5 comments about Alexander Hamilton.

1. An excellent biography on the most convertersial, and one of the most important, founding fathers. The book covers nearly every aspect of Hamilton's life and shows how brilliat he really was. It gives a fair and balanced view of the great man. Although Chernow uses some very difficult words, I would reccomend this to anyone.



2. There is not much I can add to the other effusive reviews. This really is as good as biography gets. If you are a fan of McCullough and Ellis, you will love this book. Perhaps even more. I did. This is a near-800-page page-turner, that I simply could not put down. It is the best of the modern Founding Father biographies. And while you might differ if you are, say, a Jeffersonian, no matter your political perspective, you will inevitably find yourself saying "wow." I bought multiple copies in hardcover and gave them to all in my family.



3. The book arrived as advertised, and the content was as advertised, too. Have read much about Hamilton, it's a shame the congressmen/women and wall streeters haven't done that. As our Premier Banker he saw most of the future ills that we have created with worthless paper, worthless stocks, backed by terrible credit loans, along with no gold standard. I also enjoyed reading about the Founders and their struggles to give us what we cavalierly pour down the drain. The wall street mess, only from a 1700's perspective, makes woeful reading. Whenever there is Market trouble, I ask my stock jobber friends to read.."Extraordinary Delusions and the madness of Crowds." They never do. There will be a John Law in every generation.
   Jack Flobeck



4. Ron Chernow's biography of Alexander Hamilton is as fun to read as any work of fiction. Chernow's style is readable, but elevated enough to do justice to his topic. He touches upon all aspects of Hamilton's life: his amazing and tragic youth, his military exploits during the Revolution, the development of his broad intellect, and his turbulent political career.
   
   If the book has a fault, it is that Chernow is too obviously biased against Jefferson in describing the enmity between the two men.
   
   Anyone seeking to understand the origins of American government and politics should read this book.



5. Ron Chernow has written another well detailed and well researched biography of a man who is indeed not as well known in the formation of the government of the United States.
   It seems Chernow's writings lean toward people who are often misunderstood. Such is the case on his biography of John D. Rockefeller.
   Although Mr. Chernow is not an academic historian, he does the due diligence of an historian. As stated in Janet Mislin's New York Times Book Review, Mr. Chernow actually visited the jail cell in St. Croix where Hamilton's mother was imprisoned for adultery.
   Also in Chernow's prologue of this book, we find out that Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton, the widow of Alexander Hamilton was still alive into the 1850's. The last of a generation who was at the birth of the United States.
   The author goes into the remarkable career of a bastard child who later became a man so crucial in the formation of our government. His exploits as a young officer during the Revolutionary War serving George Washington are well detailed by Chernow. His prominence as a key figure in the writings of the Federalist Papers which help to debate and form the Constitution of the United States is indeed apparent in Chernow's prose. Later Hamilton was responsible for the lasting effects of the formation of the U.S. Treasury. His plan of Assumption of the States debts and the formation of the Bank of the United States are the result of Hamilton's work.
   Hamilton was opinionated and very aggressive in all his dealings. He indeed was a thorn in the side of Thomas Jefferson and also fellow Federalist John Adams. He was brilliant and verbose. He was indeed an agitator.
   His hubris and beliefs led him to the plains of Weehawken where he was shot by Aaron Burr, the Vice President of the United States, and subsequently died.
   That ended that! At the age of 49 Alexander Hamilton died of wounds suffered in a duel with Mr. Burr on July 12, 1804. Thirty-one hours later Mr. Hamilton passed away in New York City.
   Chernow's book is excellent. Bully for him. Five Stars!!! If I could give six stars I would!!!!

5 comments about Children of the Flames: Dr. Josef Mengele and the Untold Story of the Twins of Auschwitz.

1. This book takes us from the youths of of Josef Mengele and his victims (briefly) to Auschwitz to the Nazi-hunting of the post-war period to the late 1980s. It tells these stories in alternating voices, stressing how necessary it is to do so: these stories are inextricably linked.
   
   The title is a bit misleading; this is perhaps weighed more on the side of a brief biography of Mengele, with emphasis on postwar activities. The stories of a group of twins break into the narrative in italicized bursts, fracturing it-- and thus reminding us all of how the horrific events of World War II fractured individuals, families, communities, nations.
   
   The book is an oral history of Auschwitz, told by those who survived it. Certainly, it is well researched (especially when it comes to the information about Nazi hunting and war tribunals), but the information in the "spotlight," so to speak, are the unsilenced voices of the twins. Do not expect pages of historical detail about what types of experiments were performed, reviews of medical cases, lengthy discussions of what occured in labs; that information is not there. This is a book about a handful of people and their stories, and while the book tells Mengele's for him, the twins tell their own. Particularly on the part of the twins, it is more a psychological study than a historical one (we could go into how psychology and history are intertwined, but it would be best for the reader to reach his or her own conclusions after reading the book).
   
   The text is deeply moving, often shattering. The voices that shatter the narrative of Mengele's life, denying the murderer any seamless biography, are vivid and alive. The authors picked a unique and, ultimately, extremely effective way to deliver biographies of oppresser and oppressed.



2. This book exceeded my expectations. The way the author goes back and forth between survivors' accounts and factual information about Mengele was a great way to keep the book interesting. I was intrigued from beginning to end. A lot of books that just rehash the past can be boring but this book was truely great. I learned a lot of factual information but also was deeply drawn to the survivors' stories. Highly recommended!



3. This is a very good book with factual accounts from some of the youngest twins. What I found confusing is the way the author wrote the book. There seems to be some jumping around, comparisons of sorts. This book thoroughly explains how the surviving twins got together and met with the author, as well as the founding of their organization. This book does not go into great detail as to what specific types of horrific experiments were done, as most of the survivors able to tell their stories were very young at the time, and/or they have repressed their memories of the horror. It does give second-hand accounts of the 'goings-on' of Mengele by those that survived.



4. This harrowing book traces both the life of 'the angel of death', the psycopathic monster, Dr Josef Mengele, and his victims who survived.
   Mengele carried out a range of horrific experiments on a range of people, mainly twins. particularly Jewish and Gipsey children, and various others.
   As Mengele's life is described, so is the life of the survivors, the horrors that they experienced at Auschwitz and how they lived in the decades afterwards.
   "Most of the twins began their descent into Auschwitz by witnessing their entire families being led away from them to be killed. In their special barracks, located just yards away from the crematoriums, they observed the Nazis' extermination of Jews at close range. Twins as young as five and six years of age endured torture, daily blood tests and starvation diets, as well as facing exposure to epidemics of cholera, tuberculosis and other deadly diseases that were rampant because of unsanitary conditions. Worst of all, of course, were the Mengele's barbaric pseudoscientific experiments. But as horrific as their lives were the twins enjoyed a special privileged status, for they were regarded as "Mengele's children". And as such they were spared the random selections and march to the gas chambers that threatened every other Auschwitz inmate'.
   
   The testimony of a handful of survivors illustrates the horror of Mengele and Auschwitz, and the scars of the experiences suffered by his victims, and how they experienced them through their lives.
   In the testimony of Moshe Offer, who was twelve years old at the time: 'When they opened the doors to our cattle cars, there were lots of dead children. During the trip, some mothers couldn't bare to hear the sound of their hungry babies-and so they killed them. I remember two blond, very beautiful children in my car, whose mother had choked them to death because she could not stand to watch them suffer'.
   
   Eva Mozes, who was nine years old at the time, recounts how, at Auschwitz-Birkenau, she and her twin sister were packed into filthy, rat infested barracks, together with hundreds of other little girls.
   She remembers seeing three dead children on the ground. Later they would always be finding dead children on the floor of the latrines.
   From their barracks they could see huge, smoking chimneys rising high above the camp. There were glowing flames rising above them. ' " Why are they burning so late in the evening?" I asked the other children. "The Germans are burning people they answered".
   Twins Hedvah and Leah Stern. who were thirteen years old at the time, recount how Mengele tried to change the colour of their eyes:' One day we were given eye drops. Afterwards, we could not see for several days. We though the Nazis had made us blind.
   We were very frightened of the experiments. They took a lot of blood from us. We fainted several times, and the SS guards were very amused.
   We were not very developed. The Nazis made us remove our clothes and they took photographs of us.
   The SS guards would point to us and laugh. We stood naked in front of these young Nazi thugs, shaking from cold and fear, and they laughed."
   The first few chapters of the book deal with Mengele's role in Auschwitz itself, and the rest of the book relates Eichmann's experience in hiding in South America, and the way the surviving twins built up lives and families for themselves, most of them in Israel, while the nightmare of Auschwitz would scar and effect them forever.Most of the twins longed to emigrate to the Land of Israel, then the British Colony of Palestine.
   They soon found that the Communist rulers of their former homes in lands like Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania, were hostile to the Jewish people too, and pesecuted those who wanted to go to Israel and those who wanted to hold onto their Jewish faith, as 'Zionists'. Thus developed that form of Leftist anti-Semitism known as anti-Zionism, which was incubated by the Soviet Union, and is endemic among the international left today.
   The rest of the book deals with how Mengele dwindled in exile into a neurotic and bitter non-being. The surivors describe their lives in Israel and elsewhere, after the war, their often fearful behaviour, their nightmares and their treatment, and also how they built up new lives and families, which live on in the Jewish homeland.
   Mengele died after suffering a stroke and drowning in 1979, in Brazil.



5. Dr.Mengele's actual history has been full of inaccuracies and speculations. This book attempts to clarify many issues. It is a must reading for anybody doing reseach about the holocaust.

5 comments about Lost Victories: The War Memoirs of Hitler's Most Brilliant General.

1. I have just completed this book - I found it an exhausting struggle to read. It showed me the value of setting clear goals and placing all your energies into achieving them. Hitler wanted to keep his cake and eat it as well. Hitler loved holding territory as opposed to crushing the enemy armies that would eventually regain their momentum and overrun Berlin.
   
   I enjoyed reading Manstein's view of the 1939 Polish campaign and how he might have fought it if he were a Polish General - he appears a leader without malice.
   
   This is not a book about specific battles from inside the tank or behind the MG42 - this book is from the map table, the teleprinter, the conference room at Berchtesgaden. Whilst I got weary of the words "heavy losses" and what these words actually meant in human suffering - it was obvious that Manstein did lament the loss and waste of his charges.
   
   Lastly, I read recently a proclamation that "D-Day in Normandy was the turning of the tide in WWII" - this phrase is the biggest overstatement I have ever read (said with due respect to the enduring sacrifices made there by many). After reading Lost Victories and experiencing a small portion of what the Russian and German armies went through - with the book finishing in early April 1944 - I came to the conclusion that the German army was "an old man" by the time the western allies landed France in June 1944. The war in western Europe was lost in the skies during the Battle of Britain and the war in Russia was lost at the gates of Moscow!
   
   This book put my understanding of the Continental War in Europe into perspective. Recommended.



2. This book is a little dull for the casual historian, but just the right stuff for those armchair generals and wannebe field marshals. I recommend this book with reservations - do not read his book cover-to-cover, but rather skip around and hit the best parts - there are 3 outstanding sections 1) without a doubt the Sevastopol Crimean campaign was his military masterpiece. This chapter (# 9) reads well and is very interesting. 2) Then touch on the Stalingrad chapter to understand why the German Sixth did not, or could not, break out - some surprising facts are divulged and it is a little deeper and more thoughtful than just blaming it all on Hitler. 3) Then read about his last meeting with Adolf - when he got canned. V. Manstien does not concede it, but that was the luckiest day of his goosestepping life.



3. Let me first say, that I am one of those who considers Field Marshal Erik von Manstein one of the best operational minds to have fought in the Second World War. His achievment in the post-Stalingrad months (Dec 1942- Feb 1943) will go down as a classic in mobile warefare. Enough has been written about his 1939 operational plan to invade France to fill a volume. In short, he was the consumate military professional.
   
   Which is why it pains me to offer only a 3 rating to his memiors. Don't get me wrong. The memior reads very well; the translation is excellent, and the prose is easy. My main complaint lies with the memior's content. I first read Lost Victories twenty years ago and took most of what Manstein wrote as fact. However, as I read more and more about not only the Wehrmacht, Germany, and Hitler, I began to doubt the narrative that von Manstein and the Feld Herren as a whole have been put to paper. This memior is long on ommisions, and short on introspection. Like other senior officers, Manstein piles the blame on the most senior Wehrmacht leadership while conviently excusing himself. The sad fact remains that von Manstein rarely vocalized any complaints concerning the Nazis treatment of men like Fritsch or Bloomberg (his former superiors sacked by Hitler), the introduction of the swatiska on thier uniforms, the establishment of the Waffen SS, or the treatment of Polish civilians, Jew, or captured officers. In his memiors, Manstein does take a few pages to offer his criticisms of Keitel (OKW) and von Braunstisch (OKH), yet not once did he explicitly critique in name the poor tactical generalship of either General Hoepner -the 4th Panzer Army Commander and his immediate commander during the initial stages of Barbarossa, or Field Marshall von Leeb -the overall commander of the Northern Army Group. This I thought was rather odd considering that these 2 men at that stage of the war still excercised complete freedom of movement. Manstein vaguely critiques the "High Command" (ie either the OKH or Hitler himself). Like other generals, Manstein leveled his stongest critiques on those that were dead, and thus couldn't defend themselves.
   
   The Chapters covering Stalingrad at the battles along the Don are the most dramatic of the memior. Many do find fault with Manstein's decision not to relieve General Paulus of command of the 6th Army in November-December 1942. This was a period of high drama and emotion, when as most experts believe that the 6th Army could have broken out of Stalingrad. It was also the period of greatest danger when the entire front was collapsing back to Rostov. Manstein's reasons for not relieving Paulus are clear enough -namely he didn't have the authority to do so. The other reason, which he barely skirts around is the fact that the Soviets had nearly a half million men, 3000 guns, and 2000 tanks around Stalingrad. If the 6th Army did breakout, this vast force would be unleashed and the entire Don Bend as well as von Kleists Army Group in the Kuban would have been become a giant tomb for the Germans. Manstein after the war could have offered this terrible but truthful fact to the public, but instead said the sacrifice of the 180,000 men of the 6th Army was never an option. Somehow I do not believe him.
   
   The last area of criticism is leveled at von Manstein's decision to back Zeitzler's (OKH) and Hitler's decision to strike at Kursk. In his memiors, he does say he strongly desired to wait until the Soviets struck first and then offer a counter blow on "the back hand". That is, he wished to conduct another mobile counter attack like he did earlier in March at Kharkov - this time from the Northwest and drive the Soviets offensive forces Southward into the Black Sea. This operation, brilliant in conception and most probably would have had sufficient motorized forces to execute was never considered. Hitler couldn't stomach the idea of giving another inch of territory (Manstein's plans included a planned withdraw initially so he could spring his trap), instead followed Zeitzler's idea of a pincer attack on the Kursk sailent. For some reason, von Manstein allowed himself to initially concur. Again, I find this strange. Manstein never was one to keep quiet when considering other people's failures. OKH's Kursks attack lacked imagination, was totally predictable and lacked any strategic value. On paper it looked like the "safe" plan. Even if it was successfull, Manstein, Zeitzler, Guderian, and most of all Hitler knew the Soviets had sufficient strength to bleed the outnumbered German's white. Manstein's plan, on the other hand, had all of the makings of a classic battle of annihilation, which could have bought Hitler another year, or maybe even a stalemate in the East.Yet, Manstein offered little defense of his plan.
   
   Finally, von Manstein like Guderian, Halder, Kluge, Rundstedt, et als. said he had no prior knowledge of the Final Solution, Russian Slave Labour, and the killing of POWs. He says very little, but does offer up evidence of the Soviet's own crimes while he commanded the 56th Panzer Corps in the Courland. As time goes by, I find this harder and harder to believe.
   
   Overall, the reader will have to judge for himself. Of all the memiors, this one is the best written, and there are many times where one can see Manstein's genius as he discusses in his cool, rational prose the many tactical and strategic problems he faced. He is also very kind when ever he writes about the enlisted soliders who served under him, especially the German NCOs. He was never an "armchair" general. Both as commander of the 38th Infantry Corps, and the 56th Panzer Corps he led from the front, and made his decisions based upon first hand knowledge. It was also heartbreaking to read about the death of his only son in 1943. While Erik von Manstein had many faults, he was anything but the stiff, monocoled Prussian caricture that some in the West like to paint of the Prussians. He was a brilliant yet flawed general. His memiors should be read, but critically so. While reading the memiors it is also good to keep in mind that her served one of the cruelist dictators of the 20th Century.



4. German Field Marshal Erich von Manstein wrote "Lost Victories" in 1955, ten years after the end of the Second World War and eleven years after he had been dismissed from command on the Russian Front by Adolf Hitler.
   
   Von Manstein served in the German Army from 1914 through the First World War, the bitter interwar years, and the major campaigns of the Second World War in Europe. He was, by all accounts, a master of the operational level of war, whether as a commander or as an outstanding staff officer. His memoirs are still in print at least in part because his narrative powers were equal to the task of describing the military operations in the Second World War in which he participated. "Lost Victories" may provide as good an account from the German side of the War in Europe as we are likely to get from a participant. His understanding of the huge battle waged over an immense manuever space in Western Russia is almost as unique as the nature of the fighting itself. If his account is tinged with some "I" and "me", that is perhaps to be forgiven in an autobiography by a man who saw all too clearly the wasted strategic opportunities to conduct a war with a defined and achievable political purpose.
   
   This book is highly recommended to students of the military art and of the Second World War.



5. It is a "must read" strategy book by the one of the best WW2 German generals. It is not the full memoirs. Still it is a 5 star (great) reading.

5 comments about Julius Caesar.

1. Philip Freeman chronologically walks through the life and legacy of Julius Caesar. Freeman usually provides enough background information to help his audience better understand the environment in which Caesar was operating. Readers progressively discover a complex leader who was intelligent, bold, fearless, ambitious, visionary, charming, and sensitive but also possessed ruthless and autocratic traits. To summarize, "Julius Caesar" by Freeman is a compelling invitation to (re) discover an exceptional individual who has left an indelible mark on the history of mankind.



2. Readers beware! Philip Freeman's "Julius Caesar" is addictive. Once you start, you won't be able to stop turning the pages.
   
   I was drawn to this book having recently returned from Italy on a family vacation that included tours of the Forum, subura (suburbia), and other locations in ancient Rome. I wanted to know just how much of what we had seen, and what I remembered about that era from high school and college history classes, was covered in this book. I was not disappointed.
   
   Like any great story teller, and that Freeman is, you're hooked with page after page of stories about Julius Caesar that are insightful, compelling, and even funny at times.
   
   The thread that runs through all of Freeman's narratives is one of a legendary figure of epic dimensions who constantly did the unconventional or the unexpected, was calculating, innovative, and had a knack for turning what seemed to be a hopeless situation into one that seemed to work...that is, until the end.
   
   Early on you can't help but chuckle when you read, and visualize in your mind's eye, about Caesar being captured by a group of pirates when he was just 25 and then mocking his captors when he tells them their ransom demand of just twenty talents was too low. Insulted, Caesar told them to raise the amount to fifty talents.
   
   Additional details Freeman provides -- how Caesar adapted to his captors by joining them in their athletic events and reading poetry to them, for example -- seemed to have turned the modern-day Stockholm Syndrome upside down. Little did the captors realize they would pay a price when Caesar would later seize the ransom and punish his captors by having them crucified.
   
   For those suffering from midlife crisis, it's especially interesting to consider how Caesar, only in his late twenties or early thirties, while at the Temple of Hercules and seeing a statue of Alexander the Great, laments how he had not achieved what Alexander did at about the same age.
   
   Freeman's book takes the reader on numerous journeys highlighting Caesar's military exploits. Fighting was such a part of life that, in one instance, Freeman takes a phrase from today's sports about "the boys of summer" (baseball), modifies it, and coins his own phrase as he writes about "the summer fighting season" (p. 153).
   
   Throughout his book, Freeman describes Caesar the religious leader, the military leader, and the politican. But there's more. Freeman also gives readers examples of Caesar they may not know about -- engineer, motivator, marketer, and, yes, occasional humorist.
   
   As an engineer, Caesar had a 19-mile long wall constructed near Geneva during one of his military adventures, built the first bridge across the Rhine in just ten days, and dug protective trenches so Belgic troops could only attack from one direction.
   
   As motivator, Freeman conveys how Caesar would address his troops, one time as "fellow soldiers," and as "citizens" years later.
   
