3 comments about Missiles in Cuba: Kennedy, Khrushchev, Castro and the 1962 Crisis (American Ways Series).

1. the other missiles of october: eisenhower, kennedy, and the jupiters, 1957-1963



2. the other missiles of october: eisenhower, kennedy, and the jupiters, 1957-1963



3. In the wake of the Iraq invasion, it is wise to remember an international incident nearly 40 years ago that also involved a third world country with weapons on mass destruction. Professor White shows that both the Kennedy and the Khrushchev adminstrations, after fumbling at the start, were able to balance and sort out a very deadly game of nuclear chess. The recent film Thirteen Days shows the American side, but White expands to show the game being played in the Kremlin as well.

   Professor White writes in a very lean manner and his conclusions are well grounded. There is no better introduction to the issues behind and the events unfurling during the missile crisis.

1 comments about The Unknown Stalin.

1. As my children are related to Molotov by marriage, I am always interested in new books about Russian figures, especially since the fall of communism. I will persevere with this book, but it is frustrating to be told "Stalin eliminated many rivals on his way to the top; historians know their names." Thanks; what about the rest of us? Also, Russian translations have a certain annoying quality bordering on condescension: "If you're reading this book you must be ignorant; otherwise you'd know it all and wouldn't have to read this book"! In general, are translators working from first to second language, or vice versa? That would affect their choice of words,and we should be told. There is still a lot of habitual excuse-making and spin control, even when one of the authors has been exiled since 1973! This must be part of the Slavic genome. But I still plan to finish it, and I think it's worth reading, especially if you are part of the Russian diaspora as I am.

3 comments about George Bush: The Life of a Lone Star Yankee (American Presidents).

1. The biographer was a distinguished scholar at the Conference on the Bush Presidency at Hofstra University in April 1997. Although this book was essentially finished by the time of the Conference, there is at least one footnote (Steven Burgess) referring to a paper presented at Hofstra. This reviewer suggested that Parmet look at the critical books by Jack Matlock on Bush's foreign policy and Monica Crowley's book on Nixon's devastating appraisal of Bush, but there is no evidence that this occurred. P More importantly, Parmet is weak when it comes to explaining the Bush stagnation. Despite the Persian Gulf War, there ensued the slowest four-year growth period in the postwar years. Thus, it is more appropriate to refer to the Bush stagnation rather than the Bush recession. P Whereas it is possible to describe Reagan's supply-side economics as a version of "commercial Keynesianism," there would seem to be no Keynesian bones in George Bush. Bush raised taxes in 1990, in collaboration with Tom Foley, as the economy headed downward. Later he refused to sign a reasonable tax cut coming out of Congress in March 1992. Instead he relied primarily on a change in withholding of income taxes which produced a brief upturn in the fourth quarter followed by sluggish growth in early 1993 when the tax rebates were smaller due to the previous tax cuts in 1992. P Readers interested in a critique of Bush's economic policy may want to read the contribution of Timothy Canova after the publication of the proceedings by Greenwood. 92. P



2. George Bush was a paradox. Prep school- and Ivy League-educated son of an aristocratic, rich Connecticut US Senator, he transplanted himself to Texas and (with a resounding lack of success) tried to re-invent himself as an old-school Texan. He lost two consecutive attempts to become a US Senator himself, and would have been a completely forgotten political wannabe had it not been for the charitable help of Presidents Nixon and Ford, who appointed the "wimp" to some key positions, which obviously made Bush think he was competent enough to become president, because he then ran in 1980. After being destroyed by Reagan in the primaries (and denouncing Reaganomics as "voodoo"), he then received some more remarkable charity when Reagan picked him for his running mate. After eight years as Vice President, Bush finally won the presidency (although he never would have won if he hadn't have been Reagan veep) and soon proved as incompetent at that job as Dan Quayle at a spelling bee. In short, Bush was a politically unsuccessful, rich New Englander who happened to have been picked for the right jobs by a couple of America's other worst presidents, and was then able to become President himself. An uninspiring, dull story and an OK book at best.



3. To me as a non-American it has always been a puzzle why George Bush is generally regarded as mediocre and after reading the thoughtful and very complete biography by mr. Parmet I have not found the answer.

   Bush has been a succesful businessman after a distinguisged service in the Air Force during the war. He has served as a Senator, as head of the CIA, as the Ambassador to China in an extremely interesting period in Sino-American relations and, finally, as a Vice-President to a very succesful President. What more can you ask as preparation for the most powerful job on earth? It is true that he failed to get elected twice, but is it not a credit to any man when he overcomes defeat to embark on such an interesting career?

   The view which I get from this biography is on a balanced man who understood politics very well and also had the gift of personal integrity unmatched by most of his predecessors and certainly not by his successor.

   It is true that he was not the greatest of communicators and PR guys, but there one should not forget that he had a very difficult, if not impossible act to follow. It is to his credit that he did not even try to imitate Reagan, but that he led the country in his own personal style.

   One should forgive for being biased, as a European, to his Foreign Policy, since my understanding for and interest in the domestic scene is limited.

   Bush Presidency can be characterised by formidable leadership in two distinguished events. His conduct of the events of the Gulf War was exemplary. Powell get's a lot of the credit, but I feel that is, partly, undeserved. It was the President's deciding leadership which effectively stopped Saddam's adventure in Kuwait. Of all the wars in which the US got involved after 1945 the handling of the Gulf War was the most succesful. It has been an act of extraordinary diplomacy and brinkmanship to get e.g. Saudi Arabia and Israel on one line. Haven't we all been worried about the Tel Aviv reaction after the first scud missiles hit the country? Personnaly I will not forget the relief I felt when, in the middle of the night in Europe, I saw and listened to Bush anouncing the invasion. This was clearly a leader who believed in what he was doing and who felt to be in full control, aware of the risks of his venture.

   A second event has been the unification of Germany. After all the rhetoric of the Reagan administration, it was under Bush that this extraordinary process was done swiftly and with great succes and, most astonishing, without bloodshed. I am aware that the prime players were Kohl and Gorbachov, but it could never have been done without the full support and the tacit agreement of the US. Indeed, by taking a silent and , overtly, modest role Bush did exactly the right thing. I don't think under Reagan, it would have been as smooth.

   All this is reconted in this book in fine scholarly detail, which distinguishes this author from the many, more sensational, political writings one sees so often these days.

   I think this is a fine book about a succesful Presidency and a man of integrity one could only wish would emerge more on the political scene.

No comments about The Picture And The Men: Being Biographical Sketches Of President Lincoln And His Cabinet (1867).

No comments about Andrew Jackson (Great Generals).

5 comments about Konrad Adenauer: The Father of the New Germany.

1. When I bought this book I had high expections. The cover photograph is awesome! The book however, turned out to be a disapointment. In terms of research, it's similar to an undergraduate paper. Williams uses very few primary sources, relying instead on the work of others. It's kind of a cut and past job. An examination of the citations will confirm this.
   I was especially looking forward to a discussion of what many consider Adenauer's finest hour. His decision, despite intense opposition, to push for reparations for Jewish victims of the Holocaust. Williams barely mentions the reparations and dosn't even attempt to examine Adenaurer's motivations.
   In terms of of giving an overview of Adenauer's life the book's ok. But this giant of the 20th Century deserves better.



2. When I bought this book I had high expections. The cover photograph is awesome! The book however, turned out to be a disapointment. In terms of research, it's similar to an undergraduate paper. Williams uses very few primary sources, relying instead on the work of others. It's kind of a cut and past job. An examination of the citations will confirm this.
   I was especially looking forward to a discussion of what many consider Adenauer's finest hour. His decision, despite intense opposition, to push for reparations for Jewish victims of the Holocaust. Williams barely mentions the reparations and dosn't even attempt to examine Adenaurer's motivations.
   In terms of of giving an overview of Adenauer's life the book's ok. But this giant of the 20th Century deserves better.



3. This book is the biography of the great Konrad Adenauer, the long serving German Kanzeller charged with rebuilding a shattered Germany following WW2. His childhood, education, and involvement in the Köln government are all described in detail. He is shown in an honest light and at times comes across as egotistical, greedy, and unfaithful. But he was also very determined, highly competent, and utterly committed to seeing Germany reunited under a peaceful, democratic government.

   Overall, the book is a worthwhile read but tended to be a bit dry and sometimes got bogged down in detail. The complex issues facing him after the war and how he dealt with them are really the most important parts of this book and I would have liked to have seen this covered in a bit more detail. For those looking for an informative and comprehensive history of Herr Adenauer, this should do.




4. This biography recounts the public and private life of Konrad Adenauer, the first chancellor of Germany after WW II. Adenauer was certainly one of the great men of the 20th century, carefully crafting policies to rebuild Germany after the war and to ensure that West Germany remained free from Soviet domination. As Williams states in his introduction, Adenauer lived three very different lives. He was the mayor of Cologne (and a powerful force in the Zentrum party) until the Nazis came to power in the early 30s. He spent the next 15 years or so trying to lie low and avoid too much attention from the Gestapo. He had several close calls, particularly after the failed assasination attempt on Hitler in July of 1944, but he and his family managed to survive the war. Adenauer really came into his own after the war though. He was again appointed mayor of Cologne by the occupying powers, but was relieved of this position. Difficult at the time, it allowed him to become the undisputed leader of the newly formed Christian Democrat Party (CDP) and to guide Germany through a very difficult time.
   
