1 comments about The Secret War Against Hitler (Der Widerstand : Dissent and Resistance in the Third Reich).

1. Abraham Lincoln often stated that the Weems book on George Washington was his favorite book next to the Bible. Well, this is definitely my favorite book in the whole world, next to the Bible. I believe the motivations of the author and many others in this book are best expressed by the forward in another book from the same crisis, The White Rose. The forward in one its publications by a sister of one of the members of the White Rose expressed the general sentiment of that group. They had to do something even if it was hopeless, so that other countries and future generations would know that there were people in Germany who had true compassion for the innocent and were not themselves animals like the Nazis! A warning about reading this book: If you are anything like the author, Count Von Stauffenber, or a relative handful of others from Hitler's Germany, this will be a terribly hard book to read emotionly. I venture to say that it aged me ten years in the days that I obsorbed it (or was obsorbed by it, reading is definitey too shallow a term). If you can stand by and see the innocent put to death by the guilty and not be overwelmed by righteous indignation then don't waste the time on this book! I would like to add some more detail to this review at some point when I get some more time. I pray that with this short testimonial I have given the true heros of America who see this a hunger to pour themselves into this work of extreme pathos!

No comments about Assassin: Theory and Practice of Political Violence.

No comments about Forgive my grief III.

2 comments about The Lost Fortune of the Tsars.

1. So much of the fascination the Russian Tsars still hold for us today is connected with their great wealth and fabulous possessions. William Clarke's book is a detailed examination of the sources of the property of the House of Romanov before World War I and of its disposition and possible whereabouts today. In the process of his search Clarke also proved and disproved several theories as to the fate of the wealth, clearing some notable persons of some unsavory accusations



2. Whilst Clarke does an admirable job of tracing the wealth of the Tsar he missed his best opportunity - in the United States. He missed opportunities to demonstrate that some of the very people he writes about - George Romanosky and Sidney Reilly to name a few - were attempting to arrange letters of credit at the New York City Bank. Moreover the failed conclusion on the link between Sidney Reilly and the Remington Rifle Company is an oversight that can not be excused.
   
   It would have been overly generous to grant more than one star because he could have shed so much more light on the trail if he had not gotten off the trail prematurely. His effort was brave and worthwhile but I was severly disappointed in the outcome. Perhaps he should have employed a top notch research assistant in the United States.

1 comments about Who Shot the President? The Death of John F. Kennedy.

1. Having long held a fascination with the assassination of John F. Kennedy, I was curious to see what this Step Into Reading book aimed at children in grades two through four would say about the event. Written in 1988 by Judy Donnelly, Who Shot the President? The Death of John F. Kennedy gives a surprisingly objective look at the case. Illustrated with a number of color and black and white photographs, this definitely could serve to not only spur a child's interest in reading but impart to the child a deeper sense of American history and tragedy.

   The book gives a short, rather glowing summary of Kennedy's life, leaving out anything negative, but it gives a good appraisal of Kennedy's final moments. It mentions shots possibly coming from in front of the motorcade (although it wrongly claims no evidence of activity was found in that area), describes the discovery of evidence on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, and covers Lee Harvey Oswald's movements from the killing of Officer Tippet to his arrest inside a local movie theatre. There are several pictures of the assassination, none of which are graphic, of course. There are a couple of shots of Kennedy's reaction to the first bullet, and I was surprised to find two critical frames of the Zapruder film included, as well: the frames just before and after the kill shot - the frame showing the impact of the bullet that killed Kennedy is not shown here, and rightly so in this context. The book goes on to describe Jack Ruby's murder of Oswald, then talks about the Warren Commission Report and the 1978-79 Select Committee on Assassinations of the House of Representatives reexamination of the evidence. Most impressively, it refers to some of the questions that conspiracy buffs such as myself continue to ask, thereby achieving an impressively objective look at this crucial moment in American history. This would make an excellent book for young readers.

No comments about Who Killed John Clayton?: Political Violence and the Emergence of the New South, 1861-1893.

No comments about I Am a Man: A New Play (Powa Ta Da Peepas).

5 comments about Murdering Mr. Lincoln: A New Detection of the 19th Century's Most Famous Crime.

1. Charles Higham's research connects various Copperhead merchants to the Confederate Secret Service, but fails to convincingly tie any of them to John Wilkes Booth. The book is worth reading primarily for its exploration of a new angle to Lincoln's assassination: Copperhead commerce with the South, reluctantly approved by Lincoln as necessary to the Union to finance the war, provided a cloak for an assassination conspiracy.

   Mr. Higham almost certainly has several things wrong. He assumes the plot to kidnap Lincoln was always phony and a cover for murder. But why would Booth write in his diary, "...we sought to capture (and changed to murder at the end)"? Why would Arnold and Surratt, years after they were safe from the law, provide details of Booth's planned abduction? It's also a huge stretch to say Surratt traveled 24 hours from Elmira, N.Y. to Washington on April 13-14 and spent only 5 hours in the city, most of which was devoted to getting his hair cut and watching a transvestite show.

   Finally, as with every single historian to have written on the case since 1865, Mr. Higham is willing to assume that Booth entered Lincoln's box without having determined in advance that Parker, the guard, would be absent. This, despite his precise timing of the gunshot to coincide with a laugh line in "Our American Cousin" and with Paine's assault on Seward. Booth acted according to a presumption to which he was not entitled, i.e. Parker would not be guarding Lincoln. He had to have known this.




2. Charles Higham has long seen conspiracy theories under his bed. For most of us, going to bed means counting sheep and drifting off into a restful sleep, but for Higham it must be an entirely different experience. Perhaps his sheep all wear swastika armbands on their legs, baaing in syncopation with goose-stepping spies on their way to conspire with their Hollywood friends. Now, after a long and fruitless career hacking out spy laden fiction about Hollywood's brightest stars, he turns his attention to Abraham Lincoln. The switch from Hollywood figures to political icons is consistent with Higham's long rumored belief that every celebrity was not only a Nazi spy, but a closet homosexual intent on destroying the pillars of democracy. No matter - Higham's book is without merit. This book is no more than a long supposition bracketed by historical gobbledygook and pounds of manure shoveled up from Higham's seemingly endless supply of self-created excrement. Surely, he needs some fiber in his diet, and a backbone to go with it. A soul would help, too. But we need to keep in mind a fundamental truth when considering Charles Higham's long and lucrative career - he has the right to publish what he wants. Freedom is everything, and we need to accept that, even if it means that any deranged fool raised in a leper colony by a homosexual Franciscan monk from Mars can bellow about the conspiracy that occupies his dreams. Yes, they shoot horses and diseased cattle, but not people, and so the diseased are allowed their bellowing. Such people have the strength of their beliefs, and no dialogue from the rest of us will convince them that they are wrong. We should pity them. In any event, it appears obvious that Higham has reached the end of his career. He will still publish, of course, but he is much reviled. His "lack of journalistic integrity" (as historian Tony Thomas so aptly stated) is well known. At best, we should all pray that one day such illnesses are defeated and that one day Charles Higham will finally rest in peace.



3. Those interested in the politics behind the war will find Higham's work at times fascinating and horrific. The book really brings home what happened apart from the battlefront. As revered as President Lincoln is today, he made some decisions that would make 21st century citizens of a democracy cringe. Alternatively, Lincoln's detractors and political opponents did the same. It seems unfathomable to me now that Lincoln could have been hated by so many, and this book really pierces the veil of the myth surrounding his presidency and the unity of all those in the Union.

   When one really ponders what Lincoln did - suspending the writ of habeas corpus, prosecuting publishers printing unfavorable information, trading with South, etc. - one realizes that Lincoln - just like everyone - is neither complete hero nor complete villain - but a convoluted mix of gray areas.

   But a reflection on Lincoln is not an intended objective of this book. Nor does it foster an argument that Lincoln deserved death. The focus here is the plot to de-throne Lincoln and make peace with the South, hatched by shadowy Confederate sympathizers, fringe Confederate spies, the European aristocracy, and some out-and-out crazies, like the chief villain George Sanders and assassian John Wilkes Booth. This objective is fulfilled in excruciating detail.

   Also deeply disturbing was the revelation of the "Young Americans" Hitler-youth-type organization, the assertion that Stephen Douglas planned for a military coup d'etat over Lincoln, and the whole affair between Confederate exiles conspiring with British/Canadians to incite war with England.

   A fascinating story is marred by the author's continuous barrage of trivial details. He throws so many names, places, and things at the reader that even the most astute Civil War scholar would be overwhelmed.

   The book reads like a novel and while that is good for easy reading, one has to wonder how the author dug up so much granular information 150 years later. The source notes - a paltry half-dozen pages at the end - do nothing to convince me that the author did in fact thoroughly validate the accuracy of his assertions. Personally, while I think the book does contain many facts, I have to consider it more a historical novel, like Gore Vidal's "Lincoln", than a history. "Dark Union", another recent and similar book on Lincoln during the war, is much better annotated.




4. The editorial review says it all:
   
   Conspiracy theorists and Civil War buffs may want to take a gander, but overall this book adds little to our understanding of the assassination.



5. A well written book with a flair for the extreme. The author has taken numerous facts about the assassination and it's particpants and stretched them with assumptions that are conceivable but not proven. A wonderful story, but a disclaimer should be attached allowing readers to understand that some facts have been stretched to offer the story of a dynamic conspiracy, a thrilling hunt and final solution. A great read and it would certainly make a great movie, ala Otto Eisenschiml.

1 comments about Autobiography of a spy.

1. Bancroft, Mary 1983. Autobiography of a spy. William Morrow and Company. Inc. New York. ISBN 0688020194
   
   This is a very informative and sensual book, providing insights and links between seemingly different events. This book contains detail after detail of rare and varied historical information. Aside from the routine of spy-craft there are endless enlightening data. Bancroft's description of the sugar mill and port town of Antilla, and Banes the birthplace of Fulgencio Batista, in eastern Cuba and the life, mores and conditions of those places in Cuba are vivid, if sometimes uninformed. One realizes, without mention of names, she is dealing with people like Angel Castro, father of Fidel, and his business of importing seasonal contract labor from Haiti to work in the cane fields. Bancroft describes vivid characters such as the "minor" Rumanian Prince whose ambition was to open a high class brothel over a hat shop in Paris, and the genocidal horrors of the Yugoslavian conflicts. She explains in matter of fact tactful tones the amorality of her spy trade, the exploitation of diverse sexuality, and the realities of survival of the "international" of desperately arrogant gay diplomats cooperating across borders, betraying their countries in order protect themselves, are described discretely. Her contacts with and instruction by Carl Gustav Jung, her lovers and husbands, her uncaring braveness, the casual skill with which she does her job, and arranges her employment by and affair with Allen Dulles, are erotic without being explicit.

1 comments about Julius Caesar: A Guide to the Play (Greenwood Guides to Shakespeare).

1. I consider this play by Shakespeare an exquisite masterpiece. This is a unique piece of literature in that we can see that life is not usually a battle between good and evil, but rather a battle between people with different views. Cassius and Caesar both have traits that present them as ambitious and dangerous. Yet, Shakespeare also leads us into having great sympathy for both of them at times. Cassius honestly fears that Caesar will be the terror of Rome. And yet, we can also understand that Caesar knows that to be an effective ruler, he must maintain a strong autocratic hold. Brutus is tricked into joining the conspiracy, but honestly feels that he is serving Rome, and even when things get difficult he holds on to the situation with both hands up until the very end. Mark Antony sees Caesar's death as the start of chaos in Rome and he does his absolute best to crush the conspiracy and restore order. It is interesting that rather than gloating over his victory he offers his respect to his defeated foe. But "Julius Caesar" also offers interesting psychological moments. While Cassius and Brutus are very different people, they manage to stick together through the consequences of their actions. Mark Antony shows himself to be a master of psychology when in 3.2, he wins over the multitude Brutus had won over moments earlier. (This is not an invention of Shakespeare's. It really happened.) It is also an interesting psychological aspect that Mark Antony first appears as little more than a servant to do Caesar's bidding. Yet, when Caesar is killed, Mark Antony clearly shows himself to be the most intelligent and able person in the play. He grabs control with both hands and uses it in a more effective manner than anyone. We must not neglect the women in the play either. The appearance of Caesar's wife is brief, but she clearly shows herself to be a loyal and devoted wife. