5 comments about The Hitler/Hess Deception: British Intelligence's Best-Kept Secret of the Second World War.

1. The Man who knew too much

   Martin Allen`s book „The Hitler/Hess Deception" deals with the fate of Rudolf Hess who had been, at one time, Hitler`s deputy and who, in his day, carried the epithet „the conscience of the party". He was condemned to life imprisonment and served time for half a century until he was found hanged in the prison at Spandau whose only remaining prisoner he then was.

   He had left Germany in May, 1941, under mysterious circumstances, and was held essentially incommunicado ever since. At that time, the Nazis had instituted a number of antisemitic laws, they had instigated or at least tolerated a pogrom, and were following an expansionist and aggressive policy, but with some hindsight, one wonders why this man had to be shut up for the rest of his life, whereas other figures among Hitler`s close associates who had played a more active role for a much longer time, were released from jail after a number of years that appear reasonable under normal legal aspects.

   The author has gathered together the shreds of evidence that remained after the British in 1945 had collected and destroyed whatever pertinent files they were able to put their hands on and „neutralized" undesirable witnesses. He shows that the „Hess incident" - Hess` solo flight to Scotland in May, 1941, a month before Germany attacked the Soviet Union - was not at all the feat of a madman decided on at the spur of the moment that it was later made to appear by both the British and the German side. Even (nay, particularly!) Hitler`s deputy could not just get into his personal Messerschmitt 110 and take off for the 1000 mile flight to Prestwick without major technical and logistic preparations in Germany, along the way, and at the other end.

   The book explains that the flight as such was the result of a sting operation devised by Britain`s Strategic Operations staff, aimed at making Hitler believe that the British government could be toppled, peace could be made in the West, and the Germans would be able to affront the Soviets without having to worry about their western flank.

   According to Allen, in the year prior to Hess` flight, there had been numerous contacts, mainly in (neutral) Spain and Switzerland, between British representatives and German politicians and intellectuals. The talks in Scotland were to be, as it were, the touchstone of the matter. As time was getting short for the Germans, Hess convinced Hitler that the German delegate should not be a mere emissary acting under orders but a political figure able to take decisions on the spot - Rudolf Hess.

   In the end, it makes little difference whether the British were thrown into complete disarray, as Allen asserts, when unexpectedly Hess turned up or whether a lower-grade delegate would have been able to fly safely back to Germany and report. The British sting operation was effective enough in getting Hitler to continue with his preparations for the war against the Soviet Union and thus remove pressure from Britain. To what extent the British actively encouraged the Germans in their plans or whether or not they went so far as to promise support cannot be ascertained at the present time - whatever files still exist seem to be under lock and key for another dozen years or so.

   What is frightening about the events Allen describes is the apparent lack of scruple with which the British government went about setting the two dictatorships up against each other. The outcome of this duel was not at all certain, for if weather conditions in late 1941 had been just a little more favorable for the German side, the Soviet empire might well have toppled and Britain would then have had to face a Germany extending from the Channel coast to the Urals. This unpleasant but entirely possible risk for Britain is begging the question to what extent Churchill, in order to forestall such a potentially horrifying scenario, did not somehow play a double game by keeping the Soviets informed, and assured of future Allied aid.

   In this connection, some US and a few Russian historians have recently argued that Stalin, in 1941, was himself preparing to attack Germany. Considering the recent revelations by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Motrokhin on the activities of the „Cambridge Five", it is entirely conceivable that, officially or unofficially, British sources kept Stalin informed of the negotiations. For a man like Stalin, whose distrust was legendary, the obvious reaction would have been to prepare against a German attack, possibly by a pre-emptive strike.

   Regardless of who, Stalin or Hitler, would eventually win that confrontation, the only thing that was certain, even in 1941, is that such a war would spell the end of freedom for most of the still independent states in Central and Eastern Europe. The only foreseeable difference would have been that, under Soviet rule, the Slavic states might fare slightly better, whereas countries like Hungary or Romania would have found Hitler somewhat more accomodating. In any case, the fate of the lands in question should have been clear to the Western world when the Germans discovered, in 1943, the graves of thousands of Polish officers murdered by the Soviets two years earlier. However, by then it was too late, the Western powers preferred not to take too close a look at the implications, and chose to abandon those countries to the Soviets for the next half century.




2. In this thought provoking work, Martin Allen contends that British intelligence pulled off a psyops coup in luring Hess to fly to Britain in 1941 on false pretences.

   Well actually, the author claims that Hess was the victim of a plot by SO1 to trick the Germans into believeing there was a faction in Westminster willing to depose Churchill and agree a peace treaty with the Axis powers. Hess was not the intended target of the operation, but so wholeheartedly believed this swindle that he flew to Britain with Hitler's blessing to meet with various British politicians and a representative of King George VI.

   The author also goes on to argue that this deception was pivotal in convincing Hitler to attack Russia, mistakenly believing that peace with Britain could be achieved. This is perhaps even more sensational than the first half of the thesis.

   Before considering the claims made by Allen, there are some important criticisms to be made of the work. The first is that, although the book seems well researched, there were some notable omissions from the bibliography. The first was Roy Jenkins' magnificent biography of Churchill, which complements Martin Gilbert's biography in a number of significant areas. This is critical to Allen's work because it contains somewhat contrary views of Churchill's relations with some of the actors in this plot.

   Also missing was Denniston's work on the negotiations by which Churchill unsuccessfully attempted to bring Turkey into the war on Britain's side in 1940-41 and later. This is useful to understand to properly consider Allen's second claim about invasion of Russia.

   It may be that these omissions from the source material are justifiable, but the book also has shortcomings in the course of its arguments themselves. Having read the book, I am entirely disposed to believe that there was a secret plot by SO1 to engage the German hierarchy in fake peace negotiations, and that this was the reason for Hess parachuting into Britain in May 1941. This should be enough to make the book an important contribution to the history of the second world war. This also makes it a important work on the black arts of the intelligence world.

   Sadly, I am not convinced that this coup was critical in persuading Hitler to invade Russia. Hess landed in Britain over five weeks before the invasion of Russia. In the intervening period, it should have been patently obvious to Hitler that Britain would not sue for peace. How then could it be the basis for Hitler's fatal mistake in invading Russia? The best that Allen can come up with is that Hitler became deprived of his closest confidant, and needed to go ahead with the invasion lest he become vulnerable to a coup in 1941. To prove this the author needs to do much, much more, and he can't.

   Incidentally, I think the book's most significant contirbution is in augmenting the growing body of work on how Britain carried out a psyops campaign to secure America's entry into the war. Churchill was living on a knife edge waiting for Rooseveldt, and the suggestion that Germany might have agreed a peace treaty in 1940-41 would have put paid to that conclusively. In spite of its shortcomings, this is a good book, and will advance our understanding of the events before America's entry into the war at the end of 1941.




3. Overall, I thought this was a well-written story about the flight of Hess to Scotland and the policy and bureaucratic machinations through which the British put themselves to fool Hitler into thinking an alternative, anti-Churchill peace faction existed that would do a deal with him. Mr. Albert can get a bit melodramatic at times, but I found his writing nonetheless to be quite solid in that it moved the story along quite well. Be forewarned - Mr. Albert engages in a good deal of speculation; for example, a recording of a key conversation may not exist, but Mr. Albert would have you believe that such and such "had" to be the topic of discussion. That doesn't necessarily make his theories or main thesis wrong, it's just something to keep in mind as more evidence becomes available over the next several years.
   
   Having read many histories of the Third Reich and World War II, I'm convinced that Hitler was going to invade the Soviet Union in 1941 no matter what Britian or anyone else did. He had definite military and strategic reasons for attacking when he did, whether or not you think such reasons were strategically sound. (I do not believe they were.)



4. So good it could have been written by MI5. A very untidy but neatly packaged ending. The whole raison d'etre of Allen's otherwise well-written book totally falls down after Hess 'flies' because there isn't a shred of proof offered that the the man that 'landed' was actually Rudolf Hess. In fact the converse is true - the book assumes, as so many others have done, that he was the real Deputy Fuhrer.
   The real Hess lies under the N. Sea, where Goering, Himmler and Adolf Galland put him, and the man that flew in was a Himmler plant, a 'double', which is why everyone wrote him off as a complete ignoramus. So you see, the Nazis had a sense of humour.
   It would have been politcally quite impossible to imprison - or kill - the real Deputy Fuhrer - if he had come on a peace mission with genuine intentions (however misguided), and such acts would have run the risk of the terrible retribution from Hitler. However, after the event, in Germany, it was business as usual. Hess gone mad? Why were the Nazis so relaxed about it all?
   How the man who was retained in Spandau prison was kept quiet for so long is an interesting question which has never been answered, neither in this book nor any other yet published.
   Was this the man that flew in - or a double's double this time put in place by the British, an inmate from a prison camp in the Isle of Man? Why were Hess's relatives so determined to prevent exhumation or DNA testing of the body of the prisoner? Were they afraid to suffer the same fate as the Haushofers? Was this German 'sippenhaft' or British 'sippenhaft' work or a bit of both?



5. Seeing as this book has just 3 stars at the moment, which I feel is not truly representative, I thought I should throw in my 5 stars, maybe helping boost the book to its more deserved 4 stars. The first part of the theory, on why Hess flew to Scotland, is convincing. Perhaps linking the Duke's later plane crash with the whole episode is a bit of a stretch, but even so, it is not outlandish and presented the way it is, with plenty of convincing circumstantial evidence, quite believable. Highly recommended as both historically interesting as well as an absorbing read I got through in a few days.

No comments about ZELL: THE GOVERNOR WHO GAVE GA HOPE.

5 comments about Den of Lions.

1. I am a Westerner who has lived in Lebanon for many years and yet I gleaned new knowledge of the Middle East from reading "Den of Lions". Terry Anderson is a wonderful writer, and the addition of his fiancee's thoughts and feelings adds depth of insight into the agony of hostage-taking. There are interesting looks into the interaction between hostages and into the daily frustrations of the waste, and yet somehow the not-waste, of almost seven years away from freedom of choice. This is a book that has stayed on my mind.



2. Terry Anderson's Den of Lions is a den of insights into the radical bi-polar terrorist mentality in which he was trapped for over seven years. His descriptions of the bombings, shootings and random daily violence that permeated around the non-citizens and the citizens of Lebanon, make this a classic Middle East hostage survivor's story. Anderson's poems of his cruel incarceration are filled with searing depth that transport you to the various scummy basement cells which he shared with other Westerners. Den of Lions and Hostage by David Jacobson go hand in hand and are important contributions in the collection of Middle East books that help those of us citizens who were not there or too young to remember, the horror that Beirut was during the eighties and early ninties. Very highly recommended!



3. Den of Lions: Memoirs of Seven Years by Terry Anderson is one of my favorite books. The book grabbed my attention and kept it. I read the book in one day. Learning of Terry Anderson's ordeal through his eyes and in his words was amazing. Having been only 4 when he was taken hostage, I did not really know much about him until he was released from Lebanon in 1991, when I was 10. I grew up watching the news with my parents and I can remember seeing his return on television.
   When I decided to study journalism in college, I chose the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio University. When I heard that Terry Anderson was going to be joining the faculty at Scripps, I was truly excited. I read his memoirs and then had the opportunity to hear him speak about his ordeal. Having him as a professor at Scripps was a wonderful experience for all journalism students. I have the great privilege of saying that I met one of my role models and I am grateful for that.
   Den of Lions: Memoirs of Seven Years is one of the best books I have ever read. It is touching and wonderfully written. It tells Terry Anderson's story in a way that only he could.



4. I do not want this to sound insensitive, but the one thing I kept thinking as I was reading this book is why was he there? The U.S. government was telling U.S. citizens to leave, the Lebanese government did not care, his employer wanted him to leave, and there were increasing hostage incidents. The book his the story of his capture and the seven years he spent as a captive of this militant group. He does a good job in describing the locations he was in, the people that were his captors, and the other persons that he was with. I thought the most interesting parts of the book detailed his conversations with some of his captors and their views on the situation.

   The book is a very interesting view of what happened to the author. The details are rich and he does a good job of painting the scenes for us. He also did a good job of explaining the depression of being a captive and what it is like to loss seven years of your life, although I do not think any author could truly express the emotional pain that he must have gone through. If you are interested in this part of the world or this story, this is a great book. It is also interesting given the current climate in the Middle East to read about what was happening 20 years ago.