   As a marketer, Caesar's "Gallic War" and crossing the water "to the mythic island of Britain" captured the imagination of the public in ways, I suspect, that were similar to the way the U.S. space program did more than forty years ago. Of course, Caesar was marketing...Caesar.
   
   Caesar also comes across as an occasional comedian when, in one instance, after landing in modern Tunisia, he stumbles out of his ship and falls on his face. Freeman recounts how Caesar was able to turn this bumbling episode into his favor by grabbing a handful of sand and telling his troops, "I hold you now, Africa!"
   
   Freeman portrays Caesar as, to borrow a frequently-used phrase today, "a lifelong learner," who adapted his military campaigns to new situations and even geography he encountered, such as designing new vessels to face stormy seas off the coast of France or developing battering rams for house-to-house combat.
   
   Ironically, it was Caesar's failure to adapt to a new world, one he himself largely made, where "he began to act more like a king than a leader of a republic," as Freeman writes, along with excessive hubris that led to his eventual demise.
   
   There too, the reader may be surprised that Caesar's final words were not the ones Shakespeare wrote. I won't spoil and note here what Freeman wrote. You'll have to read those to learn what they were.
   
   "Julius Caesar" is a classic, ranking right up there with books written by David McCullough, such as "1776" and "John Adams." Once you start reading, you won't stop.



3. 
   by Mary Harrsch
   
   Philip Freeman's "Julius Caesar" is a comprehensive biography of the Roman conqueror that is as straightforward and readable as the general's own "Gallic Wars". Freeman not only stitches together the various ancient accounts of Caesar's exploits but adds context to his activities by including helpful background information about his various adversaries pulled from a wealth of modern scholarship. He recounts Caesar's conquest of the Celtic tribes of Gaul against a vivid tapestry of the Celtic culture gleaned from such works as Rankin's "Celts and the Classical World, Cunliff's "The Ancient Celts", and Green's "The World of the Druids". I especially found the defeats or near-defeats suffered at the hands of the Celts as fascinating as Caesar's famous victory at Alesia.
   
   The details of a surprise attack by Belgic tribes was particularly intense and sadly ironic because Caesar was essentially saved by his future Civil War opponent, Labienus.
   
   "He [Caesar] had been caught unprepared for a surprise assault of such force and speed. His army would surely have been overwhelmed had it not been for the training and experience they had gained during the past year. There was no time to call his officers together and form a plan , so each organized whatever men were nearest and struck back at the Belgae. With a herculean effort, the Roman troops on the eastern side of the battlefield were able to push the Atrebates and then the Vironmandui back across the river with heavy losses on both sides, but the Nervii on the western end would not yield and pressed the Romans until they fell back in a hopeless struggle to save their camp. The Nervii stormed over the uncompleted walls of the Roman stronghold, killing many of the legionaries and threatening to outflank the Roman forces who had already crossed the river. Caesar had been rushing madly to every corner of the battlefield, but when he saw the dire threat at the camp, he leapt from his horse, grabbed a sword, and joined the fray."
   
   Although Caesar's men rallied with their commander beside them calling them by name, their plight was dire. They managed to stop the encirclement and were presently reinforced by the the arrival of the two legions that had escorted the baggage train. But the real turning point of the battle hinged on the counterattack led by Labienus who, seeing Caesar's desperate struggle, dashed back across the river.
   
   "His arrival brought such hope to the beleaguered men around Caesar that even those who had been seriously wounded propped themselves against their shields for support to continue to fight."
   
   With the tide of battle now turned the Belgic warriors demonstrated their own ferocity and determination to remain an unconquered people.
   
   "As the hours passed, the Romans slowly tightened the circle on them, hacking and killing as each Belgic warrior fought with all his might. In the end, the few Nervii who were left stood on a mound formed by their fallen comrades and - pulling the Roman spears from the dead bodies of their friends - threw them back down at the legions."
   
   These images brought echoes of Thermopylae to mind.
   
   Many critics of Caesar's activities in Gaul have portrayed Caesar and his commanders as ruthless perpetrators of genocide without significant provocation but Freeman, using the details of engagements retold in Caesar's Gallic Wars, recounts numerous incidents of Gallic duplicity after peace agreements were concluded. But Freeman also points out that Caesar did not delude himself with proclamations that he was bringing "civilization" to the Gauls. Instead he said Caesar candidly observed, "Human nature everywhere yearns for freedom and hates submitting to domination by another."
   
   "The Romans never pretended that they were bringing freedom or a better way of life to the peoples they conquered." Freeman states. "They frankly admitted that they were only interested in increasing their own power, wealth, and security through conquest."
   
   I have previously only read isolated passages of accounts of Caesar's Alexandrian Wars so I also found that portion of Freeman's book particularly fascinating. Many books and films about this period seem to omit most references to intervention by Cleopatra's sister Arsinoe and her commander Ganymedes. Many accounts of the confrontation between the Alexandrians and Caesar seem to focus on the activities of the Egyptian general Achillas and the spoiled child-pharaoh Ptolemy XIII. But Freeman recounts how Achillas was actually murdered by Ganymedes and most of the near disasters suffered by Caesar's forces, beseiged in the palace, were masterminded by this militarily astute courtier. Freeman also details the urban warfare that Caesar was forced to conduct in Alexandria that sounded eerily familiar to anyone who watches CNN regularly. I was also surprised to read that the often-portrayed luxurious "honeymoon" cruise up the Nile was a deliberate show of military force since the royal barge was accompanied by over 400 ships crammed with Roman troops. I am now more convinced than ever that Caesar's effort to father a child with Cleopatra was a deliberate act to obtain a client king related by blood to secure Egypt without annexing it and risking its plunder by a corrupt proconsular governor in the future.
   
   Freeman mentioned Caesar's epilepsy only in passing early on in the text. This surprised me since I have long suspected that a head wound Caesar sustained on campaign was actually the cause of the increased frequency of seizures Caesar suffered toward the end of his life and perhaps one of the reasons for the apparent lack of political judgment he exercised at the time of the Africa triumph when he included unpopular tableaus depicting the deaths of Scipio and Cato. Freeman only observed that Caesar showed particularly bad taste in celebrating a triumph over his Roman opponents and how this had upset his normally adoring crowd. There were at least four significant seizures documented by the ancient sources (Plutarch, Suetonius, Appian, and Pliny) that modern experts conclude, according to J. R. Hughes, Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, "were probably complex partial seizures: (1) while listening to an oration by Cicero, (2) in the Senate while being offered the Emperor's Crown, and in military campaigns, (3) near Thapsus (North Africa) and (4) Corduba (Spain)."
   
   Drs. J.G Gomez, J.A. Kotler, and J.B. Long, Division of Neurological Surgery, Holy Cross Hospital, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, conducted a pathological analysis of Caesar's reported symptoms and behavioral changes in 1995 and suggested he may have been suffering from a brain tumor. "The patient had late onset of seizures in the last two years of his life, headaches, personality changes. Upon reexamination of existing Julius Caesar iconography, busts, statues and minted coins no skull deformities have been noted. Identification of a skull deformity as described by Suetonius would have confirmed the suspicion of meningioma involving the convexity of the cerebral hemispheres. Meningioma or slow-growing supratentorial glioma may well have been responsible for this man's illness."
   