   This is a wonderful biography in my view. Williams has done a great job capturing Adenauer, both in his private and his public persona. I don't think that Adenauer personally was a particularly likable man. He had few friends, was domineering with his family, and certainly neither outgoing nor personable. We was, however, a great politician who was guided by a strong moral (Catholic) compass. As a political fighter, there were probably few men of any era that were as shrewed as Adenauer. His (mostly successful) 50 years as a politician are proof of that. He knew how to maneuver situations and opponents to benefit himself personally as well as acheive his larger political goals.
   
   This book is divided into four sections. The first covers KA's life as a youth and student, the other three roughly correspond to his time as mayor of Cologne, avoiding the attention of the Nazis, and as Chancellor. I think that Williams has wonderfully captured many of the nuances of the political life of a complex, and in some ways enigmatic, man. This is not a hagiography, Adenauer certainly had his share of human weaknesses and these are not glossed over. He was also somewhat of a street fighter when it came to politics and I got the sense that Adenauer actually enjoyed the rough and tumble of the political world (particularly since he usually came out on top).
   
   One other aspect of this book really intrigued me. This book is a wonderful vignette on the Cold War from a German perspective. When reading about the 50s and the Cold War, most American readers will be intimately familiar with the Korean War, McCarthyism, and the atomic bomb. The German perspective was somewhat different, and the issues facing Adenauer give the reader an interesting perspective on the events of this era. The Soviet threat loomed right over the border, not 5000 miles away over the Arctic Circle. Other issues of great import to Germany (and Adenauer) include rearmament, sovreignity, and re-unification with the East.
   
   Overall, I thought this was a wonderful biography. I knew very little about Adenauer and the events described in this book, and it has certainly filled my gaps in my knowledge. There isn't a whole lot about Adenauer written in English, so I would highly recommend this to anyone with even moderate interest. I agree with one of the other reviewers that the last section is a little light. It occupies over 200 pages in the book, but the events and details surrounding the treaties, reforms, and political machinations of Adenaeur's tenure as chancellor could have been expanded.



5. Charles Williams has written a biography almost like none I have ever read before. I am stating this because I grew up in West Germany when Konrad Adenauer was chancellor there, and remember Adenauer very vividly. Still, it was not until I read Mr. Williams' book that I learned a lot about Adenauer's life before 1945. Williams describes Adenauer's life virtually from the beginning to the end, covering every episode in equal detail, and the reader learns a lot about Adenauer who, after all, was a great statesman. It is interesting to read about Adenauer as a family man, his contacts with the Maria Laach abbey (whose abbot was a school friend of Adenauer's), his rise through the ranks of Cologne city government until he became mayor in 1917, his tenure as mayor from 1917 until 1933, his ouster by the Hitler regime, and his being in hiding from 1933 until 1945. Prior to reading that book, I had not learned a lot about Adenauer before 1945, except for a few fragments. Adenauer himself wrote memoirs after he stepped down as West German chancellor in 1963, but they begin with his return to Cologne in 1945, his being re-appointed mayor of that city by the Americans that same year, and his being dismissed by the British later that same year. The memoirs go on with his being made chancellor in 1949 and his experiences afterwards; unfortunately, they were not fully completed because Adenauer died before they could be completed. Even in that aspect, Charles Williams fills a lot of gaps with his book that Adenauer left with his memoirs. The book has since been translated into German.

4 comments about The Petticoat Affair: Manners, Mutiny, and Sex in Andrew Jackson's White House.

1. This book is first a description of a political scandal in the 1820s and 1830s in which a President threw his administration into turmoil over a woman. Secondly, there is a fine treatment of the role women were expected to play in the 1800s and the reasons Margaret Eaton and Rachel

   Jackson did not fit in. It's a fine well written

   story, very worthwhile.




2. This book is well-written and difficult to put down. The author did his research well. It is a good explanation of the Margaret Eaton Affair and of the social mores that women were expected to live by in the 1820s and 1830s. It is also a classic example of the theory that "men get their identity by what they do; women, by their family." Margaret Eaton could not escape that she was the daughter of a "tavern-keeper" and many of the slanders against her were merely based on the prejudices of the time concerning the stereotypical behavior of the daughters of tavern-keepers.



3. Though it's not the worst book I've ever read, I had the hardest time getting past the third chapter. With promises that this book was interesting I was quite disappointed. The book reads like you are reading a geneology chart instead of a book of scandals. It throws in a name, and then EVERY person they are related to, who they are related to and so on. The story is interesting...if you can get past all the [crud]. If you're looking for an interesting book with history you've come to the wrong place. If you are looking for a history book with a few interesting high spots...you'll love it.



4. My students, who detest reading with a passion, invariably enjoy reading this book. Full of "good guys" and "bad guys" it forces them to choose a side, which makes it great for essay assignments.

No comments about Angus L. Macdonald: A Provincial Liberal.

No comments about The Presidencies of George Herbert Walker Bush and George Walker Bush: Like Father Like Son?.

No comments about The True Abraham Lincoln.