5 comments about Franklin Pierce: Young Hickory of the Granite Hills.

1. Over the last several years I have read more than 25 presidential biographies, using Amazon readers' reviews to guide my selections. I was a bit reluctant to try this biography of Franklin Pierce; but, reading it was a pleasant surprise. I found Nichols' work to be well organized and very readable. He did a nice job of weaving together Pierce's private life, his politics, and the times. Pierce was often stymied by misfortune and occasionally by tragedy and was simply is not equipped to be a great leader. Pierce was a charming courtroom lawyer, the inevitable 19th century party stalwart, and became deeply religious, but he lacked the vision or skill to do much more than react to problems. Often, he falls prey to others' subterfuge. He became famous for vacillating from one position to another .
   
   The 1850's were a fascinating but difficult time The Whig Party collapsed, No Nothings rose and fell, the Republicans got their start, and sectionalism was often as important as party loyalty. The country's greatest statesmen - Jackson, Polk, Calhoun, Webster, and Clay - had died off. The US was attempting to come to grips with Western expansion and the opportunity to be a world power, but every foreign policy Pierce tried stalled or failed. He constantly misjudged the North's evolving opinions against slavery. During much of Pierce's administration the Executive and Legislative branches vied for supremacy. But neither branch had the leadership or vision to be effective, and perhaps no leader or party could have found a way to avoid the Civil War. Nichols' biography captures all of this and I strongly recommend it.



2. I just finished this book last night. I am reading one biography on every US President and this was my 30th to read. Unfortunately there are not many choices on this particular president. The book was first written in 1931 and therefore feels a little dated in its structure. I feel I know a lot more about Pierce now and I happen to agree with history's assessment of the man and his one term in office. While his commitment to the Union is beyond question, he does deserve some blame in the deteriorating state of domestic affairs during the decade leading to Civil War. He was a weak, indecisive executive and his decision to form his cabinet to represent all views of the democracy was the deathblow to his administration before it even began. It demonstrated his lack of commitment to one set of principles. In his defense, even the greatest president could not have avoided civil war for ever. Linclon was correct when he said that the union was destined to be either all slave or all free. War was inevitable but Pierce's lack of leadership did not help.
   
   His post presidency of 12 years is given very brief attention. And there is no examination of his relationship with Jefferson Davis either during the war or after the war. It is apparent from the book that Davis was one of his closest advisors. It is a very important relationship in American history that the President of the Confederate states had served as secretary of War in the US cabinet only 4 years before the war. An examination of how the war effected their relationship and what Pierce thought of Davis being the southern president isn't even mentioned.
   
   I would hope some modern author will revisit the subject of Franklin Pierce. Until then, this book is the best we have.



3. Roy Nichols, biography on little known President Franklin Pierce was insightful and extremely detailed. I will admit that of all the biographies I have read on each President in chronological order this so far has been the toughest read as far as maintaining my enthusiasm. I think that Mr. Nichols did the best he could with the material he had meaning that Franklin Pierce was inadequate to the task of being the President of the United States. He did not have the constitution, nor the fortitude to be a strong President and consequently in my estimation his lack of action on dealing with the Kansas/Nebraska act and the south contributed to the oncoming of the Civil War. However, while this is a tough read, I think anyone who wants a thorough understanding on the 14th President of the United States needs to read this biography. Again as in my other reviews I think this biography should be in every library, high school and university. Every American needs to understand the responsibilities that go with this high office and the need to elect men of integrity, and who are leaders morally and courageously. This book in my estimation is exhausted with detail on President Pierce and the reader needs to know that before starting.



4. I am currently reading a biography of every President in order. For Franklin Pierce the choices are limited and Roy Nichols book is the only option for a complete one volume biography (Garry Boullard's book deals with Pierce's post Presidency & Peter Wallner has just completed his two volume offering).
   
   Nichols has done a workman like job with his biography of Pierce and the depth and quality of his research is immediately apparent. This biography is intended as a scholarly level study for an academic audience and certainly succeeds in this objective. This is a comprehensive biography of Pierce with his Presidency receiving particulary detailed focus.
   
   The drawbacks of the book are that it is stylistically dated and the writing can get quite dull at times. The book also suffers somewhat from a fairly mechanistic presentation and better organization would have made the study easier for the reader to digest.
   
   Ultimately this book is a sufficiently detailed treatment of our 14th President and if you must read a one volume biography of Pierce I certainly recommend it. For those who don't mind a longer treatment, that is based on the most current research and has received favorable reviews, Peter Wallner's 2 volume offering might be a more appropriate choice. (While I have personally not read it, the reviews I have read were very favorable and the second volume "Martyr of the Union" is just now available.)



5. This book is poorly written. Worse, Nichols is not able to describe what events in the book mean to history in general or to Franklin Pierce in particular. I found myself frequently consulting the internet to find out what the social subtext was for events that the author describes in unnecessarily extensive, yet unhelpful detail.

5 comments about Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity: The Search for Saladin.

1. Excellent book! Any fair-minded person cannot deny the fact that Jinnah is one of the greatest political leaders from South Asia. I do realize that India-Pakistan tensions make it very difficult for both sides to accept Jinnah (for Indians) and Gandhi (for Pakistanis) as great leaders but both sides cannot deny these great men their due place in history.

   For an American reader, the book presents a fascinating story of a leader who single-handedly changed the course of history by creating a nation and a country in just one lifetime. The author rightly emphasizes the fact that Jinnah was a secular leader and demanded Pakistan on the basis of ground realities. I do agree with Jinnah's vision that a Hindu dominated society, with extreme elements on both sides, would have caused a civil war for decades to come. Hindu fundamentalism is on rise in India and burning of churches / mosques and killings of Christians / Muslims in various parts of India is very common. For example, last year 2000+ Muslims were killed (women raped, properties torched etc.) by Hindu mob (in just 2 days) in Indian state of Gujrat. I think the current sad plight of minorities in India (especially Muslims!) and Hindu fundamentalist BJP government in power clearly indicates that Jinnah was so right in demanding a separate homeland for his people and he did it with great success and got freedom for about 2/3 of Muslims of South Asia (living in Pakistan and Bangladesh).




2. The title of the book definitely gives the impression that it is one of the best attempts to reveal a lot of details about the life and times of Jinnah. The methodology used to present Jinnah and the idea of Pakistan is to some extent shameful. The use of derogatory tendencies towards some Indian leaders such as the Nehru and Edwina episode (no one knows if it is true) are quite typical of socio political writings emerging from Pakistan. These things were not warranted at least to portray the legal luminary and his notion of Pakistan. It throws an impression about the author trying to use the theory of self justification to portray such an important personality in the history of the Indian subcontinent. The portrayal of Muslims as tyrants towards Hindus and vice versa is not quite appropriate and once again seems typical of the socio political atmosphere there. A lot of facts (many of which are not accurate) about the political environment of the time is used to come to a conclusion about Jinnah. This does not surprise me considering the fact that so little has officially been documented about Jinnah by the Pakistani government itself. The book begins by trying to clear the air about various misconceptions about Jinnah's life. It would have been better off if the author could have done much research and laid down facts about the life and times of Jinnah rather than trying to drive to conclusions clearing the air and misconceptions. The author has definitely drawn a lot from personal interviews with Jinnahs close family members. However these have not been portrayed properly giving an impression that the author is trying to hide facts especially about Jinnah's true notions about Pakistan and the Islamic identity. One thing very cleverly hidden is Jinnah's personal and professional attachment with the city of Bombay. A lot many other literary works that have emerged about Jinnah have portrayed this angle very well and this book curiously seems to miss them. The attempt of gratification of the Quaid-e-Azam could have been handled in a much better way. The impression one gets is that the author has written the book keeping in mind the Pakistani audience.



3. If ever I had a chance to meet a personality from the past my first and only choice would be a chance to have an evening tea with Mr. Jinnah. Many times I have been approached by my fellow Pakistani citizens claiming that creation of Pakistan was a historical blunder of immense proportions. Their claim that in a unified India; a larger muslim minority would be better able to project their interests. After all emotional and rational explanations to the defense of Pakistan I recluse with a potent exclamation from my dad "Had I been in India I would have been a peon in a government office serving tea". My residence is in the Silicon Valley; which inhabits many residents from the sub-continent; interestingly enough out of the 1000's of desis I get in contact with I have only met with one muslim from India. His despairing accounts of continual police harassment; the unsaid discrimination at official levels and the lack of job opportunities there; has created a deeper conviction within me to philosophy of Pakistan. I am indebted to Mr. Jinnah for the gift he gave us all in the form of a state where we can freely partake in the pleasures of life often denied to the muslims to the east. If it had not happened I would be reading Anandamath (a tale of Hindu lords massacring muslims).
   
   Mr. Ahmed has accomplished a marvelous effort in the writings of Jinnah. He very clearly presents the general situation and tensions prevalent during the times; and the decisions that were made.



4. Reading this book character or Jinnah as well as Mr. Akbar Ahmed is exposed. This book is a desperate attempt of putting a positive twists on greed and cruelty of some of the Muslim leaders. Mr. Ahmed has no regards of other people or other cultures. He hails intolerance of leaders like Aurangzeb, Sheikh Ahmed Sirhindi, for practicing exclusive superiority of Muslims over non Muslims and condemns tolerant leaders like Akbar who was comparatively tolerant to non Muslims. He sees Muslim men marring non Muslim woman, in past, as pride of Islam and non Muslim man marring Muslim woman, in present times, as decline of Islam.
   
   He claims Jinnah was not as cold and arrogant as history makes him to be because
   he smiled when he met a British dignitary for the fist time
   he became emotional when his wife died
   "many of Jinnah's pictures in his biographies show him smiling"
   If this was best Mr. Ahmed could do to put a humane face on Jinnah, some one should have told him it might not work. some of the statements in the book are deliberately truncated to hide the truth while some are out right lies.
   eg. he writes " ..By losing half of the country in 1971" failing to mentioned what cause the 'losing', no mention what so ever why east Pakistan a Muslim majority chose to part away from west Pakistan creating Bangladesh.
   Lies like ".. Gandhi's son became Muslim". As he did not care to mention the first name it could be any Gandhi. But if Mr. Ahmed was talking about Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi he should have done some basic research before making such ridiculous claims. Research like this.
   http://www.gandhiserve.org/information/genealogical_table/page9/page9.html
   
   If such is a scorn for non Muslims, of this western educated scholar, Mr. Ahmed, one must wonder what hate and intolerance must be brewing in the madrasa educated Muslims around the world.
   
   Definatly a must read if you wish to understand mindset of some of the modern day 'muslim elites'. A waste of time if you need to learn something about Jinnah.



5. I would like to respond to your comments with respect to muslims in India. It a shame that you have only met 1 Indian Muslim in Silicon Valley...but have you ever thought why?
   Maybe because the 130 million + muslims in India have stayed in India, unlike the abundant Pakistani population that migrated West. I feel very bad for your Indian Muslim friend, who has suffered under the tyranny of Indian Hindu's. It strange, because my family, who are all Indian muslims, are very succesful and hold have very successful careers, my grandfather was the head architect of the state, my other grandfather was a civil engineer, head of his department, my aunt has a great job with a leading hotel, we have many relatives, who hold highly prominent and respectful positions in the government, army, and airforce. Its unfortunate that in 50+ years of Indian history the only 2 major communial riots heard in India, were of Babri Masjid and Godhra riots, but I must read 5 articles a year on sunni vs shia vs ahmadi vs ismaili vs christian violence in pakistan, the blessed muslim country.
   AS far as your tales of hindu lords massacring muslims, have you ever heard of a king named aurangzeb?, please read on the history of his massacring and forced converting. Thank god my grandparents stayed in India, where every religion is legal, and every person is a first class citizen. Please do your research before making statements based on the 1 indian muslim you have ever met. I have lived in India and Canada and I am as free to practice my religion in India as I am in Canada.
   Yours truly, Proud Muslim Indian, Jai Hind.

5 comments about Governor Reagan His Rise To Power.

1. Lou Cannon was a reporter for the San Jose Mercury-News and covered Reagan's eight years as governor in Sacramento. As a result, this book is based on many personal interviews with Reagan and his staff, detailed research, and several other published works on Reagan's early life.
   
   Cannon used an interesting approach in organizing the book with each chapter describing titled with one word that describes a "role" that Reagan played at that time in his life, such as Announcer, Actor, Conservative, Pragmatist, etc. He describes Reagan's youth and early career in the Midwest, narrates how he came to Hollywood, analyzes his films, and discusses his work with the Screen Actors Guild. He shows how Reagan's work with General Electric Theater was a key turning point for him to move into politicsl. In summary, he understands Reagan's character, motivation, and goals, which is no small feat, given Reagan's very private nature.
   
   Cannon is very fair in assessing Reagan, not taking political sides in the controversies of the day. He lays out Reagan's vision, as well as the pragmatic compromises that he was forced to make in the governorship. The book describes Reagan's six-year campaign for the his first presidential nomination in 1980 and ends with his electoral victory in 1980.
   
   The many stories and anecdotes told by Reagan make this book well worth reading, and Cannon's writing is highly interesting as well. Highly recommended.
   
   Be warned that Cannon's companion volume President Reagan: Role of a Lifetime is a much different and much lower-quality book. See my review of that book on its page.



2. This is a good start to anyone interested in how Ronald Reagan started his run for presidency. This runs through the governor years and ends with Reagan being elected to the presidency. The writing is decent but tends to drag in some places. Overall though if you are interested in Reagan or California history this is a great start to that history.



3. Lou Cannon is the dean of books on Ronald Reagan. Having followed Reagan's career from the very beginning, Cannon has the insight and first hand knowledge of California politics to make this book very good.



4. Cannon has made somewhat of a career out of covering Ronald Reagan in California and Washington, DC as he ascended from "citizen-politician" to Governor and then to President. This volume provides a brief biography of the citizen years, then covers the 8 years of Reagan's two terms in Sacramento (1967-1974).
   
   Written (and read) in hindsight, it is hard to separate the President to come from the governor who was, but Cannon does an excellent job of conveying the politics and progress of Reagan in his terms. Reagan had already started making the transition from acting to politics many years before, through his stints in leadership of the Screen Actor's Guild, his years working as a spokesman for General Electric, his years hosting the "General Electric Theatre" television program, and his time stumping for the Goldwater campaign in 1964.
   
   While Reagan gave a widely-praised and nationally-televised speech in support of Goldwater, the magnitude of the Goldwater defeat scarred Reagan with the same brush, and this "reactionary" label combined with his "citizen-politician" naivety contributed to the beginning of a pattern of underestimation by his political opponents. In fact, writes Cannon, Reagan was successful at being underestimated so often because he worked so hard at it as a political strategy (and one that stood him in good stead throughout his career).
   
   Reagan's terms as governor proved a valuable learning ground for Reagan, and honed his skills and exposed his weaknesses that would later be splashed large on the national stage. He learned quickly, but tended to latch on to insignificant or misplaced facts and statistics. He could learn and perform from a "script" quickly and adeptly, but could overreach when speaking off-the-cuff. He wanted to answer every question from reporters and opponents, but didn't always have the depth or breadth of knowledge to recognize when he was out of his element. He knew when to delegate, but sometimes over-delegated or failed to provide guidance or follow-up.
   
   Politically, he was of course conservative, but surprisingly willing to reach practical compromises. He was unswervingly optimistic and trusting (he relied on Nancy for more clear-eyed assessments of those around him). While he mangled the "trees are the worst polluters" idea and was branded an anti-environmentalist, his record as governor was surprisingly strong in practical environmental actions. While a fiscal conservative, he passed the largest (at the time) state tax in crease in California history. Considered an ideologue, he worked with Democrats in the California legislature (notably Jess Unruh and Bob Moretti) to pass difficult but necessary legislation on taxes, welfare reform, natural resources, and education. Moretti, an avowed enemy who remained at odds politically with Reagan, nevertheless said
   
   ' . . . he had a philosophy that he was willing to pursue, that he was willing to enunciate, that he was willing to attempt to push. And . . . he's a strong personality. . . . Leaders are people who are willing to take positions and stand up and fight for those positions. [Reagan] had an enduring desire to accomplish something, to leave something behind that really improved things.'
   
   Moretti's conclusion: Reagan "was a good governor ('better than Pat Brown, miles, and planets, and universes better than Jerry Brown'). (p. 366-367).
   
   In short, Ronald Reagan became a more than capable governor, and better, a leader with convictions and courage:
   
   "It was often said of Reagan, from his first campaign to his last, that he was an actor who knew how to deliver his lines. This was true, but Reagan also was an experienced politician with convictions and a plan of action that he believed would rescue a nation in need of leadership." (p. 503).
   
   Governor Reagan prepared President Reagan for a role of a lifetime.
   