   In any event, I think a man who had demonstrated such a superior grasp of Roman politics in the past would not have committed such blunders on purpose or because success had simply "gone to his head".
   
   Freeman included a wonderful compedium at the end of the book that listed his sources for various sections within the text that is a valuable reference for readers wishing to learn more about specific events in Caesar's life. A comprehensive bibliography and index rounded out the text's impressive list of source materials. There were only two things contained in the book that gave me pause. One was a reference to a pilum not being designed as a throwing weapon but rather a thrusting weapon. I think this must have been a lapse in editing as Freeman was comparing Roman weapons with other weapons of the ancient world. Alexander's Macedonians carried sarissas, that, unlike commonly used Greek spears, were not designed for throwing but for thrusting. Likewise, the Roman gladius was designed for thrusting rather than slashing. But a Roman pilum was designed to bend on impact to make it difficult to remove and Freeman pointed this out. So, I would think a weapon so designed was obviously intended primarily for throwing. The other error was the inclusion of an image of a sculptured head of Lucius Cornelius Sulla labeled as Gaius Marius in the photo insert section. It was provided by the Bridgeman Art Library and perhaps the labeling error was theirs. The head is in the permanent collection of the Glyptotek in Munich, Germany as indicated but according to an overwhelming majority of people on the web, including the scholars who maintain Vroma.org, the head belongs to Marius' arch enemy, Sulla. See http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/optimates.html.



4. Julius Caesar has been making a comeback in the last decade. Michael Parenti's The Assassination of Julius Caesar and Adrian Goldsworthy's Caesar; Life of a Colossus are just two of the recent treatments of this larger than life figure, almost legendary in his own day, mythic in ours. Philip Freeman's stated purpose was to parse out the myths from the facts and his Julius Caesar is a brilliant and compelling narrative which will help the general reader realize just how important Caesar was to the way western civilization evolved.
   
   While the current trend in historical studies is to minimize the role of the "great men," it is hard to ignore the fact that at times some people do change their world, for the better or worse, and without them, that change would not come. Caesar was one of those men. But Caesar knew, as Freeman points out, that his power was not cut from the whole cloth of his charisma. Caesar was dependent on the Roman lower classes for his political and military successes. Bertolt Brecht asks the question in his Questions from a Studious Worker, "Caesar conquered Gaul- Did he not even have a cook with him?" As Freeman shows, Caesar knew his cooks and his men. Growing up in a gritty working class neighborhood, Caesar saw better than his richer contemporaries the problems of the lower classes in late Republican Rome.
   
   The inability of the Roman nobility and their "business leader" allies to deal with the social and political problems created by the rapid expansion of the state created an instability that was to prove as fatal to the Roman Republic as it did to Caesar himself. A century of civil war, of which Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon was but a small blip, left the state as little more than a resource to be exploited for the personal gain of the various contenders for power. The entrenched interests of the nobility left any notion of reform unacceptable and the increasing violence of the reaction left little room for compromise.
   
   Freeman's Caesar is neither a hero nor a villain, to use the author's own definition of the extremes. But his treatment of his subject is sympathetic, and justifiably so. There is little doubt that Caesar's motives were self serving, but that does not take away from the effect of what he tried to do. The land reform question, which claimed the lives of many reformers before Caesar, was not solved by the time of Caesar's death, but one does have to ask the question of how Roman society would have evolved had he been successful. Much like how Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal reforms were designed to ameliorate the worst problems of the working classes, Caesar's land and debt reforms did not radically change the Roman system, but strengthened it. Caesar was a product of that Roman political system, a system in which he was just the most successful manifestation of what competence and charisma could accomplish. To destroy the system would have been to destroy his own place in his society.
   
   Freeman's Julius Caesar is a good read and well worth the effort of the general and specialized reader. I highly recommend it.



5. According to Philip Freeman's account, Julius Caesar may have been the most misunderstood man in history. He owed his military and political career to the plebians, the lower class Romans with whom he sided. By doing this he won the never-ending antipathy of the patrician families who controlled the Roman senate.
   
   As a general Caesar led from the front. When he was in danger of losing a battle to the patrician forces in Spain, he charged the opposing line single-handedly, embarrassing his men into redoubling their efforts, snatching victory from defeat. We know as much as we do about Caesar thanks to his own account of the GALLIC WARS, which has survived, and Freeman quotes from it extensively. Perhaps Caesar's most impressive victory was the BATTLE OF ALESIA, where he fought a two front battle against the Gauls under Vercingetorix whom he'd cornered in the city, only to be confronted by 100,000 Gaulish soldiers in his rear.
   
   We see Caesar rise from a poor patrician family living in the slums of Rome to work his way up from military tribune, to sequester, to aedile, to preaetor and eventually consul of Rome. One of his first official acts was to redistribute land to the plebians and the Roman soldiers, some of which was taken from the rich patrician families who controlled the Senate. On his way to becoming consul, Caesar was in charge of keeping the Appian Way in good repair. Caesar was not only a great general and politician, he was also an engineer, a great public speaker, and a lawyer.
   
   We also get a good look at the Roman Civil Wars. At first, Caesar gained power through a triumvirate with the great general Pompey and Crassus a rich Roman senator. But because of his successes in Gaul, Pompey became jealous and eventually went to war with Caesar after Caesar crossed the Rubicon, a sort of demilitarized zone most generals knew not to cross. Pompey had a large army, more than twice as large as Caesars. When Caesar confronted him in Greece, it looked like the jig was up once again. It was only because of his supreme confidence and superior tactical skills that Caesar was able to defeat the great Pompey.
   
   As you read this biography, you will be amazed at the number of times, Caesar snatched victory from defeat. He should've lost in Gaul, he should've lost to the patrician forces in Spain, he should've been decimated in Egypt. Pompey had him defeated but was too cautious to move in for the kill. Caesar's undoing came when he had defeated the patrician forces and come home to accept his laurels. He was given four triumphs (victory parades) and was made dictator for ten years. During one of the triumphs his soldiers complained that Caesar was spending too much money that should've rightfully gone to his old soldiers. Caesar had two of them put to death and sacrificed to the god Mars. He let the laurels go to his head, and the conspirators were worried he wanted to be king.
   
   My one complaint about the book is that we don't get a real good look at the plot to assassinate Caesar. We don't really know who these people were, other than that Brutus was a former favorite. It's hard to understand why Caesar's former supporters were part of the plot, other than that they were worried Caesar was about to bring down the five hundred-year-old Republic. But as Caesar always said, "The Republic has been dead for years."
   
   I was a history major in college but I never had a firm grip on the civil war between Caesar and Pompey until I read this book, and I never really knew what a great man Caesar was. There's certainly evidence to support Alexander Hamilton's contention that Julius Caesar was the greatest man who ever lived.

