No comments about The Presidencies of Grover Cleveland (American Presidency Series).

No comments about Major (British Prime Ministers of the 20th Century) (Life&Times).

2 comments about Santa Anna: A Curse Upon Mexico (Military Profiles).

1. This is a superb short military/political biography of a controversial figure. Santa Anna does not fall in my main area of historical work, but given the significant impact he had on US history I have always wanted to read more about him. This book fills the bill perfectly. I say this for three reasons.

   1.) Writing historical biographies is a difficult business, especially when trying to keep it concise. I would rather write a 500-page bio than a 100-page bio, it is very hard to get at the significance of a controversial figure, who did so much, in so short a space. But Scheina has done it and done it well. Although the book is subtitled, "A Curse Upon Mexico," and I agree with this general assessment, Scheina presents a very fair biography. Santa Anna could be horribly cruel and extremely generous, heroic and cowardly on the field of battle, shrewd and foolish, savvy and blinded by his ego. Scheina puts it all together -- the good, and the bad, and he puts Santa Anna into military, political, social, and economic context of his times. He has no ax to grind. What a nice change of pace from some recent bios I have read!

   2.) Scheina clearly explains the significance of Santa Anna for Mexican history, and thus for other fields, e.g., US history, military history, etc. He writes well, is quite articulate, and the book makes for a good quick read. But then again, it might actually be tough to write a dull book about such a fascinating character. (In 1834 Santa Anna had the distinction of having launched a coup against himself!)

   3.) Don't be fooled by the compact size. Everything that needs to be covered is, and the thirteen pages of endnotes provide just what one needs for pursuing aspects of Santa Anna's career in further detail. (The book also has a useful biography, an index, and helpful illustrations on glossy paper.)

   I have read pieces of Scheina's work before, but never one of his books. Now I see why he has such a solid reputation, and I look forward to reading the survey history of Latin American warfare he has been working on, which will be published in the latter half of 2002.

   This is the second of the books in the Brassey's Military Profiles series that I have read (the other was Farragut by Robert Schneller). Both were excellent, and I will be looking forward to reading more from this series in the future. Given their size, I can also recommend them as very good for course adoptions.




2. When I got this book the Mexican-American woman who sold it to me had a disgusted look on her face,"Why do you want to read about him." Feeling that she had about as much affection for him as most have for Hitler I told her simply ,"because he was a bad guy", to which she nodded and approved. I took my book sheepishly but unappologeticly. As I began to read I became fascinated rather than disgusted with the man. Given the circumstances of early Mexico , fresh from a break with Spain, this poor country needed a unifying Caudillo and Santa Ana was the man to run the country, 11 times as a matter of fact! The author explains the poitical times quite apptly and summarily.This is a book that can be read in one sitting or over several short reading periods. Concise and informative it delivers a portrait of a man destined to rule, often by ruthless and self serving means who although not detailed apparently enjoyed cockfighting tremendously and loved to gamble. In spite of his eventual bad guy role in Mexican(and U.S.) history he was able to resurface over and over because of his cunning guile and military achievements. The author has done an outstanding job for the armchair historian, bringing the man to life vivdly with pages of details on his "achievements" without taking a stance. I could not be so kind. The portrait of the ruthless Caudillo is given in terms of his military achievements and their impact on history, specifically between Mexcio and the U.S. Most famous to Americans for the Alamo he is more well known and detested among Mexicans on both sides of the border as the sellout who conceded the vast territories that included California,Texas aand other pats of the southwest, including lands sold in the Gadsen Purchase. Eventually this man got what he deserved as he died poor after squanderng away the millions he stole from the Mexican people but the damage he did changed the destinies of two countries. Recommended for a quick read on an interesting but detestable character who is responsible for the growth of one nation and the schrinking of another. The footnotes abound like a college text, which is helpful if further reading is needed but the bibliography is the real gem and is quite exceptional and extensive. Recommended for history buffs.

No comments about The Great Experiment: George Washington and the American Republic.

3 comments about Alexander the Great: Man and God.

1. This book is a wonderful chronical both of Alexander the Great's life and conquests. It's primary strength is in the amount of sheer details of Alexander's conquests, his social programs, etc. By reading this book you'll get an excellent understanding of the politics during his time, the practical difficulties that Alexander had conquering such vast regions, and the various ramifications of Alexander's decisions.
   
   However, this book does go a bit politically correct when it gets into the issue of whether Alexander the Great should be called "the great" or "the accursed" (which btw the Iranians seem prefer...seems they haven't gotten over Alexander ending their golden age). Although, to be fair the author does lay out a good case for relabeling Alexander "the accursed"...or at least acknowledging that his legacy was mixed.
   
   This book does an excellent job imparting a comprehensive understanding of Alexander the great, his life and his effect on history, etc. You even learn enough to see how thing could have gone differently (if Alexander had an obvious heir when died, if he accepted the proposal of Darius to accept all land west of the Euphrates, if he had lived longer and conquered Arabia and Carthage which he was planning on doing).



2. I find it funny and irksome to read the writings of these armchair kings and generals calling themselves "scholars" sitting on some moral high horse they erect for themselves. I'm just curious what they get out of it. Worthington is certainly a noteworthy scholar with great credentials, but why he sits in his den or office and think he could apply the morals of today to those of some 2500 years ago is not something I could fathom. Clearly, there is an agenda of some sort that belie the thoroughly researched materials.
   
   The book is certainly well-written and it's obvious that Worthington knows his stuff, but his obvious undisguised bias towards the negative over the positive gets a little old. It's so easy to exaggerate the negative (which we ALL have) into something monstrous and totally unsavory. This is exactly what Worthington does time and time again, selectively citing sources or leaving them out to make his point as some sort of prosecutor/judge.
   
   I've read many books about Alexander by noted historians and scholars and they do indeed run the gamut from gushing positivity to dark sourpuss vitriol like this book by Worthington. It's fascinating that Alexander means so many different things to different people - kind of like the German opera composer Wagner. The thing about Alexander is that - no matter what - he'll be studied, admired, revered, reviled, debated over for many millennias to come (assuming mankind survives that long), long after irrelevant books like these have disappeared...



3. The quantity of books that I have read of Alexander the Great are self explanatory in by looking at my comments.
   I was born in the first Alexandria that he created and from his dreams. Mixtures of cultures.Italians came centuries ago,hence I was born.
   It is very hard to judge Alexander,as all of the papyruses regarding his life and conquest were distroyed when the library of Alexandria was burned down centuries after his death.
   However some and other related documents have survived the centuries.It is hard not to admire such a bright kid,who captured the lives of many over the centuries with his astonishing tactics of war.
   Many books have been written and I am sure that many more will come.The point however is that nothing new has been discovered,therefore these are all assumptions of his character and megalomaniac attitudes.This book is very well written,with some sections that are new to me.How did these come to be,and not by famous historians I am not sure.
   There are more details in this book about Bessus,the women in Darius life,the invasion of Sogdiana,Bactria,the Hindu Khush.Details of the cities that Alexander invaded with the actual modern location is important for the reader.
   It is not a stunning book but very well written.
   To me Alexander was not born a conqueror instead he was a discoverer.He wanted to discover the world,but in doing so he had to invade in order to go on.He did not seem to be interested in gold and precious things rather he gave them away.
   His tactics for war,were cunning and seemed like a little kid playing with tin soldiers with his friends.
   I still have not read or heard of anyone in history who has accomplished so much in such a little time in his life.
   I liked the maps with the details of the assaults in this book.as well as the maps altogether.I like to follow the trails of the battles.
   He certainly was not a God, never the less you can find him in the Bible as well as the Koran.Isn't that strange?
   A lot of discoveries and archaeological sights have been discovered in Alexandria Egypt in recent years.Still the mystery remains.Where is Alexander's body? Are we every going to find him? I hope so.
   If we do, we may also discover the papyruses that were also buried with him.What a breakthrough in history that would be.

5 comments about The Generalissimo's Son: Chiang Ching-kuo and the Revolutions in China and Taiwan.

1. As a Taiwanese,I have to point out that this book is "NOT" a fair and accurate accounts of Chiang Ching-Kuo. He's a dictator , put a lot of dissidents into jails, many people died because of his harsh ruleing style. And as a president , he was never really elected by a democratic process,there's "No" democratic election until his death. All these things are ingored or downplayed in this book. As a taiwanese,I'm truely dispointted about this book.



2. Jay Taylor's matter of fact approach, he tries not to cast judgement on all of the people portrayed here, provides a pretty interesting of CCK's fascinating life. What emerges is basically at first a rather impressionable young man who was caught up in one of the 20th Century's great power plays. The period of his Soviet activities is especially fascinating, especially his commitment to Bolshevism and apparent intention to remain in the USSR and seek candidacy in the CPSU. As an aside, the revelation that Lee Tung Hui was once a candidate member of the CCP is also interesting viewing his present activities. In the end CCK was obedient to his father's wishes and carried out his filial duties, never disrespecting his father or his legacy. The book is very fair to CCK, balancing his personal feelings with what his father's legacy saddle him with. Taylor's assessment that the best chance for rapproachment between the CCP and KMT was when CCK and Deng were at their twilight and that it was a shame that CCK left the scene much too early to finish his job is pretty much on the mark. I wonder how he would look upon the current developments on Taiwan and in China, but I think history will regard him very favorably as future generations realize what he accomplished.



3. President Chiang Ching-Kuo was the greatest leader of China who started Taiwan miracle. If there was no President Chiang Ching-Kuo, we people in Taiwan could never have a life like today. I certainlly hope people can read the history fairly!!



4. Taiwan is a hostage of CCP China and KMT mainlander. Taiwanese men were drafted to serve in the KMT military for two to three years. They were trained and told in preparation to recover the mainland for about thirty-five years. How many man-year of Taiwanese are at the mainlander's disposal, not to mention the casualty during the conflicts? The mainlanders shall appreciate Taiwanese's sacrifice instead of asking Taiwanese to thank the two Chiang's.

   I am really enjoying reading this book not because of the young Chiang's romantic encounters. I learned a lot of facts that CCP and KMT do not want Taiwanese and Chinese to know. I am especially interested to know that United States considered a separate Taiwan (page 201) or Two Chinas was an option in 1950. Even Mao will accept that solution at that time. If Chiang accepted this offer, then there is no such messy issue across Taiwan Strait. As it is mentioned in the book Chiang had no will to attack mainland because he knew he will be defeated . But he kept pretending he will. Of course if he accepted two China's Chiang will not be able to lead the two million mainlanders and he lost the ground to be the "forever" leader of Taiwan. As a matter of fact Ching-Kuo was making an arrangement for his father's refugee in philippine if the communist came to Taiwan. What a great son he is!

   The economy success of Taiwan shall attribute to the effort of the hard working people of Taiwan not the Chiang's. It is not until 1972 all resources of Taiwan was devoted for the military preparation for the fighting back to mainland. Ten Major Development Project is the first important thing happen to Taiwan's modernization. But as usual these projects also served as an opportunity to nourish KMT' and his friend's pockets. It also enabled Chiang to place his loyal followers such as retired military and party staffs so that to consolidate his power.

   When I was in high school every classmate was told by the mainlander teacher that you would be appointed as a county supervisor in China if KMT recovered mainland. I was wondering why I would like to govern the place and people I do not know. KMT did not learn the lesson in Manchuria (Page 137). What CCK said to his mainlander senior officers at Sun-Moon lake retreat proves that he is one of the exception (page 282).




5. I enjoyed reading it. Given the busy schedule, I myself find it amazing actually having finished the whole book.
   I like the matter-of-fact'ly attitude and the author's historical perspective, and that adds credibility to his research and work.
   The personal encounters and rapports by those early makers and shakers were very facinating. Some documents, as the author put it, are still not released yet and we have to wait some more. The file on the last encounter between Stalin and CCK before CCK returned to China was one of them. What exactly was communicated and expressed, and what was truly in their minds? The only early ally of Chinese struggle against Japanese invasion was Russia? With real airplanes, pilots and so on? This part was never played out hard in KMT/Taiwan's history lessons. Don't know how the CCP/Mainland portrait that part of the history *today*. Obviously, Stalin has his reasons and he was not just charitable in heart. The Great Terror executed 800,000 in the USSR and is more than how many Russians killed in the first two years of WWII. What a contrast!
   It makes you think how the turns of events gets to us here today as an individual and as communities.
   Leave the rhetoric to people who cannot think and reflect and have preconceived notions and unshakable emotions, and read this book with the feel of a by-stander.

No comments about Thabo Mbeki and the Battle for the Soul of the ANC: Second Edition.

5 comments about Inside the Oval Office: The White House Tapes from FDR to Clinton.

1. This is a terrific book and rewards the reader with insight into the modern presidency. It talks about each President's strengths and how each of them got themselves into trouble and it illustrates its points using each President's own words. Because it is less than 400 pages long it is hard for Doyle to support all the claims he makes, but it is still worth reading. More than that, it is worth owning and re-reading. The only reason I didn't give it five stars is that I think the book could have gone a bit deeper into each presidency without adding too much length. It was just a bit too much this side of a tourist's guide to each presidency.

   But there are so many wonderful and new insights that I feel guilty for not giving it five stars. So, if you want, just imagine that I did give it the full five with this little caveat.




2. After reading and listening to "Taking Charge," which was about LBJ's secret tapes, I was expecting the audio version of "Inside the Oval Office" to use many more actual recordings. Instead, the reader reads transcripts of conversations. The tapes contain a few actual recordings but very few, about one per president. Inexplicably, it presents no actual recordings of Reagan, Bush or Clinton. This was a disappointment since I knew from listening to "Taking Charge" that actual recordings contain great insights into the men who inhabited the White House. A reader cannot possibly capture the nuances of language used by our 20th century presidents. There is a great difference between hearing a president's actual words and having them read from transcripts. However, the content of the book and audiotapes provide a facinating glimpse inside the oval office.



3. The "saskatoonguy" description of the book dated 24 April 01 pretty much nailed it on the head. The book is more about the personal and management styles of Presidents Roosevelt through Clinton. The reference to tape recordings is more of a come-on to attract readers. The recordings are more of a sidelight in this description of the administrative styles of the referenced presidents.

   In fairness, though, recordings were used minimally by Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower and the post-Nixon administrations shied away from recordings as well (although video recordings of certain events started under President Reagan). Only Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon made extensive use tape recordings and the first two still exercised control over what was recorded -- a practice that Nixon did not adopt and later regretted. The most memorable examples used were a couple of Johnson's recordings. A somewhat humorous recording, in spite of the tragic circumstances, was President Johnson's arm twisting his mentor, Senator Richard Russell of Georgia, into serving on the Warren Commission. Senator Russell despised Earl Warren. The second was a meeting to determine whether the Administration would commit 200,000 more troops to Vietnam where President Johnson finally decided to reverse his policy and start pulling back from that unpleasant and costly adventure.

   As for the descriptions of the administrations themselves, the book, in my opinion, is a testimonial to how too much emphasis is put on "qualifications" to be President. Each individual who has served in the Oval Office, including the current occupant and his successors, will have certain strengths and weaknesses that may prepare them well for the challenges that confront them, or not prepare them well at all. I always felt that in terms of "qualifications", Herbert Hoover was one of the most qualified men to serve as President. Under normal circumstances, his qualifications may have been adequate. But an economy plunging into a depression is not "normal". As much as I disliked President Carter, there is no disputing his intelligence. But he was so bogged down in learning what to do that he scarcely did anything at all (I do not agree with Mr. Doyle's revisionist attempt to portray the Carter Administration as being more than what it was, a failure). As Hoover was replaced by a visionary, so too was Carter. In terms of intellect, President Reagan does not rank very high. But he was successful in ways that his more "qualified" successor, George Bush Sr., could never understand. I also do not attribute the Clinton's Administration lack of cooperation with investigators to poor management practices that resulted in evidence being lost and unavailable until, conveniently, the investigation was over. I think deliberate obstruction of justice was a bigger factor.

   Although I supported George W. Bush in 2000 and would never, ever even consider voting for his opponent, I am not one of those who now claim how fortunate we are that he was president on 11 September 2001 and not Al Gore. I doubt anybody knows how a Gore Administration would have responded -- even Al Gore himself. No knock intended as it even took some time for the Bush Administration to recover and respond. If Al Gore was president, people would find certain aspects about his background and style that would be right for that crisis -- just as they did for George W. Although his response may have been different, the public would have supported his response if it was a strong response -- something considerably stronger than lobbing a few cruise missiles at an aspirin factory in a third world country.

