost a failure in civilian life. He tried his hand at many professions, but never really made enough money to support his growing family. In the army, however, he had moments of brilliance. And brutality, evidenced most clearly in his march to the sea. He could send his men into a town with orders to destroy it, then wander through the same town afterward looking for friends who lived there when he knew them. He admitted that many of the soldiers he commanded during that time were not much more than thieves and ruffians.

   The book starts slowly and ends the same. Most of Sherman's story is the Civil War, four years of privation, desperation, and triumph. Maligned by his enemies, again as were most successful generals, his fights after the war were political, although he never sought political office. Rather his ambitions were for himself as the highest ranking officer in the U.S. Army, and for the Army itself.

   Although this is a scholarly work, it is an easy read, especially for a Civil War buff. There are moments when the reader will feel she is attaining some insight into his personality. But those moments slip away quite often. Because of this, the reader might wonder if something is being held back. For instance, I would like to have seen more details of the post-Civil War Army policies toward the Native Americans, something Sherman had much to do with.

   This is a must read for the Civil War scholar, American military history fan, and those interested in 19th century America. Sherman lived in much of the U.S. and details of these places in his time add to our understanding of life when our great-grandparents were young.




4. As Prof. Hirshson's student, I can say that this book reflects the author quite well. It is an accurate account of General Sherman's life. The book is well written and while reading it, I was able to imagine Prof. Hirshson giving a lecture to me as opposed to just reading through it. The language is very user friendly.



5. I found the book entertaining as well as informative about General Sherman and some of the other personalities and events of the Civil War. The author has done an excellant job of researching his topic. It will be best received by readers who are true history buffs.

5 comments about A Crisis In Confederate Command: Edmund Kirby Smith, Richard Taylor, And The Army Of The Trans-Mississippi.

1. Okay, so I am biased. The author is a friend. But I read a LOT of history, and very little of it is nearly as well written.



2. Compared to Civil War operations in Northern Virginia, comparatively little has been published regarding operations west of the Mississippi River. In this work, the author Jeffery Prushankin provides a comprehensive overview of the events in the Trans-Mississippi area as viewed by Department Commander General Edmund Kirby Smith and by his subordinate General Richard Taylor. The text offers an informative account of the antagonistic relationship between these two generals and the consequent military results.
   
   The text opens with a brief narrative of the backgrounds of the two generals. Taylor received a political commission as a colonel of the Ninth Louisiana Infantry. He was promoted to brigadier general and briefly served under General Stonewall Jackson. Under Jackson, Taylor adopted Jackson's philosophy that "The value of the initiative in war cannot be overstated" resulting in the tactical strategy that the best defense is a good offense. Kirby-Smith graduated from West Point in 1845 and served in the war in Mexico. In May 1861, he received an appointment as chief of staff to General Joseph F. Johnson. He learned from Johnson and adopted Johnson's tactical and strategic philosophies. The opposing tactical/strategic philosophies of Smith and Taylor, was one of the items contributing to the many confrontations between Smith and Taylor.
   
   As a brigadier general Smith was sent to command the Department of East Tennessee where he promptly repeated the mistake of his predecessor by concentrating on Arkansas."His propensity to favor the defensive often led to sluggish or ill-timed concentration that made his strategy ineffective." Taylor assigned to Louisiana, by October 1862 was operating as an independent command thereby setting the stage for confrontations.
   
   The text narrates how in 1863 with the mounting threat to Vicksburg and reduced Federal threat in central Louisiana, Smith chose a politically expedient path and ordered Taylor to strike the Federals west of the Mississippi. Their consequent failures along the Mississippi subsequently reflected badly on both Smith and Taylor and only added to the burgeoning dispute between Smith and Taylor. By mid-1863 Smith was not providing the type of leadership required in the Trans-Mississippi. Smith's failure to support Taylor lead to serious problems for the Confederates in 1864 and also resulted in additional serious problems between the generals.
   
   The text provides a brief account of the Red River campaign which Taylor executed receiving inconsistent support from Smith. Disobeying orders, on April 8, 1864, Taylor attached the Federal Army under General Banks at Mansfield, Louisiana, stopping the Federal advance. The next day Taylor fought and defeated Banks at Pleasant Hill after which the Federals began to retreat pursued by Taylor. Meanwhile, Smith following his Arkansas strategy didn't support Taylor and withdrew infantry and cavalry from Taylor for Smith's pursuit of Union General Steele back to Little Rock. Taylor pursued General Banks to Alexandria, but lacked the necessary manpower to defeat Banks; Banks ultimately escaped. Smith's campaign against Union General Steele resulted in victory at the battle of Jenkins' Ferry, but it did not "enhance the condition of the Confederacy in the Trans-Mississippi." The dispute between Smith and Taylor became quite bitter with Taylor blaming Smith for the escape of General Banks and the Federal Fleet under Admiral Porter.
   
   Taylor asked to be relieved from command. Smith removed Taylor from command on June 10, 1864. Amazingly, on July 18 Taylor was promoted to lieutenant general and was reassigned as commander of the Department of Alabama, Mississippi and East Louisiana. The author gives a short narration of Taylor's effort to cross the Mississippi and assume his new command together with a brief summary of his and Smith's activities to the end of the war. Smith surrendered in Galveston on June 2, 1865 while Taylor had surrendered May 6, 1865 at Citronelle, Alabama. After surrendering Taylor went to Washington to lobby for the release of Jefferson Davis after which he worked as a lobbyist for the Democratic Party and as an outspoken critic of the Ku Klux Klan. Smith traveled first to Mexico City where he was unwelcome, then traveled to Cuba eventually returning home.
   
   In 1879 Taylor published his memoir titled Destruction and Reconstruction which helped nurture the Lost Cause myth. In his memoir Taylor described Smith's policy as one of "sheer stupidity and pig-headed obstinacy...." His memoirs were relied on by countless former Confederates "for their own reminiscences of the war."
   
   Despite their acrimonious relationship, Smith and Taylor produced a great Confederate military accomplishment in the Red River campaign against a superior Union force. Unfortunately, Smith's cavalry raid on St. Louis resulted in little of military value.
   
   The reader of this book will find it a source of much information on an often neglected area of operations. It gives fascinating portraits of opposing strategies and personalities. With the Red River campaign a great Confederate accomplishment, one can only speculate on what would have been accomplished if Taylor and Smith had worked harmoniously together.



3. First let me state that while this is, indeed, a wonderful book, it is NOT for the casual reader, nor is it meant to be the first book one ever reads about the Civil War. Most people know nothing of the war beyond Lee, Grant, and the fact that there was fighting in, and around, Virginia. If that's you, stop here.....There was a whole different theatre of operations called the Trans-Mississippi Department, commanded by a little known Floridian, General Edmund Kirby Smith. From his headquarters in Shreveport, LA, Smith oversaw Confederate operations in Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, and what is now Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona. Didn't know the Civil War involved Oklahoma? It's quite a story, complete with the first American Indian General. Were there Confederate Mexicans? Sure were, some with high rank.
   
   General Smith was as much a Governor-General as he was a General, and he faced impossible conflicting demands from different parts of his domain. Part of his difficulty was that many of his senior leaders were Robert E. Lee's incompetent rejects. This book is mainly about Smith's problems with the one who was NOT incompetent, Lieutenant General Richard Taylor. Before the war, Taylor was a rich, high society Louisiana plantation owner. His father was President Zachary Taylor, and his sister was Jefferson Davis' late first wife. Taylor was a vain and unpleasant man, but a tough fighter. Smith and Taylor were like gasoline and fire. They were both loyal to the South, and wanted victory, but had fundamentally different views on how victory could best be won. Basically, Smith wanted to concentrate on Arkansas and Missouri, Taylor on Louisiana. Dick Taylor's Red River campaign was a masterpiece, but he blamed Smith for lack of the support needed to make his victory complete. Finally Taylor's insubordination went too far, and he was relieved. Had these two great men been able to cooperate, would the final outcome of the war been different? Who knows, but I doubt it. For all their problems, the Department lasted till the very end, and was the last to surrender. After the war, Taylor got into politics, and continued to sling mud at Smith until he died in 1879. Kirby Smith lived till 1893, the last full General to cross the river; he spent his last 18 years as mathematics professor at the University of the South, accorded the status of "grand old man" [ though he wasn't that "old"]. He maintained his bearing as a Christian gentleman, and never spoke out against Taylor, or anyone else. The whole business is a sad, but fascinating, chapter of the war.
   
   Jeff Prushankin has written a winner, fully deserving five stars. It is for the specialist, not the general reader [as my son says, for people like me] With that caveat in mind, if this is your cup of tea, get it and prepare to enjoy.



4. The war between general officers can be as interesting as the war between the armies. Bragg's problems as commander of the Army of Tennessee with Polk and Hardee, Hood undercutting Johnston in 1864, the often-contentious HR problems of the Army of Northern Virginia, the Pope McClellan feud and Halleck maneuvering against Grant are well known. Each of these is the subject of books or devoted chapters in numerous histories of the war. The concentration on the war east of the Mississippi misses one of the worst feuds between generals during the war. Richard Taylor and Edmund Kirby Smith were both proud, competent men that were sure they knew what was best. After the fall of Vicksburg, the Trans-Mississippi became Kirby Smithdom. Isolated from the Confederacy, subject to conflicting demands and directives from Richmond that might be impossible these two men fought the Union Army and each other to a standstill. This is their story both during and after the war.
   
   Neither man seems to have had real warm feelings for the other. Taylor was responsible for Louisiana and reported to Smith who commanded the Trans-Mississippi. The author gives us a full and careful review of the two men, their war experiences and political support. This allows the reader to fully understand the root of the problems and appreciate the extant of their bitterness. Taylor's handling of CSA forces during the Red River Campaign is brilliant. He defeats a much larger combined arms force isolating each and almost destroying both. Smith may or may not have robbed Taylor of victory by removing troops to defeat an army advancing in Arkansas.
   
   This book assumes the reader knows very little and carefully explains the position of the parties, their options and the results of the choice made. This is one of the strongest parts of the book and keeps the reader fully informed, allowing us to make informed decisions. A second strong point is covering the post-war history of both men and how the story grew and changed. This is being done more often in better histories, is well handled and very valuable.
   
   Richmond is part of the problem and the shadowy presence over the Trans-Mississippi. The source of power, Smith and Taylor supporters battle there too. However, Richmond has an agenda that fully supports neither and causes problems for both. In the end, as was done elsewhere, Richmond refuses to support either side. This book is not an expose of the Confederate Departmental system but it shows all the problems this system caused and that Richmond refused to resolve.
   
   This is not an easy read but it is a worthwhile read. The author's words do not jump off the page, grab you and pull you in. They build a solid reliable narration that is full of information and is very logical. This is a book that those interested in the Trans-Mississippi and/or the Confederate high command should read.



5. The book is about the conflict between Kirby Smith, the Commander of the Confederate Trans Mississippi, and Richard Taylor, the Commander of the Confederate Army in Louisiana. Both learned their trade working with Stonewall Jackson before they were sent west. Kirby Smith wants to draw the Union Army into the interior and then concentrate his forces to defeat them. Taylor wants to attack quickly and defeat them before they can do any damage. This difference in vision leads finally to a complete breakdown in communication and trust between the two generals. The book was easy to follow. I was interested in the military aspects of the campaign, which were not covered because the author did not consider them as important to the conflict between Smith and Taylor. There were several maps that gave a good background for the campaigns. There were several battle maps, but only those battles where either Smith or Taylor was in command were included. Its outstanding feature is the study of Kirby Smith in command of a huge department and his inability to see the big picture outside the Arkansas Front. I would not recommend this book as an introduction to the Red River Campaign or the Civil War in Lousiana. It is an excellent study in command, demonstrating how the lack of trust can destroy military oppertunities.
   The South won this campaign because the Union forces also fell into a similar pattern of distrust between General Banks and Admiral Porter who did not cooperate and distrusted each other. They were also at the end of a long supply line and the water level was falling

5 comments about Bedford Forrest: and His Critter Company (Southern Classics Series).

1. Cunning as the Devil was Nathan Bedford Forrest and this book indicates just how quick and clever this military genius was. Little wonder then that Lee considered this dark knight to be his finest soldier, above even the legendary Stonewall Jackson.



2. I never fully appreciated the intellect of Forrest until I finished this book. It peels away the myths about the man, and tells about what he was really like. I loved it, and often flip around in it from time to time. A must for Civil War buffs!



3. In terms of his impact on modern warfare, no general of the Civil War had more than Lt. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest. Not Grant, not Lee, not Longstreet or Sherman. This is the man. No less a general than Erwin Rommel studied Forrest's tactics and implemented them with modern weaponry when his Afrika Korps marched all over Libya and Egypt in World War II.

   The reason I say this book isn't for the "politically correct" is that it was written some 70 years ago, by a man of the old South who obviously idolized Forrest and everything he stood for. As you know already, not everything Forrest stood for was good. He was 100 years ahead of his time as a soldier, but stuck in 1860 in his personal beliefs.

   But...getting into the book. He was a brilliant commander who never had enough men under his command to turn the war in the South's favor. Still, he was a hero to the people of the Tennessee river valley where he won most of his victories, with good reason. When the Union troops overran these areas and placed them under military rule, Forrest made sure they treated the citizens decently. Once he even saved a group of innocent men from a flaming death at the hands of vengeful Union soldiers whom he was defeating in battle. Reading these and other stories makes you understand why he was such a hero to the author, who would have heard first-hand accounts of Forrest's exploits.

   Lytle believes that the South would have won the war if Forrest had been placed in command of the main Confederate army in the west, and he's probably right. Forrest was an extraordinary individual who had more impact on the 20th century than any other Civil War general.




4. Andrew Lytle was the dean of Southern writers, and in this work -- one of his earliest -- he not only brought to life America's greatest military figure, but an age and a people as well. It was Lytle's aim to make the times of Nathan Bedford Forrest come alive for the reader. He devoted himself to intensive research of the Tennessee where Forrest was born and the Mississippi where he lived.
   
   In reading this book we not only learn about the marvellous -- indeed, often incredible -- feats of a military genius, but we learn at the same time about the people, the places, the morals, the values, and the way of life of a people long gone now. (Lytle's subsequent book, A Wake for the Living, deals more pointedly with how much of the good of those days we have lost.)
   
   This book, although a worthy history, reads like a novel. It truly is one that is hard to put down once you get started.



5. History can suffer at the hands of its practitioners, but that is certainly not the case here. Lytle can write and Forrest is the beneficiary of his talent. Lytle seeks to communicate the essence of the man and his time and largely succeeds. Although a vivid portrait of Forrest the man emerges, my one word impression of Forrest after reading this book is Warrior! I found it hard to put down. But I wouldn't want to run in to him in a dark alley wearing a Yankee uniform!

5 comments about A WASP Among Eagles: A Woman Military Test Pilot in World War II.

1. Ann Carl was a female military test pilot in World War II. A Wasp Among Eagles is her story of her experiences and adventures. She first learned to fly in 1940 and in 1943 found herself assigned to Wright Field. She underscores how women, because of the wartime shortages and pressures, were vital in performing jobs that were once the exclusive domain of men. A Wasp Among Eagles is an impressive, informative, first-hand, insider's account and an invaluable contribution to military studies, and highly recommended reading for women's twentieth-century history studies as well.



2. Ann Carl was a female military test pilot in World War II. A Wasp Among Eagles is her story of her experiences and adventures. She first learned to fly in 1940 and in 1943 found herself assigned to Wright Field. She underscores how women, because of the wartime shortages and pressures, were vital in performing jobs that were once the exclusive domain of men. A Wasp Among Eagles is an impressive, informative, first-hand, insider's account and an invaluable contribution to military studies, and highly recommended reading for women's twentieth-century history studies as well.



3. Ann Carl's book tells what most male pilots know.
   That is that the laws of physics apply equally to both genders.
   During WW II special women took the challenge during special
   times. Prior to WW II special women, such as Aline Rhonie
   Hofheimer of Warren, NJ. tested various Luscombe models after
   investing in the company. But during WW II the rigors
   of testing became extreme. I think that no child can
   say that they had a good education without knowing about these women who gave not excuses only their all. When you look at
   all of the superficial celebrities in Hollywood.. all of them
   would not add up to one of these women pilot of WW II.



4. I enjoyed reading the story of Ann Baumgartner Carl, an aviatrix that challenged the bigotry and mysoginy of the 1940s United States in order to serve her country. The book, as it was, was interesting and enjoyable. Its problem is that it is too short and sometimes only brushes subjects that a reader may wish to know more about. I would have liked in particular to learn more about the personalities of a few people described in the book and who played important roles in the aviation career of the author. This book is still a good bet however to pass some quiet time at home or during a trip.



5. Parts of this book were better than others. I think I liked the personal aspect of Ann Carl's life more than the adventures in flight. I just felt her book contained too many details and aeronautical jargon that would not hold a great deal of interest to those of us that have little or no knowledge of aviation. Having said that, though, I believe I will read some other books on these amazing and brave women known as the
   WASP'S.

5 comments about Flawed Patriot: The Rise and Fall of CIA Legend Bill Harvey.

1. Flawed Patriot has a great topic in Bill Harvey. The author's direct knowledge seems to be based on Harvey's career in Germany . The research of the late Mr. Stockton of much of the career of Bill Harvey appeares flawed. The drama of Bill and CG's adoption of a daughter in Germany is in line with what they told my wife and me in Rome,Italy in the mid 1960s. The events surronding Bill's return to Washington from Rome are not fair and complete and appear to be based on interviews that lack some of the facts.
   Based on my personal knowledge and my research as an intelligence scholar and professor, Flawed Patroit does no justice to the pioneering work of Bill Harvey in clandestine collection, covert action and technical intelligence operations. In my opinion, Bill Harvey ranks amond the Top Ten Clandestine Service Officers in the history of the Central Intelligence Agency.



2. This book has a brilliant title. Bill Harvey was indeed a Patriot. And he certainly had flaws. His drinking was a problem from early in his life and combined with smoking was at least partly responsible for the heart attacks that killed him at the relatively early age of 61.
   
   He was also not exactly what you would call a team player. He was fired by J. Edgar Hoover for breaking regulations. His relationship with Robert Kennedy might best be called hatred. While he did some brilliant work, like identifying Kim Philby as a KGB agent and the famous tunnel into East Berlin, his relationship with the Mafia and rumors about being involved in the JFK assassination are not the sort of things that help get promotions within an organization like the CIA.
   
   This is both an interesting biography of a full fledged master spy, and a history of the early days of the CIA and the Cold War. The author worked for Harvey in Berlin for two years before becomming a journalist and now a biographer.



3. There's a lot of great info in this book, but unless you're REALLY into FBI/CIA/Bill Harvey, it's very dry reading. It jumps around a bit, but if you persevere, you'll find some interesting tidbits here and there.



4. This book should be read by every citizen seeking to understand where American government has gone wrong over the past 60 years. Flawed, yes, but critically important to our understanding of misguided actions and indeed meglomania in power centers too far removed from public scrutiny and democratic control.
   
   The problem with so-called "patriots" like William Harvey is that their arrogance and self-absorption - so evident in his acute alcoholism - tends to prevent basic comprehension that they quite rightly serve at the request of others, in particular those individuals entrusted through elective office with preserving those principles and practices that define our democratic form of government.
   
   William Harvey was a misfit granted far too much power by a rogue system of covert power that had grown exponentially under a corrupt and complicit Eisenhower-Nixon administration that had knowingly condoned repeated violation of laws and human rights at home and abroad through programs of assassination, coups, private wars, invasions, government destabilizations, media infiltration, propaganda, domestic spying, illegal surveillance, complicity with war criminals and organized crime figures, manipulation of or otherwise destruction of evidence, and lying to congress and executive branch superiors, including even the president.
   
   Harvey was, ultimately, the exact opposite of a patriot. He was in fact, an assassin and traitor.
   
   Robert Kennedy, as chief law enforcement officer for the United States and a key government official entrusted by the president with overseeing sensitive foreign operations, had every right to micro-manage affairs in order to prevent the insubordination of Harvey and others who sought to control events in violation of superiors' orders and U.S. government objectives. If anything, Kennedy was far too lenient in merely reassigning this arrogant, reckless, and insubordinate loose cannon, especially after Harvey's reckless unilateral actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis came close to causing a nuclear World War III.
   
   Most egregiously, Harvey and others within the CIA like David Atlee Phillips, after participating in the assassinations of their superiors, then went before Congress and lied to the American people, having destroyed or buried documents to the contrary, and retained or even manufactured others that would tend to portray them in a favorable light, while falsely incriminating those now unable to defend themselves and correct the public record.
   
   As for the author's difficulty in composing and arranging such a major work as this, it is to his credit that this book could even be published considering the CIA's suppression of facts, disinformation, and gross manipulation of media in this and other countries around the world.
   
   Kudos to the author for creating an important work that contributes to greater public awareness and understanding of the forces that have undermined democracy in America.



5. This book features a poorly chosen title and many flaws in composition. However, it provides the reader with a reasonable introduction to an unsung (buried) American hero of the Cold War. More importantly, if the reader reads carefully and between the lines, there is much to learn about the CIA, large bureaucracies (ala Niskanen), what it takes to gather human intelligence, imperial politics, and the future of the American intelligence establishment.
   
   First, to Bill Harvey. Sure, he had flaws ("Show me a hero and I'll show you a bum.") He was irrascible, blunt, opinionated, contempuous of those that hadn't paid their dues, and a three-martini lunch drinker. Leave off the drinking and you have Billy Mitchell, Dick Pick or Henry Ford. Harvey was the first CIA giant in positive intelligence collection, initially as an agent handler (case officer), then holding a series of supervisory positions. His output was prodigious, often working twenty hours a day, and he thought others should work as hard as he. He is remembered best for the Berlin tunnel tap on Soviet phone lines, but that was only the tip of the iceberg.
   
   On the negative side, he simply didn't "fit in." He was a Midwesterner from a non-elite university (Indiana University), different in manners, speech, social connections and attitude from the effete (as he called them) Eastern Ivy-Leaguers then as now populating the CIA (and indeed, all Federal bureaucracies.) If one thinks this is no longer the case, allow me to say that the situation is much, much worse today. The enemy (red) states cannot provide leaders in government unless they have been vetted fully through attendance in the Ivy League or Seven Sisters (like Bush, Obama, Clinton, etc.)
   
   In addition, Harvey tended to "spook it up" by packing and being devious and clandestine, rather than playing the social circuit and always being "hail and well met." It should be kept in mind that there were (are) NO "spies" in the Agency, and acting like one was anathema. Lastly, Harvey did not brown-nose those who required such action like Hoover, Bundy, Lansdale, MacNamara and Robert Kennedy. His was the Protestant work-ethic -- his good work would open the necessary doors for him. But it didn't.
   
   Harvey never prospered from his work financially or otherwise, in marked contrast to most bureaucrats in Washington. Vacations were not in the cards, and over time he simply burned out. He had been ridden hard and put away wet. And it wasn't Harvey who blabbed to Philby -- it was Angleton. Harvey worked hard to neutralize Philby even though counter-intelligence wasn't his brief, and was eventually successful.
   
   But to my main point: why is this book so important?
   
   1) It exposes the Kennedys (particularly Robert) for their ineptitude and negative impact on US intelligence (see also Hersh; "The Dark Side Of Camelot.") The decline of the Agency definitively started with the Bay of Pigs, a disaster brought about by the fecklessness of Ted Bissel (an Ivy-Leaguer) and Kennedy's lack of resolve. Then Robert went on his well-documented micro-management crusade with the Agency in his attempt to assassinate Castro for revenge. Harvey was involved in this, although the evidence is that he fought RFK over this activity and was sacked as a result. Not covered, unfortunately, was the gutting of Military Intelligence by JFK at the same time. He moved the vast majority of military agent handlers back into uniform and terminated their sources. When the Soviets staged their forces in East Germany before invading Czechoslovakia in 1968, the Army's operations that would have reported this were gone, and the Agency had failed to replace them. A significant intelligence failure was the result.
   
   2) The Agency never recovered after Harvey's demise, and became increasingly politicized over the years by a succession of kow-towing heads who stressed form over substance. Human intelligence was essentially eliminated except for walk-ins, and the result is today we have the likes of Valerie Plame supposedly undergoing five years of training and then being sent to Africa where, as a striking blond, she would easily disappear into the background. The Agency also moved from non-diplomatic cover to almost exclusively diplomatic cover so its members could enjoy the social perks that had become so important. Dirty work like what Harvey did was eschewed as being only for the unwashed. It should also be noted that Harvey was given almost no training before becoming a case officer, but today training and playing at being a case officer is more often the approved activity than doing something productive. After all, to be productive one must take risks, and risk aversion is the guiding commandment today. Harvey must be spinning in his grave.
   
   3) The Agency that had been lauded by Khrushchev ("You and I read the same reports every morning") morphed into a social club of Ivy-League bureaucrats more involved in turf wars and appearances while trusting to electronic surveillance for maintaining the flow of intelligence. As a result, human intelligence as to the intentions of others went by the wayside, never to be regained (at least not yet). Risk-takers were not wanted and were indeed an embarrassment by their constantly calling for action and producing operations plans that had to be scuttled on one pretense or the other. (I once had an operation involving a part-time prostitute disapproved because of her lack of morals. I guess the Germans should have turned down Mata Hari.) There would be no more Harveys and no more American patriots or heroes in the Agency. And the world is a more dangerous place.
   
   I once had to meet with the brother of a resident agent (spy) who had been arrested by the opposing counter-intelligence service. She had performed extremely well, but attention was drawn to her when my superiors decided to increase her access by providing her with a Moped. She received twenty years after being tortured and confessing, but lasted less than two years before dying in prison. Her brother asked me if her sacrifice had been worth it. I know what I said, but I leave it up to the reader to decide for himself. All I can say now is that her sacrifice made the reader a little safer while growing up.
   
   Harvey's hard work also made the reader a little safer while growing up. Everyone should learn about Harvey even if I don't think this book is necessarily the best vehicle. Personally, I believe the US was well-served by him, and to infer anything else is to betray one's own arm-chair, Monday morning quarterbacking ignorance.

5 comments about Before Their Time: A Memoir.

1. This is a strange book. The author later went on to write novels so it isn't too surprising that this book is not really a memoir but a psychoanalytic, stream of conciousness paean to the life shattering memory of the author's one and only day in combat. The last 50 pages or so describe his slow re-discovery of himself after the trauma. Do not expect a literal description of Army life or battle. While there are some stunningly concrete details in this book they are almost always used to anchor a mental state or emotion the author says he was feeling. I am somewhat skeptical of the ability to remember how one would have felt a half a century ago but then again I didn't live through World War Two. This book falls in the camp of "Crossing the Sauer" and "Roll Me Over'. A work for meditation and introspection on memory. loss and World War II.



2. I never quite undestood what the author was trying to say. The more than half the book is about stateside training and meeting the other G.I.'s in his platoon but there is so little about combat. I was surprised that the time in combat was only about two or three days on the front line. I never did understand what happened to the author that took him out of combat. I understand there was some trauma from an intense day under fire. I never did figure out though why he was never sent back to the front. Many other G.I.'s went through days and weeks under fire and stayed up or returned to the front. I am compassionate to any front line soldier who fought in WWII but this book didn't seem to bring across to me what Mr. Kotlowitz went through.



3. For those of you considering this book, look past several of the one star ratings that others gave. I have been studying World War Two, with an emphasis on the European Theatre for well over 25 years. I have read tons of books written on the strategic and tactical level. I have read biographies and memoirs as well. Studs Turkell called this war "The Good War" and a book that he penned several years ago bears this same title, excellent book but not a good war by any stretch of the imagination.
   
   As one of the victors of this global conflict we as Americans are so used to reading stories about a country gearing up for war, overcoming the odds and defeating the Axis powers and beating them back to within the borders of their own dark fascist countries. In the process of doing this, against popular belief, things did not always go well. Of the thousands of books available describing the chess game of men and machines that this war became, not many get deep into the platoon and squad levels or reveal the personalities and idiosyncrasies that existed. These subjects are often glossed over in favor of the "big picture". In the describing of strategic and tactical maneuverings of armies and equipment to achieve a planned objective the human element is usually absent.
   
   What many readers don't understand is that the story that Robert Kotlowtiz describes to us is the experience that many a soldier had, especially replacement troops that were new to a theatre of operations. They went through training, landed on the continent and depending on which Division, Corps or Army they were to be attached to may have been slowly incorporated into the war. Many did not last long in combat when they did arrive. They were either killed, wounded or captured on their first day or week in action.
   
   
   Unlike Dick Winters of the famed E Co., 506th P.I.R., 101st Airborne, Kotlowitz did not fight in Normandy or drop into Holland or endure the Ardennes or the Eagles Nest. He was in a green replacement division with no experience, and on his very first combat mission the world as he knew it came to an end. This story may seem tragic and unheard of and maybe a bit disappointing from a reader's point of view. But unless veterans like Robert Kotlowtiz tell their stories, we will never know what it was actually like. The official army "Green Back" histories although packed with detail and combat history writing do not describe the human emotion or personal mind-set of the individual combat soldier and the life that he had to endure.
   
   I personally found the book riveting and could not put it down. Sure, since Kotlowitz eventually became a writer it reads well and in some areas may be a bit over some reader's heads. But these stories need to be told even if it's not to the sound of trumpets or victory parades. It's still a tale of personal victory.



4. "Before Their Time" by Robert Kotlowitz. Subtitled: "A Memoir".
   Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. New York, 1997.
   
   In 1943, Robert Kotlowitz was in the Army Specialized Training Program (ASTP) at the University of Maine when mounting casualties in the European Theater of Operation (ETO) required fresh men for the war. General George Marshall ordered the termination of ASTP program so as to release some 175,000 young soldiers to the battlefields of Europe. So, this young man from Baltimore found himself on the liner, "Argentina", at the city of Cherbourg, "...the old Norman city" in France. The soldiers of the 26th division, the old Yankee Division, had to climb down rope ladders, hanging on the hull of the ship, into Higgins boats below. The details of this relatively unimportant event... i.e. disembarkation, fill many pages in this small book of memories written many years after the war. In this small section, the recounts how his contemporaries reacted to the requirement of climbing down rope cargo nets into the boats below, and by so writing, analyzes those young men of the Yankee Division.
   
   The author not only analyzes the men but also the 26th Division.
   On page 8, he writes ...
   "By 1944 there were no longer many true Yankees in the Yankee division. (O)ther ethnic and national groups had begun to infiltrate the roster:,, Italians, ... Armenians, Greeks" ... and so on. Then, Kotlowitz notes that there was "... a substantial cluster of despised WASPs, who didn't yet know that they were a symptom of the future, as well as a handful of isolated Jews, who were also despised; but the unlike the WASPs, the Jews were quite used to it".
   
   The writing continues in this analytical tone until the day when his regiment, the 104th, was ordered to advance against the German lines. Almost everyone was killed or wounded. Kotlowitz was one of the few physically unharmed survivors; he spent the entire day under the sights of the Germans. He did not move and played dead. This affected his outlook on the war and on the army and on his future life. After this single day of terrible combat, where so many casualties were caused by incompetence, Private Kotlowitz was assigned to rear-echelon job. Safe for the duration. So, unlike many World War II memoirs, this book is not a bang-bang, shoot `em story. Rather, it is a sensitive and subtle analysis of the experiences of one American soldier.



5. ***POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT***
   
   I thought this book was going to be similar to Paul Fussell's books on World War II ... witty and cynical ... I was wrong.
   
   Fortunately, for us, the generation that fought World War II was full of so many people who chose to write about their experiences ... and write well. Kotlowitz' recollection of his World War II experience represents the nameless/faceless hundreds of thousands who probably shared the same or a similar experience. In his book, Kotlowitz' recounts his war experience from boot camp to old age ... it is a story of young, mostly innocent men/boys, hastily trained before being thrown into combat, only to have the journey violently end as soon as it begins.
   
   In vivid detail, he introduces us to the men (boys) who he will be forced to depend on in combat ... then, as you begin to get comfortable in knowing who these boys are, something terrible happens and they are all dead. It is such a depressing memoir, I actually envisioned his experiences in black and white.
   
   I finished the book realizing how quickly death came to so many in World War II and the survivor's guilt that probably plagued so many young men who returned home. I feel as though the book was a cathartic experience for Kotlowitz and it saddened me that it took over 50 years before he could finally achieve closure ... when he finally got together with the other survivor.

5 comments about Another River, Another Town: A Teenage Tank Gunner Comes of Age in Combat--1945.

1. Take one teenage soldier who later earns a PhD in philosophy. Place him in the midst of a conflict in its final days. Stir generously with passable writing ability.
   
   What you get is Another River, Another Town : A Teenage Tank Gunner Comes of Age in Combat-1945.
   
   This is something different in the way of soldiers telling their tale. Here's a guy who got into the war when it was practically over, during the final few months of the European campaign, all post-Bulge. And he's a tank gunner. Most books of this sort are from the perspective of the grunt, and usually from guys who saw more "action" (which is not to say the author did not - his life was in grave danger on a number of occasions).
   
   With Another River, Another Towns we get some insight into the mind of a soldier and a good glimpse at the life of a tank gunner during the last days of World War II, when the European Theater saw more surrendering and looting than actual combat. This isn't a "becoming buddies in the foxhole" book ... but it did have some merits, primarily in that it looked at a period of the war usually glossed over fairly quickly. Once you get past the Africa campaign, Sicily, D-Day and the Bulge, the European conflict becomes much less "sexy" from the American perspective. This book fills in some of those gaps and shows us what the soldiers experienced during this late period in the way.
   
   It was not a melodramatic or sepia-toned book, which is a positive, and offered a glimpse into an aspect of World War II not often explored - the mass surrendering at the tail end of the conflict, and how the Army often did not want to deal with prisoners of war because they only served to slow down the advance. German soldiers intent on surrendering were often turned away.
   
   Nothing here is vital reading, even for the WWII buff - it's a pretty typical soldier's tale, told simply - but I really enjoyed this glimpse into the world of the tank gunner and would certainly recommend this for a good Saturday read on the war. It had a lot of heart.



2. This book isn't very well written, but what it lacks doesn't make it any less of an excellent read. John Irwin manages to tell it like it was in an interesting manner that will keep you turning pages well past midnight. The combat he saw during the closing days of the ETO are gripping and you will not want to put this book down. Interestingly, after his crews M4 Sherman is put out of action, losing their assistant Driver, they are issued the very rare M26 Super Pershing, of which only about a dozen or so made it to Europe. He uses the additional Armor and firepower to take on the Dreaded German King Tiger, and even finishes off the deadly JagPanther with it's massive gun, earning the respect of his crew that he so craved. All in all a great book from cover to cover, I can't help but give it 5 stars.



3. I'm giving this book 4 stars instead of 5 because it isn't long enough to fully develop the story. Nevertheless, I recommend it because it feels authentic. The soldiers Irwin writes about feel real. You will learn details here about the Sherman tank that you won't find elsewhere. For instance, Irwin describes tank warfare against the German Tiger and explains how they beat that tank in combat. I had been under the impression that the Tiger was almost impossible to beat.
   
   In places, the book is humorous. I laughed where Irwin describes how he is temporarily captured before even entering combat.
   
   One time Irwin is reprimanded for killed a German squad that had just surrendered. When you read the book you will find out why his action was justified.



4. I read this great little book over a week during my lunch hour. It was written from memory and doesn't look like it had a lot of fact-checking. The remarks about it being written by a high-school drop-out are absurd: the man has a Ph.D. in Philosophy! That is what adds luster to Irwin's account- he sees the small details of the short, violent, and often horribly sad existence of soldiers (Allied and German) and German civilians at the very end of the battle for Germany proper.
   One note is the fact that John Irwin was a crew member of a very rare type of American tank at that time- the M-26 Pershing (a Super Pershing in his case). As a history major, I found that informative. I have never read anything by someone who actually fought in any of the few Pershings in Europe during the Second World War. So Irwin gives a very positive evaluation of the future of American tank design; almost all American tank designs up until the M-1 Abrams are essentially variations of the Pershing. It was certainly a different Army than the one we know today- in some ways it was better; less mercenary. We would do well to heed that.



5. This is a small book. Given this, it's good that the author doesn't waste time and he starts off his account promptly with joining up with his unit, Company `I', 33rd Armd Regt, 3rd Armd Div. This is a `tankers' view of war and it seems to have a different feel to it. I'm not quite sure why this is, maybe it's because the author's experiences are restricted by the limited numbers in his tank crew or the vision of his gunner's sight.
   
   The author does go into detail but not to the extent that I would've liked. This said, he writes about fighting Tiger 2's, JagdTigers and the panzerfaust troopers lying in wait for him. He is the gunner and he scores a good number of `hits', though he doesn't give a face to those he fought and this has made his account seem less vivid. He is more forthcoming giving voice to his own fears and those he shares his tank with though. Again, interesting but without giving me the feel of being in that smelly tank with him. The other thing I suppose, is that his time in the ETO is in the few months before VE Day, there is no Bulge for instance. His experiences do include liberating the V weapon slave camp at Nordhausen and fighting those Tigers near the training facility at Paderborn. He also found himself to be the lucky recipient of one of the first Pershings. There's also some interesting street fighting, in support of infantry.
   
   Overall, a solid read, with some different perspectives and experiences to those of the infantry. However compared to most of those, I feel it lacks depth, probably due to being a bit on the short side.