5 comments about War As I Knew It.

1. It is interesting to read how a historical figure thought and felt about the events in which they participated. Here you get to see what Patton thought not what others think he thought.



2. flamboyant and irrealistic data of german losses ( see german sources ...KTB/OKW. etc. )



3. Whereas we've all heard the weak-kneed, faint-hearted, army deserter types condemn Patton as bloodthirsty, this book reveals Patton the intellectual, the man who believes deeply in his mission and destiny, and one who is prepared to sacrifice life and limb in order to to honor his role in the history of the world.
   I found this book to be highly insightful, educational, entertaining, and motivating. I learned about strategy and received an interesting and unique glimpse into the mind of a truly great man. Patton was the cream of the crop - well educated, strong, courageous, and determined, and he had the intelligence and wisdom to back his decisions up. Would that we had a fearless leader like this today.



4. Patton' memoir of his role in WWII. Written shortly before his death in Dec 1945 and published by his wife. Patton example of leadership is applicable to all leaders and all leaders would benefit by reading this book. Appended to this book are copies of Patton's general orders for the conduct of the 3rd Army in Europe which includes some very good practical advice for the fighting soldier and commander.



5. George S. Patton, Jr. died December 21, 1945 in Heidelberg Germany of injuries sustained in an automobile accident on December 9th of that year, a day before his scheduled return to America. His writings included a "full diary from June, 1942, until Dec. 5, 1945" and the manuscript of the book "War As I Knew It". The book was first published in 1947. "The text [of the published book] ... is ... precisely as it came from the General's swift pen with the single elimination of a criticism of one officer who, if he erred, most splendidly atoned." (xiv: Introduction by Douglas Southall Freeman)
   
   The text lacks any detail of actual battles, other than broad movements at the level of Corps and Division. It is very much a rough overview, as the title suggests, of Patton's experience as a General in WWII. Its value derives from Patton having written it, more than for what is written within it. It is not the great book (we may imagine) he would have written later had he lived.

5 comments about Ike: An American Hero.

1. I enjoyed the book when Korda didn't reference Kay Summersby. But wanted to rip out the pages where her name came up; especially when Korda talks about her being airbrushed from a picture. She isn't airbrushed as a result of some conspiracy, just a bad angle that hides her behind another man.



2. 'Ike: An American Hero' by Michael Korda
   
   I'm always excited to read something new focusing on the extraordinary life of Dwight D. Eisenhower, my ideal president and, certainly, favorite historical personality. 'Ike: An American Hero' by Michael Korda is an easy to read, fun and informative biography of Ike's military career but lacks in coverage of his presidency. I've read quite a bit about Ike and this book did contain some fine nuggets of which I'd not previously been aware. However, as aforementioned, I would have liked to see some more detail on Eisenhower's 2 terms in the White House; a presidency which is historically misunderstood though now rich with new information since the release of his presidential papers.
   
   As far as prose, Korda does not disappoint. The man can string sentences together (often extremely long sentences) like few other historians. The book was, in my opinion, very well researched and a joy to read. I would definitely recommend investing the money and time it takes to pick up and read this solid biography.
   
   - Johnny Concannon



3. 
   Starts off waxing lyrical about how Americans feel uncomfortable making men into heroes - idolizing them as anything special (ignoring monuments to Washington, Lincoln, etc.). Makes factual errors on issues not central to Korda's subject (Ike) and thus showing that he has done little peripheral research. For instance he places Cherbourg in Britanny, not in Normandy.
   
   His sense of geography is terrible. Of "Operation Torch" he writes about how widespread the invasions were, saying "spread across nearly 2,500 miles of coast from Safi, in French Morocco, the easternmost point; to Algiers, the westernmost point". The only problem with this is he's got east and west around the wrong way! Algiers is east of Morocco!
   
   Further he talks of how 30,000 Australian troops were captured with the fall of Tobruk (1942). This never happened. Australians successively defended Tobruk in 1941 against the Germans until the garrison was relieved. Rommel made a resurgent drive across North Africa and then took the port in 1942, capturing its garrison of South Africans. Perhaps he's confused with Australians who were captured at the fall of Singapore, half-way around the world... except he'd already mentioned that fact!



4. I have read both Merle Miller's bio and Stephen Ambrose's two volume book on Ike. The latter is very complete. Michael Korda's book on Ike focuses on his early life, his training, his genius at strategy, and mainly his life as a general. His presidential career is not as fully emphasized, and rightly so. I think Mr Korda wanted to show how Ike developed and matured; how he learned and how he progressed so rapidly from Lt Colonel to 4-star general...and why. It is so well-written that the book is almost like a fast paced thriller than a boring military treatise. Pick it up and you will learn a lot about Eisenhower that you did not know before...and about that intriguing Kay Summersby.
   
   Oh, then buy Merle Miller's "Truman" and Stephen Ambrose's "Undaunted Courage" which I consider the two best each of them has written.



5. Easy to read and enlightening about Eisenhower.
   If we hadn't had Eisenhower in WW 2 we would have had to invent him.
   He was so much more than contemporary opinion of him during the 50's.
   A true great American hero.
   More evidence that Truman should have fired MacArthur so much sooner.
   MacArthur- the tin soldier.

5 comments about Hunting the Jackal: A Special Forces and CIA Soldier's Fifty Years on the Frontlines of the War Against Terrorism.

1. Billy Waugh takes you through almost 50 years of life in the Special Forces and CIA. Although the title focuses on Carlos the Jackal, he is actually a small part of the book.
   
   Since I am approaching 50, it's hard to imagine being 72 and running around in Afganistan. That's downright inspirational. This part of Waugh's life is mentioned several times in Jawbreaker by Gary Berntsen.
   
   A fascinating story.



2. Great book. The title is deceiving though there is little about Carlos. The actual capture of Carlos is also somewhat anticlimactic. Overall though, it's an exciting read about the life of a special forces warrior. I recommend this book to anyone who enjoy stories of war and espionage. One thing is for sure...Billy Waugh is a hero!



3. I found the book readable and informative. It was written in a narative that was easily followed. Information that will be of value to those that follow the current state of the world.



4. Great book....easy to read. Lacks substantial and detailed operational insight probably due to confidentiality. Overall a great book by a great American.



5. Billy Waugh is a rare kind of man. His book gives us a look behind the scenes of Special Ops and clandestine operatives.

5 comments about Eight Lives Down: The Story of the World's Most Dangerous Job in the World's Most Dangerous Place.

1. One thing I have learned in reading many books from our soldiers fighting in the Middle East, is that a good story does NOT mean a book about it will be good.
   'Eight Lives Down' is unputdownable. It deserves 5 stars since that is the highest allowed.



2. Eight Lives Down is a riveting, edge-of-your-seat first person account of a British Bomb Disposal Officer in Iraq in 2004. I originally thought this tale would be about the deaths of 8 of his men, but halfway through I realized instead what reference he was using.
   
   EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world, and Captain (at the time) Hunter's specialty was IED Disposal, the Improvised Explosive Device, that has become such a hallmark of the war in Iraq. Primarily set off by something so simple as the average car remote for unlocking your door, Hunter gives you the "you are there" perspective as he recovers these devices or scans the debris for clues to the manufacturer if it's already gone off.
   
   Then there are the secondary explosives set to kill the people like him who respond to bomb attacks, plus snipers and ambushes along the road to the scene. A true hero in this world, he and his men put themselves in harm's way to protect people they don't even know.
   
   A must-read book for everyone, plus it gives us Yanks some insight into common British phraseology. :)



3. Chris Hunter must have trouble finding affordable life insurance.
   
   The job in question that he portrays in this book is that of a British Army specialist whose forte is disarming IED's - improvised explosive devices in Iraq. His tale - remarkably well written - is a gripping account of the job. You feel you are there, wearing 70 lbs. of body armor, sweating in triple-digit heat and loaded with another 80 lbs. of gear.
   
   Tom Clancy couldn't write anything more absorbing. An undercurrent theme of "Eight Lives Down" is the huge emotional and marital toll that the job takes on Hunter and his unraveling relationship with his wife, Lucy. There are observations on the Yanks in Iraq, the nature of the Iraqi people, the job of winning hearts and minds and some touching vignettes of tenderness among ragamuffin street urchins.
   
   "Eight Lives Down" is one of those books that you may find hard to put down!



4. A compelling story but way too much macho commentary. The author's narration is like a teenager playing a video game ("take that you evil terrorist!") I'm not expecting 'sensitive' comments from a warrior who puts up with incredible odds, but the descriptions in this book make one believe that Rambo spent a fair amount of time in Iraq. There's even a point where he describes the insurgents as being those who kill just because they like to.
   
   Way too much....



5. 
   Wow, I simply could not put this book down.
   
   Chris pulls you in quickly and doesn't let you escape the world of an explosives expert in the land of improvised explosives. From the tension to deactivating a bomb while trying to ignore the reality this bomb was planted so the bad guys could snipe Chris, to the despair over fallen comrades and the impact to his marriage.
   
   Not just an incredible story, but well written with humour and sadness. I hope Chris continues to write, as I'll buy anything he produces.

5 comments about Henry Knox: Visionary General of the American Revolution.

1. Henry Knox was one of those men who lives in the shadows. He was, in his time, a memorable individual: a fat man with a booming voice and an ebullient personality, a wonderful friend with a hale-fellow-well-met personality. He was also one of the people more instrumental in the success of the Continental army during the American Revolution. So it's a bit surprising that other than the fort named after him, and the city in Tennessee, he's largely unknown. The author of this book, Mark Puls, aims to correct this.
   
   The author writes a short, concise, informative account of Knox's background and upbringing. One chapter suffices to get the reader to the beginning of the Revolution, though it should be pointed out that this isn't that long a period of time: Knox was in his 20s for much of the revolution, something that surprised me. I knew he was young, but not *that* young. Knox took charge of the artillery train that had to be moved from Fort Ticonderoga to Boston, a distance of several hundred miles across very difficult terrain, and did it during early winter, often waiting for the frost to harden the mud on the roads. Knox then was appointed to command Washington's artillery, a position he held from that point until the end of the war.
   
   This means that for all of the major battles of the Revolution that Washington fought, Knox was there with him, directing the guns. He also served as an engineer and logistics chief, and on more than one occasion Washington entrusted the army's safety to Knox, assigning him to ensure the army's crossing of the Delaware to Trenton, for instance. By the end of the Revolution, when the French army joined with the Continental army to besiege the British at Yorktown, the French army's engineers and artillerists were pleasantly surprised to discover that Knox, a young man with no formal training as a soldier, was nonetheless very skilled and knowledgeable.
   
   Knox didn't really leave public service at the end of the war. Instead, he wound up succeeding Washington as commander-in-chief of the army, then served as Secretary at War for the Continental Congress during the period running up to the ratification of the Constitution. Knox supported the constitution, and advocated to Gouveneur Morris a government constructed rather like the one that emerged from the convention; Knox wrote his letter to Morris six months before Morris helped write the Constitution. Knox then served Washington as Secretary of War, among other things constructing the army and founding the modern American Navy, an action for which he usually isn't remembered. The Humphreys frigates ("Constitution", "United States", "President", "Constellation", etc.) were constructed at Knox's direction, though of course Humphreys himself gets the majority of the credit for the idea. These warships were large enough that they could defeat single British frigates in single combat, and fast enough they had a chance of outrunning any larger ships they encountered. Knox deserves some credit for their success, and for the founding of the Navy. He left Washington's cabinet several years before the end of the administration, serving in various capacities in the Massachusetts legislature and government before retiring from public life.
   
   But his signal achievement, probably, was his advocacy of the establishment of a military academy for soldier cadets. As early as the last years of the Revolution he argued that something along these lines be done, and he even established a school for army officers (especially artillerists) in his military camp. He pretty much tirelessly argued for the establishment of a permanent academy at West Point, and finally, after 25 years of advocacy, succeeded in 1803 when the United States Military Academy was established. Knox died three years later, a victim of a chicken bone that lodged in his throat, the wound becoming infected.
   
   The author does a good job of outlining Knox's life without getting into details too much. This is appropriate for a short biography of a soldier of the American Revolution. This book is very comparable to Terry Golway's biography of Nathaniel Greene, "Washington's General", which was released a few years ago, and was, to my mind, very successful. This is a highly recommended account of the life of a very interesting, and little-known, American soldier, and it belongs on the shelf of any military history buff who studies the American Revolution.



2. Our hero George Washington was able to achieve the key Revolutionary War battles with the incredible foresight, creativity, and persistence of his General, Henry Knox - a self taught man. He was with General Washington from the beginning in Boston, through the battles in NYC, engineered the crossing of the Potomac, and finally victory in Yorktown.
   
   George Washington said "There is no man whom I love more or have a stronger friendship."



3. This is a very readable and much needed history of a forgotten founder of our country. I'd never read much of anything about Knox except that he got the cannons from Ticonderoga to Boston at the start of the revolution. It never occurred to me to think much about why Washington put so much trust in him and named him to his cabinet. There are a few minor errors, such as Puls statement that Hamilton wasn't able to run for President due to his foreign birth (false - per Article II, anyone a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution was eligible), but they don;t detract much from the whole.



4. From Boston street rat to American revolutionary general to the first U.S. Secretary of War, the career of Henry Knox rose steadily and triumphantly despite a life dogged by personal tragedy. Knox's quick intellect allowed him to turn bombardment theory gained through voracious reading into expert practice during the American Revolution; his unflagging optimism and good-natured love of people charmed open the doors to the halls of political power; his reliability and integrity gained him the respect and admiration of the army and its civic leadership. Perhaps the greatest testament to his spirit was his refusal to break under the deaths of nine children and the gradual mental collapse and death of William, his only sibling.
   