   Bottom line: A good summary of the administrative and personal styles of Presidents Franklin Roosevelt through Clinton. However, if you are looking for more substance in terms of recordings, you will be disappointed.




4. It's a little mindblowing to realize such a historical resource exists: Recordings of presidents in the Oval Office discussing matters of state, negotiating with world leaders, and offering often-candidly caustic opinions of their contemporaries.

   While William Doyle's "Inside The Oval Office" is subtitled "The White House Tapes From FDR To Clinton," this is a misnomer. As others here point out, there's really only a trio of presidents that taped themselves at work with any regularity, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, and four more (Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, and Ford) that did so even at all. Reagan and Clinton both had video crews film some of their formal meetings, but Bush 41 and Carter avoided anything more involved than private diary tapings in recording the doings of their administrations.

   Despite the uneven nature of this record, Doyle tries his best to analyze each president's administration from a purely executive-managerial level, sometimes using the tapes as a guide but just as often relying on contemporaneous accounts and even interviews with people who were in the room with the various chief executives. The result is some fascinating portraits in miniature of the vastly different leadership styles America have elected to its helm.

   Doyle manages effective profiles of each man, but delivers the goods best on the ones, not surprisingly, who did the most taping. LBJ verbally bludgeons cowering senators to pass aggressive civil rights legislation and tells a pants manufacturer to give him some slacks with more room for his testicles, employing some decidedly earthy terminology in both instances. Kennedy and his Best and Brightest advisor team listen in on reports from Ole Miss while James Meredith is enrolled as a student there and the campus erupts into a combat zone. Nixon makes bizarre and angry pronouncements, half-commands and half-rantings, urging aides to spy on Kissinger when he suspects his chief diplomat is talking to the press.

   "Even with all their limitations, the Oval Office tapes do offer something no other source can: A real-time record of the presidents as executives in action as they manage the business of American history," Doyle writes.

   I heard my first Oval Office tape a couple of months ago at whitehousetapes.org, the first one ever made which features FDR holding a press conference in August 1940 and then, after the room is cleared, slyly slipping an aide some dirt on his Republican opponent, Wendell Willkie, apparently having forgotten he was wired for sound. That whole tape, just under an hour, is fascinating listening, even during that sometimes dry press conference where Roosevelt talks about American military preparedness and then apologizes to the lone female reporter before using the term "BVD," a brand of men's underwear the troops were being outfitted with.

   It would have been nice to read about filigree like that in this book, if it had been written as a tour guide of the mounds of tapes out there and all the strange secrets and bits of trivia they contain. You can't listen to all the tapes; Nixon alone made more than 3,000 hours of them. But something attempting to give shape to the vast treasure trove of Presidential tapings would have been more worthy of the title of this book.

   Please don't read that as a knock: Doyle does write a solid historical overview, complete with voluminous footnotes that should please the scholar as well as the casual reader. He manages the feat of presenting a very political setting in a way that is non-partisan yet zesty. He offers some interesting tidbits about each president you won't find in any other book, particularly Johnson, who agonized about Vietnam long before most anyone else did and was in many ways the Oval Office's most complicated man.

   "He was King Lear, Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde, Captain Ahab, Moses, and Grendel, all stuffed into a scratching, belching, blustering, six-foot two-inch 220-plus pound explosive package," as Doyle memorably puts it, yet Johnson was also a passionate humanitarian and patriot who, as caught on tape, once exclaimed the one thing he ever wanted in the world was "a little love."

   A good book, at times very very good, but one with a poorly-chosen subtitle.




5. We can nitpick and split hairs 'til the cows come home about the sub title, etc., but the simple fact is this: this is a great, great book. Very well written and researched and lots of good information on the (management/ administrative) styles of Presidents from FDR to Clinton. Quite a page turner and hard to put down; good photo section, too. This book will make you appreciate the job of the presidency even more, as well as certain specific presidents, in particular (i.e. JFK). Get this one asap!

No comments about Lincoln.

No comments about Lincoln's Moral Vision: The Second Inaugural Address.