No comments about School House to White House: The Education of the Presidents.

5 comments about Until the Final Hour: Hitler's Last Secretary.

1. Traudl Junge's recollection of her services to Adolf Hitler as one of his personal secretaries from 1942-45 proves to be relatively honest and entertaining. While I have read some of her views on Hitler scattered around in many books on Hitler and his inner circle, this volume was the first time all of her perception can be found. It pretty clear by Junge's recollection that Hitler had two totally different personality types. One personality type can be classically called the "Fuhrer" personality and the other one can be regarded as a more "private man" personality. It pretty obviously that Junge mainly dealt with the "private man" instead of the manaical Fuhrer.
   
   The author and the her editor appears to go out of their way to paint Junge as a naive and clueless young woman. Many of the reviewers also painted her in the same light. But it seem like this train of thought lies in the perception of hindsight and afterthought. Its appears very clearly that Junge, like so many of her fellow Germans (military and civilian alike) spent much the war with blinders on. Its hard to condemned some one like Junge for working for Hitler. Whether we like it or not, Hitler was the legitimate head of the German government and even if Hitler turned out to be the greatest war criminal of all times, I don't think Junge was in the position to judge Hitler or even second guess him during the time of her employment.
   
   From her narrative, it pretty easy to see Junge as a woman who was charmed by Hitler's softer side and her desire to do a good job for a good boss and at the same time, trying to fit into the world she ended up in. Since all this was written back in 1947 while her memories remains fresh and her feeling haven't been compromise by the collective German guilt complex, I would say that what she wrote proves to be a rather honest, true to her conviction of her services to Hitler. Her views on Hitler does show a side of Hitler that should probably frighten any sane historian. A man appears to be truly human in Junge's eyes when most of the world see him as some sort of inhuman monster of alien cruelty.
   
   If there was any weakness to the book, I think Junge didn't go far enough in her recollections regarding many members of Hitler's inner circle. Her descriptions appears too generic. It would have been nice if she could have gotten into bit more detail about her Soviet captivity.
   
   I believe that this should be a mandatory reading material for any one interested in Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich. It paints an unusual portrait of Hitler in full account and even if you have read some of Junge's recollections in other books, this book put it all into a singular focus.



2. Trauld Junge was a very clever and strong woman but obviously she never indulged herself in asking many questions about the Nazis during her lifetime as secretary of Hitler. Such blindness is confusing but it explains very well why the Nazis succeeded so well in enthralling millions of Germans like Frau Junge. Having said that her "Memoirs" are full of interesting details about how was life close to the Führer. And to tell the truth it was not bad at all although a bit boring notably in the social life at the Berghof. This book makes Hitler almost sympathetic to the reader. It is only at the end that Frau Jung realized what sort of monster Hitler and his henchmen were. This late consciousness of a harsh reality will haunt her for the rest of her life and it will prevent her to be ever again a happy woman. But for the curious reader, this book offers tons of juicy and well observed details and anecodtes and gives a very credible painting of the life within the heart of the Nazi establishment. Fascisnating.



3. First of all I would like to correct a statement made elsewhere that this book was previously published in 1989 under the title Voices From The Bunker. That volume, reviewed elsewhere under its title, was co-written by Pierre Galante, author of The Berlin Wall, Operation Valkyrie, The General, and Malraux, as well as being a writer for Paris Match, and Eugene Silianoff, a one-time Bulgarian diplomat who was working in Switzerland during WW II and who has also contributed to Paris Match.
   
   In their volume they do refer often to Traudl Humps who, at age 22, still dreamed of becoming a prima ballerina, right up to the day in 1942 when she got a job as one of Adolf Hitler's private secretaries.
   
   But this book is HER account of those days, culled from her journal which she began writing in 1947 following exhaustive questioning by the Western Allies and the Soviets, and was co-written with Melissa Muller who provides the background. The name Junge was the result of her brief marriage to one of Hitler's valets, Hans Junge of the Liebstandarte SS, who was killed in action in the year following their wedding.
   