   President Reagan The Role Of A Lifetime
   
   Note:
   
   I never read other reviews before I have written my own, and I was surprised to find that some reviewers down-rated this book because of Cannon's corrections to factual misstatements that Reagan made at different times in his career. Some reviewers felt this was unnecessarily biased against Reagan and damaging to the value of Cannon's book. I also noticed that many of the reviewers stated their political position, and that those who disliked Cannon's corrections of Reagan were typically conservative.
   
   I am politically conservative, voted for Reagan for President both times, was there on the Capital grounds that memorable Inauguration Day 1981 when the hostages were released, and believe that Ronald Reagan is the equal of either Roosevelt in the pantheon of great Presidents, just below the pinnacle of Lincoln and Washington. But that said, I do not believe that Cannon's corrections of Reagan detract from the book. Sure, all politicians stretch and bend statistics and "misremember" facts to suit their purposes, so one could defend Reagan against Cannon's finger-pointing by saying that "all politicians do it." But Cannon's calling out Reagan's biggest gaffes is fair in the hindsight of his Presidential terms because this was a consistent problem through Reagan's career for which he was justly criticized. Even a strong supporter like myself must admit it was Ronald Reagan's biggest weakness.
   
   Now, as I said at the top of my review, it is hard to separate the governor's actions (and faults) from the President's yet to come, and it would be unfair to criticize Governor Reagan for statements and situations to come later. But I don't feel that Cannon does this either explicitly or implicitly through any politically-driven motivation.
   
   After further review, the review stands as called.



5. Having not known Lou Cannon from a can of paint prior to reading this book, I had no idea that he was a left-leaning journalist. That became more clear as I read but I didn't think Cannon allowed his political leanings to impact his writing in the first of these two books. The second, I thought was a bit unfair at times, but the first was even handed.
   
   I really enjoyed the completeness of the first book. It covered Reagan's early life completely. I didn't know the details of his governorship, nor did I know about his involvement in the SAG and the republican party prior to 1976.
   
   Cannon appears to be the right guy to tell this story. He followed Reagan for many years and had a firsthand account of what went on. I would recommend the series first because it is complete and second because I think Cannon's analysis is pretty fair, especially in the first book.
   
   Reagan was a stud as a governor. I liked the way he handled the war protestors. I'm not as impressed with his environmental record but it appears that he tried to do the right thing - or at least what he thought was the right thing - most of the time and that counts for a lot in my book.

3 comments about That Man: An Insider's Portrait of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

1. As a long-time admirer of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, I am always intrigued by new books that are published regarding his life or his Presidency. A book from a contemporary source that has such "insider" knowledge of how FDR operated as Robert Jackson is a marvelous addition to the existing literature.

   Jackson does not make any promises at the outset of the book except to be objective, and he certainly does meet this goal. Jackson describes FDR as President, Commander-in-Chief, and a human being, outlining his strengths as well as his weaknesses. Jackson makes no excuses for the President when his policies and knowledge did not seem to be best for the country (Jackson even criticizes FDR for his lack of economic knowledge and business sense).

   I enjoyed Jackson's writing style (he is considered by many to be one of the best authors to ever sit on the Supreme Court of the United States), and I found that the book was easy to read.

   I highly recommend this book to anyone with an interest in President Franklin Roosevelt - the stories and anecdotes given in the text make it highly readable, and the examples Jackson provides to detail his points are always logical and related to the subject at hand.




2. This is a very interesting book which adds something of great value to the ever-growing mound of books on FDR. The fact that the manuscript was uncovered in a closet some 50 years after it was written is something for which students of FDR and presidential power can give thanks. It presents an entirely unique view and highly personal perspective on interacting with Roosevelt. Some of the most interesting discussion relates to interacting with FDR and his circle on an informal basis, such as on those fishing trips FDR savored. Also of great interest is the light the book throws on Jackson's own career--from the Treasury, to the SEC, then to Justice where successively Jackson was in the Tax Division, headed the Antitrust Division, became Solicitor General and Attorney General, and ultimately was elevated to the Supreme Court. Along the way we gain a fascinating perspective on such events as the Court Packing plan. The strongest chapter is on "That Man as Politician;" the most interesting "That Man as Companion and Sportsman." The editor has done an outstanding job in providing extensive notes, material from other sources to supplement the narrative, and in providing a biographical directory. But it is Jackson's own narrative skill that makes the book read so well. With a new major biography of Jackson himself on the horizon, this book becomes even more essential.