5. Mr. Anderson's book is a lesson on how to maintain sainity in the most horrible situations you could every be in; kidnapped and the lose of personal freedom.

   This book is not a pleasant read. It is very important though in that it allows the reader, who is probably very comfortable while reading, to feel the sense of dispair that Mr. Anderson went through.

   The political reasons as well as the climate in the Middle East in the 1980's is very interesting and this account allows us to see it from a totally different perspective.

   Plus it has a happy ending, I highly recommend it.

5 comments about The Presidency of George Washington (American Presidency Series).

1. Forrest McDonald is an excellent writer. He produced a wonderful full length bio of Alexander Hamilton that I recommend to anyone interested learning about our government's start and the role played by the man second only to Washington in ensuring that these United States succeeded in laying a firm foundation for self government.

   This book is one of McDonald's two contributions to the Univ. of KA's "Presidency Series." It is splendid.

   McDonald concisely explores the challenges presenting themselves and issues demanding attention from our new and untested government. In just under two hundred pages, the author does an excellent job of boiling down the topics to their essentials and describing how the nascent government struggled to define its role, the meaning of it's constitutional structure, the balance of factions and America's relation to warring European giants.

   His book accomplishes this with brevity, clear and concise writing and in an interesting manner. Along the way are fascinating tidbits. For example, neither Washington nor the Senate knew what "advise and consent" meant regarding treaties. About to send negotiators to several indian tribes, Washington walked down to the Senate to seek their advice on instructions for his agents. As the Senate sat dumbfounded, and then finally began to debate the seven points Washington sought advice on, it became clear how impractical legislative micro management of treaty making would be. Washington turned on his heels and left in disgust when it became obvious the Senate could not give him clear and definative advice. Thereafter, it was mutually agreed that the Senate's role would revolve mainly around "consent" and come when the President presented negotiatied treaties to that body for consideration and not before the treaty making in the form of advice. And thus has it been, evermore.

   This is a very good book that will inform those interested in learning how our government got up and running and how important Washington and the players around him were in charting the course for our young government.




2. The general consensus is that the two greatest US presidents were George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. I firmly believe that and in my opinion, Washington was the greatest. Before he became president he did something very rare in the history of the human race. After the victory in the war of independence, his stature was such that he could have been "elected" king. However, his honor was such that he had to be persuaded to run for president and then re-persuaded to run for a second term. He then thoroughly rejected any thought of a third term.
   The nation that he led was still very fragile and every action by Washington or congress that was not explicit in the constitution would establish a precedent. Furthermore, the world was still a dangerous place, with the French revolution and subsequent European war creating a dangerous environment for the new nation. His actions in building the new government and keeping it out of foreign entanglements fully justify the admiration that he receives.
   This book kept my attention from the first page as the early years of the new government are described. For this is a book about the Washington administration rather than Washington the man. So many legends in the annals of history were there and setting the tone for over 200 years of continuous government. You also learn of the emergence of political parties, as Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson and Adams among others vie for power and influence. Alexander Hamilton is the most interesting of these giants, as he successfully creates the financial institutions that made the country fiscally sound.
   The more I read about Washington and that period of history, the more I am impressed by him. I have no idea what would have happened if he had been different, but it is a sure bet that it would have been worse. It is unfortunate that we teach our children nonsensical myths like the one about the cherry tree. The truth is so much more inspiring, and he truly deserves the accolade of "the father of his country."



3. "The Presidency of George Washington" is exactly what its title implies. It is the story of the Washington Administration. It is not a biography of George Washington, nor is it even a book which revolves totally around George Washington. It is the story of the people, issues and events which made up the administration of George Washington.

   The book starts out with an introduction into the United States of 1789. The regions and interests, as well as the political alignments, which supported and opposed the adoption of the Constitution are explained in some detail. The economy, trade, finance and the neighboring powers of Spain and England all laid the background for America's experiment with its new Constitution.

   The first task facing Washington was the establishment of the National Government. While reading this book we come to understand just how little guidance he had from the Constitution. Many of the practices which we take for granted derive, not from the Constitution, but from precedents established by Washington and his successors. The title of address for the President and the role of the heads of the executive departments, which were to become the cabinet, were among the first issues to be addressed. The role of the Senate in granting "advice and consent" on foreign policy matters had to be defined. An early trial occurred when President Washington appeared in the Senate to present his proposals and ask for advise and consent. After this awkward exercise, the practice was established that the executive would formulate policies and negotiate treaties, which would then presented for advice and consent.