   To the time of her own death at age 81 on February 10, 2002, shortly after the book's launch under its original title of To The Last Hour, she claimed that her appreciation of the momentous and horrendous events going on around her never really struck home until the years immediately following the war. When she started jotting down her thoughts in 1947 she did so from the perspective of one who had no choice but to acknowledge her naivety and who now realized she would have to live the rest of her life with the guilt of actually having been fond of "the greatest criminal ever to have lived."
   
   When she worked for Hitler she'd found him to be a "pleasant older man and a good employer" - was naturally fascinated by this charismatic character - but recalls her duties as being mostly the taking of shorthand and then the typing of non-controversial material, and at times helping to make tea.
   
   There are many who scoff at her oft-stated ignorance of the holocaust and other monumental war crimes during her days as a secretary but, whether or not you choose to believe her claims, her book detailing that part of her life offers a fascinating insight into the day to day functions, and the slow but steady mental and physical deterioration, of one of history's most evil men. It certainly will be the last first-hand account by a member of his inner circle.
   
   In addition to touching upon the powerful people around him, and relating daily routine, she describes in chilling detail the events of April 28, 1945. With Russian artillery shells pounding the outer portion of the bunker in Berlin, ironically being defended by the Charlemagne SS Division made up primarily of Frenchmen, Hitler called her in to dictate his last will and testament. He told her to "make three copies and then come in ... I wrote as fast as I could ... my fingers worked mechanically and I was surprised that I hardly made any typing mistakes."
   
   This is typical of the information imparted in her book and, as such, it's a great companion to Voices In The Bunker. But it's not the same book.



4. Of course Adolf Hitler's personal secretary's personal memoirs will be of immediate importance and fascination to historians, WWII buffs, and scholars who appreciate personal testimonials.
   
   This English translation shows a young woman of Bavarian heritage caught up in the whirlwind of the Second World War as Hitler's personal secretary. From this vantage point we see a woman whose adolescence and early adulthood were permeated with the isolation of Germany, propaganda, and an unquestioning optimism and girlish naivete--even as she marries an SS officer in 1943, she has yet to realize the horrors of war, insulated as she is from the "realities" of the two-front war.
   
   In this excellent translation from the German, she gives a riveting account of her seemingly benign, at times hypochondriacal and paranoid employer, who spends his spare time seeking to breed his German Shepherd "Blondi" and receives daily injections to maintain his "up" mood and seemingly infinite energy. Only some time after the assassination attempt of July 20, 1944 does he temporarily become bedridden with a seemingly melancholic depression.
   
   The banality of everyday life in the Headquarters of the Fuehrer is astonishing, given the conflagration surrounding the Greater German Reich from 1939 to 1945. Daily teas, hesitations by top officers and Hitler to tell her of her husband's death, all bespeak of an odd "normalcy" in the eye of the hurricane that will ultimately swamp Berlin. Ms. Junge's account is also devoid of much affect (as are the interviews shortly before her death)--one wonders how she escaped much attention following the war given her position; yet, she has little to say about the evil aims spelled out in "Mein Kampf" and executed efficiently following the Wannssee Conference in suburban Berlin in late January, 1942.
   
   While many books lose immediacy in the translation, this excellent translation from the German is edited well and will serve as the definitive memoir in English translation. Comprehension will be helped by familiarity with the characters involved in Hitler's everyday life--from Fegelein to Frau Christian, from his personal cook (Frau Manziarty, who must provide his vegetarian sustenance) to the highests General staff--Keitel, Bormann, Goebbels, Canaris, Doenitz, and the like.
   
   Most highly recommended!



5. This book is a must for anyone tring to decipher the insanity and environment of Hitler during his regime. It provides a look at this monster as he tried to live something of a normal life while at the same time destroying the life of all but those he considered to be the "priviliged" race.

No comments about The Three Kentucky Presidents: Lincoln, Taylor, Davis.

2 comments about Mao: A Reinterpretation.

1. Lee Feigon's book is not an in-depth analysis of the underlying Chinese and western political philosophies that influenced Mao. (For intro into that, see the outstanding _Maoism and Chinese Culture_ by Zongli Tang and Bing Zuo for the diverse Chinese philosophic influences; Maurice Meisner's and Nick Knight's writings for two opposing takes on the nature of Mao's Marxism; Stuart Schram for a general overview; Anita Andrew and John Rapp for an argument that Mao's ruling style was native autocracy). Feigon chooses to focus on the narrower questions--Was Mao China's Stalin, and his intra-party opponents always more benevolent? Was the Cultural Revolution simply a repeat of Stalin's purges of the late 1930s, or was their some other purpose?
   
   In the 1970s, it was trendy to uncritically praise Mao's China as a new kind of society where everyone selflessly struggled for the common good and avoided the usual social blights associated with development. Even those with a more balanced view still understated the repressive side. Through the mid-1980s a more ambivalent view prevailed. Now, the common view is that Mao was a monster like Stalin who pushed more reasonable leaders like Liu Shaoqi out of the way in the process of destroying China. Some even say Mao was much worse than Stalin. Feigon's purpose is to argue against this new popular view. He does so well, but the book lacks balance, which is a significant flaw, and the fact that others like Jung Chang, Jasper Becker, Zhengyuan Fu or Steven Mosher are polemical in the other direction is no justification, nor is the fact that most people have heard that side repeatedly already. For this kind of subject matter, one should write assuming the book may be the only book on the subject for a particular reader.
   
   Half of this book is a biography of Mao and a history of the Chinese revolution up to 1949. It seems directed at those with only a moderate degree of knowledge about 20th century China. Yet for the well read, a few conventional wisdoms are debunked. For more detail on this period, see Philip Short's biography.
   
   For the post-1949 period, Feigon argues that: a) Mao and the PRC were Stalinist through 1957, after which Mao tried to break with Stalinism b) The break with Stalinism left an important residual impact that indirectly contributed to the struggle for democracy and modernization.
   
   Feigon describes the establishment of a Soviet-style state in the early to mid-1950s, and how the 1956 "Hundred Flowers" period was a minor and very limited break with this model. The party pressured Mao to let them silence those daring to criticize the infallible Leninist vanguard. Unsurprisingly, Mao caved and endorsed the "anti-rightist" witch hunts of 1957-58, led with great relish by Deng Xiaoping. The "pragmatists" used the campaign to silence intellectuals and repress workers, even though Mao had insisted that workers be free to strike (later having it written into the constitution, which Deng removed in 1982).
   
   In the Cultural Revolution chapter, Feigon argues that Mao, realizing how entrenched and elitist the party's bureaucracy had become, came to believe only a period of (managed) mass rebellion could shake things up enough to prevent the permanent Sovietization of the PRC. Though Feigon concedes that the CR did not leave any lasting new institutions that could serve as even a basis for future democratic reforms, he argues for two positive political legacies of the CR: 1) a weakened bureaucracy 2) permanent infusion into the political culture the idea that the people have a right to criticize or rebel against autocratic or corrupt officials. Even the exiled dissident intellectual Fang Lizhi acknowledged the latter (though doesn't give Mao credit). The CR also wiped out a lot of rural illiteracy, bridged the rural/urban health care gap, and left a basic industrial base for the reformers to build on.
   
   This argument has some validity, but is oversimplified. There was a lot of bottom-up populism, and the conservative (party-defending "red class") red guards were different from the rebel (anti-pre-CR officials) red guards and worker rebel groups, an often ignored fact. (The latter were the primary victims of the CR, at the hands of the anti-CR army). However, there was also a lot of unprincipled horizontal factional warfare (Andrew Walder has recently challenged the class-based "social interpretation" for Beijing). And more crucially, Mao was apparently no great friend of the rebels, double crossing them repeatedly and doing nothing to prevent their large scale repression and massacre. (For more on this, see Anita Chan "Dispelling Misconceptions About the Red Guard Movement", Journal of Contemporary China, Fall 1992; and Peter Moody Jr.'s follow-up, Fall 1993, and the classic volume on the CR by Hong Yung Lee). Further, exactly how anti-bureaucratic was Mao? The post-1969 reconstructed bureaucracy remained as enormous, intrusive, and arbitrary as ever (though particular rural micro examples can be found to support the argument, e.g. Han Dongping's village study, which Feigon cites extensively).
   