   Puls's biography of Knox falls into the category of "Better than Nothing." Knox, for whom the famed repository of American gold is named, deserves the limelight Puls shines on him. Also, Puls's writing is clear and exciting, the kind of prose that captures the imagination and holds it tightly. However, this is not a scholarly work, and it shows. Speculation on what Knox may have felt or thought is too prominent, and there isn't much in the way of scientifically-historical investigation. This popular biography fills a thoroughly necessary spot in the American library--to introduce the casual reader to a great historical figure who may otherwise have been forgotten. It's simply unfortunate that Knox has the popular biography without the definitive scholarly work to undergird it.



5. In very many ways, the story of the United States is also Henry Knox' story, of someone from humble beginnings, including a physical handicap, rising to be a significant part in the American Revolution, through personal efforts and overcoming seemingly insurmountable challenges. Knox may not have been an architect of victory, but he certainly was one of the major instruments of it. An American `Man For All Seasons', his range of talents, as well as personal and professional growth, were amazing: valor and leadership in the field; extraordinary organizational skills; trusted senior advisor to George Washington; quick in developing tactics and tools to accommodate the Continental Army's myriad weaknesses; founder of the US Navy; recognizing and exploiting new technology; founder of West Point Military Academy; architect of a professional officer corps. These and more were contributions he made that not only served the immediate struggle for the US' existence, but also provided tools for subsequent national leaders who were grateful for having them as instruments of policy. And, like all of George Washington's `family', he had a sense of honor that was sorely tested by the pointed, repeated and deliberate failures of national political leaders, something that exists still in today's modern military. The 257 pages are organized into 12 chapters and an Epilog, with extensive notes and bibliography. The time span is from his early years to his untimely death. A delightful read, and highly recommended.

5 comments about China Marine: An Infantryman's Life after World War II.

1. China Marine Gene Sledge is an old friend although I've never met him. Any book by him is more than worth the few dollars it would take to own it. Most Americans have no knowledge of the fact that immediately following WW II 60,000 U. S. Marines were sent into North China. Their real purpose was to keep that area from falling into the hands of Mao Tse Tsung's 8th Route Army when the Japanese withdrew. We Marines were to fill the gap, and then turn this critical ground that contained much of the coal available in China. The Russians raised hell in the UN about the US not repatriating the Jap troops to their mainland. The US objective was to maintain them in place as additional insurance in order to keep Mao's ChiComs in Manchuria the caves of Yemen where they had been kept in check by the Japs during WW II. With pressure from the UN, the last of the Japs and Koreans were sent home by about June of 1946, leaving a dwindling number of Marines to literally "hold the fort." Essentially, this is what Sledge writes about. Imagine to have survived the battles for Peleliu and Okinawa only to be sent to North China where too many Marines were to be killed. Sledge, because of his time overseas, was able to leave China early in '46, as I recall. Those of us who had arrived late to the Pacific Theater during WW II would remain guarding the railroads and bridges that moved the coal. And so, you say: "How come I haven't read anything about this? It was not mentioned in my History classes in high school or college."
   I have a story on my web site that may interest you: http://www.sullyusmc.com/Hsin%20Ho/Hsin%20Ho.htm This story concerns one incident that occurred in April, 1947, shortly before the Marines were withdrawn from that area by our State Department. In my case I ended up in Tsingtao on the Shantung Peninsula, until 25Sep48 when I was commissioned a 2dLt and ordered stateside. Within a few months of my leaving China Chiang Kai Shek and his Kuomingtao withdrew to Formosa (Taiwan). My old regiment, the 5th Marines, oversaw the withdrawal of US and other civilians from Shanghai in early '49, and China was from that time under the control of Mao and the Chicoms. I and many other Marines saw a great deal of the latter when they intervened in the Korean War in November/December '50. We Marines were in and around the Chosin Reservoir. The US public knows little of the Korean War, but most at least connect the term Chosin Reservoir to that conflict.
   http://www.sullyusmc.com



2. When "With the Old Breed" ends you do not know the entire story. This volume fills that gap and does so very well. It is written in the same style that is direct and concise. I think many civilians thought that when WWII was over the troops just came home and all was well. It was not so. Many had further duty and had a rough time of it on return to the States. Almost all became exemplary citizens again despite their hardships. This book puts that all in perspective.
   Larry Martin
   Gainesville, FL



3. E. B. Sledge's "With the Old Breed" is by common consent one of the finest -- if not the finest -- account of the life of a combat infantryman in World War II. At Pelieu and Okinawa, Sledge was one of only 10 men in his Marine company of 240 to escape being wounded or killed. "China Marine" is the follow-up to "With the Old Breed," a lesser work but one that tells of what happened to Sledge after the war.
   
   With Sledge's experience, one would have thought that he would have been among the first among the military to be demobilized after the end of the war with Japan -- but no, he and his colleagues were sent to China to disarm the Japanese soldiers there and to maintain order in several northern Chinese cities. This is Sledge's account of the six months he spent in China. His view is that of a Private First Class -- but an educated and sophisticated PFC, the son of a medical doctor from Mobile, Alabama, and an outstanding writer. He delighted in Peking, fresh food, a clean bunk, light duties, and friendship with the sophisticated Soong family -- but the danger from attack by communist armies was always there.
   
   Sledge goes on to tell of the trauma of his discharge from the Marines and homecoming to Mobile and, briefly, his long years of struggle with what we call today Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It's a small book, only 160 pages, and an interesting, beautifully written, account of the decompression of a combat soldier and his return home.
   
   Sledge died in 2001 but he was often quoted in Ken Burn's recent PBS series on World War II. Sledge is a true American hero.
   
   Smallchief



4. After WWII and the follow-on duty in China, the author decided to enroll at Auburn University. The female from the Registrar's Office "slammed her pencil on the table and said in a loud, exasperated voice, 'Didn't the Marine Corps teach you anything?' A gasp ran through the crowd, and you could have heard a pin drop."
   
   Veteran Marine Sledge said in a loud, calm voice: "Lady, there was a killing war. The Marine Corps taught me how to kill Japs and try to survive. Now, if that don't fit into any academic course, I'm sorry. But some of us had to do the killing -- and most of my buddies got killed or wounded."
   
   On the last page, the author writes a powerful, thought-provoking message for the great mass of spoiled Americans (94% today are not vets) who never served. He reminds them that the Japanese soldier was "imbued with the Code of Bushido (Code of the Warrier) and yamata damashii (the fighting power of Japan). If we had not defeated an army that thought it was unbeatable, who knows how many American cities might have shared the horrid Rape of Nanking."



5. A fine book on a marine in the process of occupation duty clearly a true standout to the thousands of marine corps memoirs, and on a personal note E.B. Sledge isn't dead I am watching him on the t.v., on the show 'D-day's in the South Pacific'. This is a fine book and really worth reading, even though i personally felt he should have made sergeant and at least received a bronze star though he felt being there was enough. I personally thank all the men who fought and died for our freedom in any war, for any cause.