   The power of removal of executive officers also had to be refined. It was presumed by some that any officer who required Senate confirmation for appointment, also required Senate consent for removal. It was the Washington Administration which established the principle that executive officers could be removed by the President without Congressional approval. This was an issue which was to be resurrected during the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.

   Beyond organizational problems, the towering challenge facing the administration was that of finance. The debts of the Continental Congress and the states raised a myriad of issues. Should debts be paid? Should the debts be paid at par? Should payment be made to the bearer, who had often bought the bonds at a discount, or should some or all of the payment be made to the original lender? Should the national government assume the debts of the states? All of these issues had important consequences to the credit worthiness of the government. The assumption of state war debts had unequal impacts, depending on whether the individual state had serviced its debt or let it accumulate. Ultimately the Hamiltonian proposal to assume the war debt of the states and to pay the holders of the bonds was adopted, with the concession of the location of the national capitol in the South to win necessary support.

   An issue which would remain controversial until the Administration of Andrew Jackson was the establishment of the Bank of the United States. One of the main reasons for the establishment of the bank was the dearth of banks in the country capable of handling federal deposits.

   The domestic issues confronted by the administration introduced the spirit of party into the Administration. The differing views and personalties of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson brought contention into the administration. It was their personalties, particularly that of Hamilton, which came to be the heart of the Administration, even more than that of Washington himself.

   The second term was to be dominated by foreign entanglements and a domestic insurrection. The advancement of the French Revolution and its wars with the powers of Europe brought European problems to America. The continuance or renunciation of America's treaty, made with Royalist France, was a hotly debated issue, as was the ratification of a later treaty with Britain. Acceptance of the Jay Treaty with Britain was, ultimately, decided in a reaction to alleged official corruption. In America's first encounter with Islamic Terrorism, raids against American shipping in the Mediterranean by Barbery Pirates, resulted in, again after heated debate, the establishment of the U.S. Navy.

   1794 saw resistance to federal taxation on whiskey erupt into the Whiskey Rebellion. The assertion of Federal authority lead to the raising of the militia for the suppression of the rebellion. The declaration of the Rebellion and its suppression may have had more to do with Hamilton's desire to crush his political opponents and brand them as traitors than it did with any actual insurrection.

   Washington's ultimate gift to the nation was his retirement and transfer of power to an elected successor at the conclusion of his second term.

   This book is recommended to anyone desiring an understanding of the personalities who made up our first national administration, the challenges which confronted them, their responses to those challenges and their legacies to our country.




4. This book is well written and very informative. This is more of an academic history than a page-turner, such as the books by the likes of David McCullough, but then again few books are. This book will appeal to those interested in history, especially American history. It is about the first 8 years of the government of the United States. Because the constitution was not specific on many of the aspects of how the government was to be run, it was necessary for Washington, his Cabinet and the Congress to further define their roles. This book describes how the men involved and the challenges that they faced directed the evolution of the government of the United States. It describes, in detail, Hamilton's financial system, the internal challenges of Indian uprisings and the resistance to the power of the government (as shown by the Whisky Rebellion) and the relations with foreign powers (primarily with Britain, France and Spain). I especially liked the discussion of Hamilton's system of monetizing the debt incurred during the revolution and using this as the basis for a currency system. This is a very complex subject, one that few at the time (or later) understood. This book not only clearly explains his system but also shows that it was based on the British system, thereby making it less mysterious and not a completely original creation of Hamilton's. Much time is also spent on the attempts of the French and Republican politicians, such as Jefferson, to support the French Revolution, even at the risk of war with Britain. In opposition to this were the Federalists, such as Hamilton, who wanted to avoid war with Britain at all costs. A considerable amount of space is therefore spent on the Jay treaty with Britain, and the support and opposition to it. The book also shows how the challenges faced by the US and the rivalries between the men involved helped to lead to the evolution (much to Washington's dismay) of political parties.
   
   While the title is accurate, it is also a bit misleading. This book is not primarily about Washington, in fact, in most of the book he is only in the background, ratifying or rejecting the acts of others. The author's view of Washington really only becomes clear in the last two pages, where he is depicted more of a symbolic presence than a dynamic leader. Nonetheless, the book makes it clear that Washington was more than just a figurehead. He created a stronger president than the weak one desired by Congress. He brought the heads of the departments of the government (State, War and Finance) clearly under the control of the President, reporting to him and not to Congress. He refused to hand over the papers associated with the development of the Jay treaty and refused to acknowledge the Senate's right to prevent him from firing someone they had previously approved. This book thus shows how the presidency of George Washington shaped the history of the Presidency and the US.



5. Forrest McDonald is one of the best academic historians of early American political, intellectual, and economic history. I've read several books by him and they've all been very good to excellent, and this book is right up there with them.
   
   One thing to keep in mind: This is NOT a biography. One could even argue that Washington himself is -- in McDonald's narrative -- not really the "star" at all, and that in fact others (such as Madison, Hamilton, & Jefferson) are far more important to driving the events of the early Republic. However, this depiction seems appropriate given Washington's reserved leadership style as President. In McDonald's words, "George Washington was indispensable, but only for what he was [ie, a figurehead everyone respected], not for what he did."
   
   What this book is, is a very good chronicle of the political history of our first presidential administration, covering all the important issues you would expect from the period. It is particularly strong at chronicling the emergence of the United States' first real national political parties.
   
   Though I thought this book was quite good overall, I rated it four rather than five stars for the following reasons:
   1. McDonald sometimes throws in a few too many extraneous details which can dilute his points.
   
   2. As he himself admits, some of McDonald's narrative is based on conjecture -- particularly when he describes a trip Jefferson and Madison took together to Lake Champlain. On that trip, McDonald supposes, Madison had an epileptic seizure that Jefferson witnessed, and this revelation of Madison's hidden personal weakness cemented their friendship and alliance. McDonald also engages in psychological analysis of some people -- such as Jefferson -- that comes across as not much more than speculation and conjecture, too.
   
   3. I thought McDonald was a little too biased towards the Hamiltonian/Federalist side of the emerging partisan divide. (Though, to be fair, most historians seem to go to the opposite extreme in praising Jefferson and his faction. Even so, McDonald seemed to always assume the best intentions on the part of the Federalists, and the worst intentions on the part of the Republicans.)
   
   In sum: This is a good scholarly look at the period, but those in search of a general biography of Washington should look elsewhere.

1 comments about Mystery Man: William Rhodes Davis, American Nazi Agent of Influence.

1. America has always been cursed with opportunists willing to do business with dictators. The current crop of people willing to profit from China - from President Clinton's apparent cash payments from the Chinese secret police to Republican businessmens' use of near slave labor to boost their profits - have their antecedents in William Rhodes Davis, who made a fortune supplying Hitler with the oil to launch World War II. There were many mysterious things about Davis - his relationship to FDR, his role as a Nazi agent, even his death. Mr. Harrington doesn't, can't give us the answers to everything, but he does a brilliant job laying out the facts that are known. The author is both an investment banker and a sensible man. Both are necessary skills to bring to a book like this. As an investment banker, he is anexcellent guide through the thickets of financial manueverings. As a sensible man, he weighs the information carefully and allows the reader to draw his own conclusions. I have only one quibble: he mentions that Sir Harry Oakes became associated with Davis shortly before Davis' strange death. Oakes himself of course figured in a strange murder case in the Bahamas shortly thereafter. I would have liked the author to see if there was any connection between the cases. That is the minorest of quibbles, however, and readers of this book will be able to reflect on just how many facets history has.

4 comments about Ribbentrop.

1. Bloch's "Ribbentrop" is an excellent work on a figure who is often only mentioned as a supernumerary in histories of the Second World War and the Third Reich. From Ribbentrop's early years, to his pre-Nazi days, to his rather baffling rise to power, to his last days as a defendant (then convict) at Nuremberg, Bloch's book illuminates the reader as to this important but often overlooked individual. Divided into well-ordered chapters, filled with many fascinating footnotes, and drawing from diplomatic archives, interview records, and memoirs, "Ribbentrop" provides a deeply interesting look at the state of the German diplomatic machine in the 1930's and 1940's and sheds light on the Reichsaussenminister who despite his participation in terrible crimes was, as written by Philip Ziegler in his review, "never quite a monster".