   Should Mao get at least a little credit for planting the seeds of populist anti-Stalinist outlooks, even if he betrayed them, because others took them much further in 1974, 1976, 1979-80, 1989 and 2002, or was it all just a Legalist power play? This is an interesting question debated by scholars on Mao and the CR. Feigon's book is a contribution, though one-sided.



2. Mao: A Reinterpretation is a new political biography of Mao which provides a different view of the leader as a committed revolutionary who contributed to China's history and culture. The real Mao wasn't a genius, nor the evil leader later biographies have portrayed. This reinterpretation examines both his life and the lasting effects of his ideals.

No comments about To the Vice Presidency (Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation, Vol. 1).

No comments about Roosevelt and Howe.

5 comments about Touched With Fire: Five Presidents And The Civil War Battles That Made Them.

1. In his latest book, Touched With Fire: Five Presidents and the Civil War Battles that made them, James M. Perry has given us a glimpse into the wartime efforts and heroics of five men who later occupied the Oval Office of the White House.

   Presidents Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Harrison, and McKinley were all soldiers in the Civil War, and all had exposure to enemy fire at some point during the war (Hayes was wounded four separate times during the course of the war, though none of his injuries was life-threatening).

   In my opinion, Perry has given us a good reading of Civil War history, including an introduction to some battles that are not often heard of (such as Garfield's involvement at The Big Sandy Valley battle in Kentucky). However, Perry gives short shrift to U.S. Grant, who was the only professional military officer to become President, and to McKinley, who was but an 18 year old Private when he enlisted at the outbreak of the war.

   Perry's writing is lively, and gives the reader a nice vision of what was going on not only on the battlefield, but also in the minds of these five men. He closes the book by giving us a brief glance into the political careers (however short, bland or corrupt their administrations may have been) of these men as well.

   I enjoyed reading the recounts of the battles and the actions taken by these men immensely, and I would highly recommend the book to anyone that is looking for a good understanding of the military years of Garfield, Hayes, or Harrison. With the shortcomings given to Grant and McKinley, I think that a more exhaustive biography would better provide an adequate picture of their wartime activities.




2. James M. Perry's "Touched With Fire" is a highly readable popular history of the wartime service of the five U.S. Presidents who were veterans of the Civil War. The story of U.S. Grant is well-known, but Perry performs a real service for Civil War fans in illuminating the careers in uniform of Rutherford B. Hays, James Garfield, Benjamin Harrison, and William McKinley. With the exception of Grant, a West Point graduate with prior service in the regular Army during the Mexican War, each of the other four was caught up from civilian life by the outbreak of war, served in volunteer Midwest infantry regiments, and turned out to be brave and reasonably competent officers. McKinley initially enlisted but earned a battlefield commission. Each was noted for bravery and battlefield leadership. Of each it could be said that their wartime service was critical to their post-war political careers. Of the five, only McKinley was a successful President, although in fairness, Garfield served only a few months before being assassinated.
   
   What may be of topical interest for the present day reader is Perry's commentary on how deeply the prosecution of the war divided the North. A significant fraction of Northern politicians and their followers opposed the war effort, whether on grounds of sympathy with the Confederacy, partisan rivalry with the newly ascendant Republican Party, a distaste for the liberation of slaves, or exhaustion over the high cost in blood and treasure of combat. The desperate political infighting necessary to push to completion President Lincoln's agenda of reuniting the country and freeing the slaves translated into a post-war landscape in which the Republicans waved the "bloody shirt of rebellion" at the Democratic Party to win all but two Presidential elections between 1868 and 1908. Like any other era of politics, power tended to corrupt, and the "Gilded Age" of the late 1800's was renowned for its corrupt political practices.
   
   "Touched By Fire" is easily accessible to the general reader; Perry's narrative is entertaining and backed by solid if generally derivative scholarship.



3. This is a book we Civil War fans needed. Grant,Hays,Garfield,Harrison and Mckinley. I think Chester Arthur also served but he wasn't in any battles. Being from Cumberland Maryland it's interesting to note that Mckinley and Hays were both in town the night Crook and Kelly were captured by McNeils rangers. Hays is probably the most combat experienced, himself being at South Mountain and The Shenandoah. Harrison was with Sherman in Georgia but was at the Battle of Resaca a pretty intense battle itself. Garfield saw some fighting in Kentucky and Chickamauga and Mckinely was at Antietam and Shenandoah. But you should read the story it's quite good and i guarantee adventure on every page.



4. I am a big fan of Civil War histories. I have more than 75 fiction and non-fiction Civil War books on my bookshelf (mostly non-fiction) so I am hardly a newbie to this area. When I comment that this is a new angle, I an really saying something.
   
   It's not that James M. Perry has uncovered new documents or new information, but he has re-shuffled the "same old" information into a new pattern. In this case, he has focused on the five Presidents that fought in the Civil War. Perry includes a modest pre-war biography of each of the men and then goes into greater detail on their war experiences. The level of detail is neither skimpy nor excessive - he strikes a nice balance.
   
   As a group, they all had many things in common. To a man, they all became competent officers of brevet Major or higher, they all had extensive combat experience in the Western theater (although Hayes and his men were transferred to the Eastern theater) and they were all Republican (Perry does point out that the Democrats did run Civil War veterans, but none were successful).
   
   Mercifully, Perry does not cover the entire career of U.S. Grant since his Civil War biography would essentially be a re-telling of the war itself and his war biography would dwarf those of the other four combined. Instead, he begins with Grant at Forts Henry and Donelson and only chooses to include him again when he interacts in the lives of the other four. The other four are hardly a homogeneous group, despite all being Republicans. Their temperaments range from stoic and quiet to loud and openly scheming. Their ages range from 18 to 38 and previous military experience range from a West Point education to none at all.
   
   Perry includes a chapter at the end telling the post-war political history of each of the five men which is also a basic history of Gilded Age politics. Perry points out the powerful influence that Civil War veterans groups such as the Grand Army of the Republic had.
   
   Interesting. Easily accessible. Worth the read by Civil War buffs and devotees of the Presidency.



5. Most of this book is very interesting but there are a few slow areas. Even so it is worth the read. A wonderful glimpse into the military lives of our Civil War Veteran presidents, from the General to the private.

4 comments about Tony Blair: Prime Minister.

1. With the advent of what may become the second Gulf War, Tony Blair-Prime Minister is a comprehensive biography of the leader of America's closest ally. Prime Minister Tony Blair is an unlikely choice to be the foreign leader closest to President George W. Bush. British Journalist, John Rentoul has written about the rise and times of Tony Blair from his roots in a middle class British family to that of a rising socialist politician who became leader of the "New" Labor Party and Prime Minister of Great Britian.

   Rentoul traces Blair's family and their political leanings. Blair's father Leo Blair was born to a pair of actors and given to a James and Mary Blair in Glasgow. Leo Blair as a teenager was a member of the Scottish Young Communist League and had ambitions to become a Communist Member of Parliment. However, after service in World War II as a member of the Royal Signal Corps, Leo Blair underwent a political conversion. Upon leaving the military he became a member of the Conservative Party. Leo Blair married Blair's mother Hazel from a strongly Protestant family from County Donegal while working at the Ministry of National Insurance in Glasgow. Leo Blair studied law eventually becoming a lecturer in Administrative Law at the University of Adelaide in Australia and eventually the University of Durham in Durham. Leo Blair eventually became a practicing barrister and active in the local Conservative Party.
   Tony Blair was the second of three children. He is described as being the child most like his father Leo.

   In the opening chapter of the book it states "Tony Blair's political ambition began at age of eleven, when his father Leo's ended, on 4 July 1964. At the age of forty, at the height of his political powers and looking for a Conservative parlimentary seat, Leo Blair had a stroke."