3. Robert H. Jackson's insightful and previously unpublished observations of FDR in his presidency appear and are notated in Professor Barrett's THAT MAN in a very readable arrangement. Here is a true and objective account by one who was there and witnessed the inside of the FDR years in the White House. These Jackson writing's being posthumous adds rarity and validity to the work, making it a true find for serious Roosevelt and Roosevelt period historians.

No comments about Jefferson & His Time.

3 comments about The Juggler: Franklin Roosevelt As Wartime Statesman.

1. An outstanding contribution to World War Two diplomatic history, Warren Kimball lays to rest one of the old chestnuts common to most people - that Franklin D. Roosevelt, the domestic reformer, had no consistent foreign policy, merely reacting to events. Weaving humour, deft insight, an unparalleled knowledge of the sources (Mr. Kimball is the editor of the FDR-Churchill correspondence) and diplomatic history together wonderfully, the Juggler is one of the central texts for anyone looking at the wartime Grand Alliance.



2. In The Juggler, Warren Kimball attempts to paint a new picture of FDRýs foreign policy. Warren Kimballýs thesis is that FDR had a vision for his foreign policy and did not merely react to events but attempted to craft a post-World War II world. From Lend-Lease to World War II, Kimball argues that FDR was consistent in his beliefs and desires. As a politician, FDR (unlike President Wilson) was willing to compromise to ensure his dream would come to pass.
   
   The tragedy was the FDRýs vision was beyond humanity. Like Communism, he thought that the utopian ideal would allow humanity to transcend our weaknesses. War would no longer be profitable so nobody would want to wage it. This vision went beyond his grasp to attain. He did succeed (whether it was he doing or merely the geopolitical realities of the Russian threat) in ensuring that the UN would be founded and that the US would continue its presence in world affairs.
   
   Warren Kimball wrote an important book to dispel the preconceptions of FDRýs foreign policy. Despite contradictions and vague notions, FDR did have a larger vision and didnýt spent his Presidency merely reacting to foreign events.



3. Chapter one of this splendid book begins with this incredibly revealing remark that FDR made on May 15, 1942:
   
   "You know I am a juggler, and I never let my right hand know what my left hand does.... I may have one policy for Europe and one diametrically opposite for North and South America. I may be entirely inconsistent, and furthermore I am perfectly willing to mislead and tell untruths if it will help win the war."
   
   Franklin Roosevelt was a very charming man. He was so agreeable to so many different people and interests. But as one historian put it, behind that charming mask was a cunning mind. FDR had the perfect temperament to direct World War II foreign operations. It may not have always been obvious what he was up to, but look at the results he achieved.
   
   Another historian titled his FDR biography "The Lion and the Fox." Another historian compared FDR's sly foreign policy to that of looking into a kaleidoscope. You cannot see how the patterns are forming... unless you take apart the kaleidoscope and see its hidden methods.
   
   This brief book takes apart the kaleidoscope. It was written by Warren Kimbell, one of the greatest foreign policy historians of the World War II era, after a long and distinguished academic career. He was the editor of the correspondenses between Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt.
   
   The text itself is brief - only 200 pages. The writing is interesting and concise. The footnotes are extensive - 77 pages - and loaded with useful tidbits. The book mentions the interpretations of several different foreign policy experts and highlights the most credible.
   
   The book uses fourteen chapters to describe Roosevelt's strategies in several different arenas. For example, one focuses on Lend-Lease. Another focuses on Casablanca. Another part mentions FDR's ant-colonialism viewpoint. Another details FDR's vision for a safer, more secure post-war world.
   
   Kimball describes Roosevelt's foreign policy as "Americanism," which was a profound change from America's role in the world before FDR came to power. Read this book to find out what he means.

2 comments about A Higher Purpose: Profiles in Presidential Courage.

1. If Ronald Reagan's firing of the air traffic controllers is included in the book, I might actually by it. If not, you couldn't give the book to me.



2. Nine historic decisions made by Presidents over two centuries of American history chart key episodes which show how these presidents demonstrated the ability to place their political careers on the line for the greater good of the nation they served. Chapters consider how these principles thwarted partisanship, special-interest influences and even public opinion, and make for an important survey key to any library strong in political science.
   
   Diane C. Donovan
   California Bookwatch

4 comments about FDR: The New Deal Years 1933-1937.

1. I bought this book on a flyer in 1987, read it once and put it on the shelf. During a televised Clinton address from the Oval Office, I noticed on the credenza behind him "FDR: The New Deal Years" in its distinctive silver and red jacket. Well, if its good enough for the White House...so I read it again, and now understand why it stood on the President's desk. It's an outstanding work of narrative history. Volume one was awarded the Francis Parkman Prize, but this is clearly the next best in Davis's monumental five volumes on FDR and his times. It is a lively depiction of the New Deal and its famous characters, including Louis Howe, Harry Hopkins, the Brain Trust, Eleanor and Sara Delano all orbiting around the Sun King FDR. It is also an excellent analysis of how outright revolution was avoided and our capitalist system preserved in the darkest hours. But most of all it is an enjoyably facinating portrait of the man who everyone wanted to be near but almost no one, not even Eleanor, really knew.



2. This really is a remarkable book and outstanding contribution to FDR scholarship. All of the books in this series are probably the best books on the life and times of Franklin Roosevelt, but I think this is one is the best.

   In this, the second volume in the series Davis explores just how much of the early stages of FDR's presidency owed to his career as governor, how his concerns as governor of the state of New York were later transfered from Albany to Washington. Concerns with conservation and the power monopolies in these years were later to serve as the springboard for a number of New Deal initiatives.

   Anyone wishing to learn more about the greatest president of the 20th century should look no further than this series of books by Mr. Davis. Sadly, Mr. Davis did not live to bring the series to its logical conclusion in 1945. Had he done so, this would be the definative study of FDR. As things are, it is likely to be the best biography for many years to come, despite some problems with vol. 4 and its premature conclusion.




3. Some people claim that Arthur Schlesinger wrote the definative history of the New Deal and FDR back in the 1950s. These same people probably are unfamiliar with this wonderful book by Kenneth Davis.

   This is not just a history of the period of 1933-37, but an extended mediatation on how we are a nation are going to respond to the changes brought about by industrialization.

   Do not be put off by this last statement because Davis is an excellent writer, historian and philosopher. The best part of this book deals with how social security came to be shaped in the form that it finally was. How all manner of elements came together for the legislation to be written. It is just remarkable.

   Davis is evenhanded in this book and in the series as a whole. He identifies FDR's triumphs but at the same time is willing to be critical when he feels the actions warrent it.

   Davis and his series have been recognized repeatedly although I believe that they probably were not given the praise that this series deserved. They are simply the best thing to be written on FDR by a historian.




4. Life was hard here at home for most people in the 1930s, but most especially those who depended on the land for food and sustenance. His New Deal ruined the farming industry and now we are indepbted to other countries for the majority of our food, soon to be medicines also. Huey Long would have made every man a 'King' in his own home, but that was not to be. We have no kings in the USA, only politicians.
   
   TVA was developed in the Thirties with all the many dams built in Tennessee and Alabama to harnass the wild Tennessee River. I wish he had picked the Mississippi and left Tennessee along. I was born at the forks of the rivers where the Tennessee began, and that is not such a good heritage. TVA is still run by the government, but it has seen its time. It is obsolete. Like Johnson's Grand Illusion, Roosevelt's New Deal was just a political ploy to win the election.
   
   We all know that the Great Depression started in 1932. In August, 1934, Utah became t he 36th state to ratify the 21st amendment, ending Prohibition. Made Jack happy, though he hadn't been born for 20 more years. In July, 1934, the bank robber Dillinger was gunned down by government men as he leaves a Chicago theater -- betrayed by a woman in red, whom he trusted. Just proves you can't trust those women who like to show off. Bonnie and Clyde had been killed a couple of weeks previously. Why didn't they come on to Knoxville and catch Billy the Kid was he escaped across the Gay Street bridge? In September, 1934, the Dust Bowl in Oklahoma sent lots of people moving from that hell hole to California where the dreamers and schemers had congregated. They crossed the deserts not for the Gold Rush this time but for jobs and money to pay the exorbinant prices for vegetables and meats they were not allowed to grow on their own anymore, delcation of the U.S. Government, which is still in effect today in some areas.
   
   Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal (due to the assassination of Huey Long of Louisiana on September 8, 1935 -- exactly 71 years ago) took effect. FDR was the first American president who did not think in terms of this country being a place set apart from the rest of the world. He had the foresight to see the future of Europe, and especially England (with the help of Churchill), as being closely tied to the future of the USA. According to Mr. Vaughan in 'Hard Times,' there were many isolationists in Congress and the Senate who would, if they could, separate the globe into two halves.
   
   The number one box office draw for 1934 in Hollywood films was Will Rogers, followed closely by Clark Gable; on down the list of major stars were Mae West and Joan Crawford. It was a grand place back then. In 1936, Eugene O'Neill won the Nobel Prize for Literature. His plays included "Anna Christie" and "Desire Under the Elms," both were later made into wonderful movies.
   
   In 1938, Orson Welles played his radio stunt reading H. G. Wells' 'The War of the Worlds.' ONe local radio station here plays it every Halloween night as that is when the great Orson scared this country to death almost. June 4, 1940, Hell is Dunkirk. Roosevelt was just the president we needed to work with Winston Churchill of England whose parentage was half American. However, it took Truman to have the bomb dropped to stop the war.

5 comments about Inside Hitler's Bunker: The Last Days of the Third Reich.

1. While not as thorough as Anton Joachimstahler's or James P. O'Donnell's works on Hitler's last days, Fest provides a good introduction to the last month of Hitler and Nazi Germany's lives. The book somewhat bounces around between Hitler, the Soviet onslaught, and conditions in Berlin, but Fest does a pretty good job of balancing these and writing a readable book. Again, not the most detailed of accounts, but a good intro.



2. I wish that I had read the negative reviews of this book and avoided it. This is a very poorly done account of Hitler's final days in the bunker. The book is poorly written, lacks linear progression, and provides an erratic treatment of the subject. The text itself is cobbled together in piecemeal fashion from other books on the subject - there seems little original here. Quotes about Hitler are often made without attribution leaving the reader to wonder whose opinion was being posited. Fest writes pages and pages of filler material consisting of his own amateur psychoanalysis of Hitler which adds nothing to the record and further sidetracks this work.
   
   If you wish to read an engaging and informative account of Hitler's final days, skip Fest's book and read instead the book written by Hitler's secretary Traudle Junge's or Ian Sayer and Douglas Botting's book The Women Who Knew Hitler which chronicles Hitler's last days extremely well.



3. Fest's haunting description of the last days of the Third Reich is a magnificent accomplishment. Despite its brevity, Fest manages to weave larger historical issues into a narrative full of surreal, compelling details about the Nazis' end. There are the evocative stories of Berlin in turmoil: SS patrols summarily hanging whoever they felt was a shirker, citizens struggling to survive in the shelled-out ruin of a city, the Soviet encirclement growing ever closer. Meanwhile, inside the Hitler's bunker, the story of delusion and denial grew ever more fantastical -- Hitler commanding generals to counterattack the Russians with army units existing in his imagination, and growing more and more furious with their "betrayals" as the Russian advance still came on.
   
   The story arrives ultimately at the Russian approach to the bunker and the suicides of Hitler, Eva Braun, and the inner circle. Their grimly nihilistic end, burned in a trashheap, paralleled their desire for the same fate for Germany. Hitler wanted Germany to go down with him. That so many in Berlin actually did follow him in suicide, or fighting the Russians to the end against suicidal odds, seems now almost too bewildering to believe. Fest's book is bleak, but in a straightforward journalistic style argues why the end in the bunker was the culmination of Hitler's theatrical, nihilistic vision.



4. James O'Donnell's "Bunker" is the authoritative history of the Fuhrerbunker. Even Mr. Fest acknowledges that in his Bibliography notes. "Inside Hitler's Bunker" is cursory, superficial and unoriginal and it escapes me that there can be any reason this book was written except to make a quick buck off of unwary readers. It's a joke. Avoid it at all costs.



5. Inside Hitler's Bunker is a good introduction to the final days of the Second World War from the Nazi perspective - a horrific denoument to a great crisis in world history as Hitler and his cohorts, realising defeat was inveitable, still pursued a grand Wagnerian ending until the last. Berlin was in ruins, thousands were dying by the day, the Red Army were marauding in from the East. And Hitler, a 'cake gobbling wreck', shattered by events, bloodily ended it all along with his wife.
   
   This is a short, journalistic history, mainly from secondary sources, with a good deal of speculative rumination. It is not a deep scholarly book. It will appeal as an introduction to the topic, interspersed with some interesting pictures of the war ravaged Berlin, and inside the Bunker itself.

No comments about The Art of Command: Military Leadership from George Washington to Colin Powell (None).