2. I have read a lot on WW2 history and found this study very good. I certainly learnt much from it.
   
   A man promoted well over his ability and experience into a position of foreign minister. Yet in the scheme of things he was a fairly minor character.
   
   Yet it surprizing how much influence that he did play in the conflict. I found the questions raised by the writer in relation to Rippontrop causing Hitler to misjudge Britain response to the invasion of Poland fasinating.



3. For enthusiasts of diplomatic history Michael Bloch produces a masterpiece that lets us see inside the Nazi regime and their struggle to deceive the world. Ribbentrop was a cowardly and self centered bureaucrat who helped justify some of the worst atrocities that were ever seen. The book is well written and is good for a beginner on an expert. It is an essential addition to any library about Nazi Germany. Bloch's contempt for Ribbentrop is apparent and you find yourself wondering how Ribbentrop ever achieved power. His ineptitude is stunning but through this look we get a look at one of the more interesting Nazi's after Hitler and Goebbels.



4. ... but also very entertaining and terrifying at the same time. While I agree with almost all what the previous three raters wrote, I want to stress that the entertainment value of this well written biography cannot be overstated. If you want to know how papers were retrieved at the Buero Ribbentrop, the parallel foreign ministry (by emptying a renaissance chest in which everything was thrown into), or how the usually obedient Ribbentrop once enraged the Fuehrer to the point of giving him a nervous breakdown, or how Ribbentrop embarassed himself and the Royal family while he was ambassador in London, look no further, Bloch describes it all, with dry humour, mild pity and all references. And if you ever doubted what a professional diplomatic corps is good for, read this book.

5 comments about Greenspan: The Man Behind Money.

1. An extremely shallow book that offers no insight how Greenspan thinks or makes his decisions. The reason Greenspan is such an interesting character is how he has managed to constantly adapt to changing market conditions. The real story would be why and how he came to the decisions he did, but this book just reports his actions. There is almost no economic anlysis or justification. Anyone looking to gain some understanding of Greenspan's thought process will be left wanting and extremely disappointed with this book.



2. The principles that Alan Greenspan follows politically and economically are all accounted for in the in-depth writing Justin Martin presented in this book. Justin Martin even gets into small details about Alan Greenspan that not many people know about. I recommend this book to anyone willing to learn rock solid principles surrounding our economic conditions.



3. This book is an excellent journalistic account of Alan Greenspan's life up to the first part of 2000 - the zenith of his career and fame.

   The book is not a serious biography. You will be disappointed if you expect the book to give you a deep and insightful analysis of Greenspan's life philosophy, his work methodology, or a revelation of the detail working of the Federal Reserve System.

   On the other hand, this book is a fascinating account of his life - both its private and public sides. Greenspan's brush with band music, his own economic consulting business which employed mostly female economists, his relationship with Ayn Rand and as an esteemed member of her Objectivist Collective, his role and relationship with the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush and the Clinton teams. There are also some vivid accounts of how he handled some high profile financial and monetary situations as well as how he left his handprints on several important presidential commission reports and recommendations. And, of course, the book has not neglected to give brief but interesting accounts of the women in his life.

   This book is very well written - the material is interesting and well organized, and presentation is smooth and captivating. I find it to be very enjoyable reading.

   Read to the end. The last two paragraphs of the book were as weighty as everything written prior!




4. Read all about the frightened little ec0nomist who happens to be (pragmatically) the most powerful man on the planet.
   Greenspan's dreadful fear of inflation is really the origin of our current economic recession, his timing is worse than a paranoid knife thrower afflicted with Parkinsons disease.
   This book isn't written objectively and will only benefit those who worship the detritus he leaves behind. It works too hard to portray him as well meaning guy who just happened to luck into his current job, but skims or omits his blunders and mistakes.
   This book is best for the Greenspan groupies.



5. Justin Martin's "Greenspan" -- from beginning to end -- is a delightful read. I was laughing over and over as the pages turned, and was disappointed upon running out of pages to read.

   Here is one humorous example (page 225), about Greenspan changed his seating position at the FOMC meeting table.

   "Then there's the table flap. Since 1977, the FOMC has conducted its business around a twenty-seven-foot-long table fashioned out of Honduran mahogany, with a center section made of black granite. It weighs two tons. Since becoming Fed chairman, Greenspan had always sat at the head of this table. But in November 1998, attendees at one of the Fed's periodic public meetings noticed that he had moved to a spot in the middle.

   "The hubbub began immediately. What did it mean? Was Greenspan sending a message about increased 'collegiality' at the Fed? Turns out the move was for the sake of acoustics. 'Given the speed of sound, the advice arrived too late and inadvertently we got behind the curve,' joked Greenspan, during a meeting of the Fed's Board of Governors."

   I'd recommend this book to anyone interested in economics.

No comments about Lineage, Life And Labors Of Jose Rizal.

No comments about Max Yergan: Race Man, Internationalist, Cold Warrior.

5 comments about In the Shadow of a Saint: A Son's Journey to Understand His Father's Legacy.

1. I was in bed on the morning of the 10th of November 1995 when the death of ken Saro Wiwa was announced over the radio. As it is in Nigeria there is always the official and unofficial news so speculations the previous night dismissed as rumours...even though i was almost twenty at this time, it dawned on me that i knew next to nothing about Mr Saro-Wiwa..and folks made up to many stories that usually left you confused but Ken Wiwa has done an excellent job. He initial presents hiself has a spoilt kid who saw more meaning to life in the west than in Africa his home (Or so i understood it) but as he grows, he matures to the point where he does not only understand his father and what he stands for but learns to forgive and even sympathise with his many dilemas in his struglle to liberate the lifes and minds of his people. The most refreshing thing about the story is that Wiwa Snr and Jnr reach a compromise in what seemed like a stumbling relationship (as it is with many first sons who are similar to thier fathers) and reconcile before Saro-Wiwa dies. I gues like Wiwa snr said "it's a shame we cant choose our parents" but having ready a story like this one I'm quite glad it so too.

   Bro Ken i agree with your Dad you do have a good style keep the books coming.




2. This is a beautiful, inspiring book. It is not just a biography of internationally acclaimed activist and novelist Ken Saro-Wiwa, but also an account of a son who manages to find himself despite the notoriety of his famous father. Ken Wiwa traces the history he has shared with his father, and examines his changes in perspective through his childhood, adolescent and adult years. He recounts his father's successful life, from government worker to TV writer, novelist, and finally, to political activist. He tells of his father's efforts to improve the lives of the impoverished Ogoni people, which included a heroic struggle against a multinational oil company. With brevity, and brutal honesty, Ken Wiwa leaves no stone unturned in examining his own thoughts and emotions in relation to these events.
   It would have been easy for Ken Wiwa to wax poetically about his father's heroism in the face of such a powerful opponent, and to fill all the pages of a book on this subject alone. He could have possibly sold many more books this way. But he purposely chose not to, and instead invites his readers on a rich, multi-faceted exploration of his father's life, his family and of his own growing self-awareness.
   In the end, we, the readers, are just as proud of Ken Saro-Wiwa as his son is. But it is the journey that we took to get there that makes it all the more moving.



3. I remember where I was the day I found out Ken Saro-Wiwa had been murdered. It's a day that will forever be with me.

   Ken Wiwa does a beautiful job of honoring his father's human rights work and expressing the complexity of their relationship. It is a shame that Mr. Saro-Wiwa will never be able to see his son's heartfelt tribute.




4. A moving and evocative memoir of Ken Wiwa's difficult coming of age, caught between two cultures and the collision with history of his domineering father, Nigerian playwright and activist Ken Saro-Wiwa. In effect the story is told in two parts - the author's life up to his father's hanging on trumped up charges in 1995, and his subsequent attempt to come to terms with his fathers ambiguous personal legacy, in part from seeking out the children of other political martyrs such as Nkosinathi Biko and Aung San Suu Kyi. One gets the sense that by the end of the book Wiwa has achieved some sort of closure and establishment of stable, constructive self-identity. Recommended to anyone interested in Nigeria, international diplomacy, or the relationship between fathers and sons.



5. A befitting gift to the memory of a great man from his son. Ken Wiwa has arrived as a major voice of his generation with this sincere and serious work of literature that looks at Nigerain politics and history from the eyes of a Niger Delta son. This is a personal document with a straight forward message.