   However, the book indicates that many of Blair's acquaintances during his school and law school years were suprised when he decided to become active in politics. Blair was not a member of any political clubs while in school or in-between. Blair had been a singer and manager of a rock n roll band "The Ugly Rumors", had long hair and a van. Unlike his American political counter parts, he never experimented with drugs, smoked marijuana or was seen drunk. In response to the question of whether he ever smoked marijuana, he said no, but if he had "he would have inhaled" in a jab at his friend President Bill Clinton.
   One of the suprising discoveries found in the book about Tony Blair is his Christian Socialism. Unlike many American politicians not much mention has been made of the fact he has been a confirmed Christian since his Oxford days. Moreover, he is the only British Prime Minister since Gladstone known to regularly read the Bible.
   Tony Blair and his wife Cherie Blair are as political a couple as the Clintons. Both have worked in local politics and both have run for seats in Parliment. When Blair ran his first successful race for his current seat from the Sedgefield Riding, Cherie was seeking a seat in a "marginal" Labor district or riding. However, after Blair won his first election, Cherie decided to forego elective office as one politician was enough in the family. Since Blair's election in Parliment in 1983, the Blairs have had three children and Cherie has continued her career as a successful barrister.
   Over half the book covers Blair's career as leader of the Labor Party and Prime Minister. When he became Prime Minister at age 42, only tweleve years in Parliment, he became the youngest Prime Minister since Lord Liverpool who became Prime Minister in 1812.
   The book is well documented with footnotes after every chapter. Because of its "scholarliness" it may tend to drag at times in the chapters which deal with his years as Prime Minister from May 2, 1997 through the time the book was written in January 2001. As such it chronicles in detail Tony Blair's first term.
   In it, the achievements of the first term include the Balkans, Northern Ireland,as well as helping provide a better standard of living for all of Britian.
   Blair is described as a "hands-on" Prime Minister, informal but energized and possibly hyper-working on the phone from planes, on vacation and on the weekend.
   With as much detail provided of all aspects of Blair's life, TONY BLAIR-Prime Minister gives the reader and the world great insight into Blair's actions now in his second term as Prime Minister.




2. On 4-th of july 1964,Tony was woken by his mother in the morning and as soon as he heard the first words coming out from his mother - he knew that something wasn't right and he was right
   about that.
   Tony's father had a stroke and it wasn't sure whether he's gonna make it or not.
   This day was the day when Tony's childhood ended,a day when his political ambition began, a life which taught him the value of the family and real friends who walked with his family in the worst moments of their lives.

   Tony,a child of strict parents about manners :
   Was always polite,kind,helpful towards other people and he enjoyed the attention so much so when he is only 16 years old he formed a group named The Pseuds - to act.

   Soon, as a 'gifted guitarist' he starts meeting people of the same interest and talked about getting into the music world.
   He loved The Rolling Stones and they were going to be the next Led Zeppelin or Free (Tony's most favorite bands).
   So...the band "Ugly Rumours" is formed and THE LEAD SINGER-with
   a fantastic voice is someone such as : the future prime minister of Great Britain - TONY BLAIR.

   ...John Rentoul's biography of Tony Blair-(was made to read easy as novel, even though it was Tony's life to make that possible). It is a well-researched book and tells just about everything you'd want to know about Tony Blair.




3. John Rentoul's biography of Tony Blair is a must read for those who want to understand him. The book is scholarly enough to use as a text in comparative politics. It also gives enough character development to understand who Blair is, how he was developed as a man and what Britain's youngest Prime Minister in the 20th century is like.
   
   The text certainly gives a clear view of "The Third Way" philosophy of Blair's tenure which eschews unfettered capitalism and old labor socialism. Rentoul also illuminates Blair's Christian moral beliefs without ignoring the character of a young rock musician.
   
   It is the best biography yet of Britain's most dynamic leader.



4. Well five years after publication we find the subject of this book in serious political trouble with members of his own party asking for a date for his resignation. Nobody in the UK believes what he says any longer and his chancellor is waiting in the wings to take over. One star and forget it.

1 comments about Gandhi and His Critics (Oxford Inida Paperbacks).

1. This book is one of the Gandhi publications that came out as an answer to Richard Grenier's controversial article The Gandhi Nobody Knows which was published in a Jewish journal around the time Richard Attenborough's movie on Gandhi was released in 1982. Though not powerfully and directly, Nanda in his book was able to leverage his expertise on Gandhi to lay facts from history in an attempt to challenge some of the accusations Richard Grenier leveled against Gandhi. But, his response to such a controversial article was below the expectation especially since it came from an author of one of the most authoritative biographies of Gandhi.
   
   Seemed to be aimed at all the critics of Gandhi, Nanda's this short book is not very well challenging Richard on some of the seemingly contradicting stances and statements of Gandhi that were pointed out in the article. Some of the most pertinent accusations leveled against Gandhi by his critics are his obsessive adherence to Hinduism and its implications on the national cause, his mixing of religion and politics, his exhibitionism, his contradictions, and his excessive appeasement to Muslims but not to the untouchables. Nanda was not providing adequate explanations to any of these but instead just providing facts from the history and letting readers decide the verdict on Gandhi. While it is true that a devoted Gandhi scholar could possibly not agree with his critics on many areas, a casual reader could easily find himself lost in critics' pretentious accusations and out of context references that support them. To aid such readers, a proper, to the point explanations to the accusations is what needed. Nanda unfortunately failed in that attempt; whether he ever had an intention of writing this book as a reply to Richard's article is not known.
   
   It is easy to criticize Gandhi, so is to answer his critics. Both these are possible because of the contradictions and the conspicuity of his life. But the attitude the intellectual circle has towards such criticisms as one that produced by Richard which has besmirched to the level of a smear campaign directed antagonistically at Gandhi for some unknown reason is that such micro level analysis of Gandhi is not necessitated for emphasizing the usefulness of his teachings and validating his contributions to India's freedom struggle. As Stanley Jones rightly said in his book, Mahatma Gandhi ; an interpretation, while one look at Gandhi through a microscope, one also has to look at him through a telescope to get the total man. Gandhi's critics have always missed this point. The more a person is revered, the higher the intention to defile such a person; a perfect example is a recent book by G. B. Singh Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity in which the author has gone to the extent of even calling Gandhi a racist. What these critics reveal is not much of Gandhi himself but lot of them themselves.
   
   Richard's article was considered inferior by many but his article along with the movie produced a next wave of studies on Gandhi and on the relevance of his teachings on this ever deteriorating world. A lukewarm reply from the historians to Richard's article and hundreds of publications since then produced all over the world on Gandhi's life and his teachings shows that scholars have almost shunned Gandhi's critics.
   
   Gandhi is the least understood of all leaders of twentieth century and that is precisely why he still remains as an enigmatic figure and source of a great deal of research. Even after fifty years since his death, Gandhi remains as a source of inspiration for people to delve into his writings and find new meanings and interpretations of his teachings. It seems highly likely, a hundred years from today, that people still be looking into Gandhi with awe and will carry on the research in the hope to find answers to many universal problems of mankind. And, it is highly likely too that there will be more and more critiques on his life and his teachings in the years ahead.
   
   A novice reader of Gandhi is advised to read the biography of Gandhi by the same author first before reading this book.

2 comments about Ronald Reagan: A Life In Politics.

1. I am confused why they sell these books at the Reagan Library. Admittedly they are long, through, and have wonderful cover at. But the content is what disturbs me. Not the entire content, but just three things.
   
   The first snag is that Cannon does not like Reagan. He clearly admits this in-in his footnotes:
   
   "It was the only time Reagan ever complimented me on anything I write." (Governor, 311n)
   
   This quote sums up the books main negative bias. This book is a history of Reagan as filtered through Cannon's philosophical grid. This makes for a tedious read. He takes Reagan on Lou Cannon's terms. Maybe that is why Cannon had a weekly column that included "Reaganisms," (President, 102n).
   
   Cannon is, however, fascinated by him. He freely admits this in the 1991 preface to President Reagan. This provides a positive bias, which saves the book from being a multi-volume hit piece.
   
   The second snag, is the books are almost all context. It is always "Reagan And": Reagan and Unruh, Reagan and Meese, Reagan and Reagan, and Reagan and Nancy. But we never see Reagan as an individual.
   
   The Gipper's tag-line is the Great Communicator, but Cannon rarely quotes him. This sucks the life out of the Regan magic. Read Michael Reagan's quote book on his father and then read this book. It is like seeing two different men. One is a lively and deep thinker; the other is a vague buffoon. But will the real Ronald Regan please stand up?
   
   Reagan also had a gift for humor. Peggy Noonan observed that Reagan had "an encyclopedic memory for jokes." (When Character Was King, 228). However, Cannon, in his chapter on Reagan's humor, talks about his humor in the abstract and recounts his juicier ethnic jokes (President, 101-102).
   
   The last snag is in the area of analogy. The second book is subtitled "The role of a Lifetime." His rhetorical device is to cast Reagan merely as an actor who gets the chance to play a president. This is a combination of "I'm not a president, but I play one on TV" and the plot to the film "Dave."
   
   Hover, this rhetorical device affects his logic. David Hackett Fischer calls this "the fallacy of insidious analogy" ("Historians' Fallacies," 244ff). The problem is that Cannon's analogy takes over his writing. It also become contradictory at times.
   
   For example, Chapter six of the presidential book discuses what Canon calls "the script." What he means by the script is the core philosophical ideas that Reagan had that attracted the voters. Cannon freely admits, "But it was the script that was compelling, and it was Reagan who wrote it." (President, 66). Then in later chapters he speaks of Reagan taking direction and needing a director (President, Chapter 10, p. 25, 32, 116, ).
   
   Cannon may misunderstand the necessity of delegation. The role of the president is to be the leader. That is, he articulates the vision, and then empowers his staff and cabinet to implement the vision. That is why he said, ""Surround yourself with the best people you can find, delegate authority and don't interfere as long as the policy you've decided is carried out." (President, 150). Ill timed or not, it is not only sound advice, it is the only way to run a country. A micromanager could not last three second as president.
   
   To be sure, Reagan may not have done follow-up as well as he should have, but he did understand the genius of individual people. He was not just remaking country, but truing everyone into demi-gods by empowering them.
   
   I think I have said enough, but there is one comment that just grates me. In Chapter 9 of the president book, Canon describes the rise and fall of the M/X missile. During one Cabinet meeting, Regan showed up with a cartoon of Uncle Sam playing as hell-game with Brezhnev. This clinched the issue for Reagan. (President, 138). Cannon conclude the chapter saying that Reagan was a "president who skimped on preparation, avoided complexities and news conferences, and depended far too heavily on anecdotes, charts, graphics, and cartoons." (President, 140)
   
   Cannon forgets that Reagan had an intuitive sense of people, and was able to connect without the use of the Cabinet and Bureaucracy (President, 119). One obvious was he did that was by listening to them. Another way was attuning himself to the humor. Cannon forgets the power of humor and that George burns said, "Truth is the basis of all good comedy."(Governor, 107). That one political cartoon illustrated a truth that would do honor to Socrates or Kierkegaard. For Cannon, the medium was the message. End of story.
   
   The gubernatorial book is the better book. Cannon does not feel the need to cover as much as he does in the Presidential book (Some of the material is redundant). The Presidential one has long chapters that sometimes get muddled. Chapter 8 covers Reagan's humor and thought patterns, and Chapter 11 covers Regan's early life-kind of late in the book for that. Also, Hinckley isn't mentioned by name in the narrative about the assassination, which is covered in half a paragraph, and then resumed in the narrative about the melt-down of Alex Haige.
   
   What would have helped this book? First of all, Cannon needs to sort out what he really thinks about Reagan. He is fascinated and even at times charmed by Reagan. But it is a love-hate relationship. Cannon disagrees with Reagan politically and philosophically. It is almost like Canon is afraid of Regan and feels the need to cut him down a notch.
   
   Canon makes the comment that Reagan may have never read E. B. White (President, 97). I suggest the same for Cannon: Remember Strunk and White's first rule of Composition: Place Yourself in the background (Strunk and White, 70).
   
   Secondly, "Check your premises." Figure out why you have this attraction to reign, and name concretes. Both were Irish and had Alcoholic fathers (President, 174n), but there is something deeper.



2. I did read the whole book just so I could comment on it. The part about him being docile when visiting his parents home made me throw up. But I persevered and read the rest of it. I just don't understand why the President and Nancy let this book happen. If you hate Reagan and you hate Conservatives, then this book should make you very happy. I threw my copy away. No way was I going to give this to the library like I usually do.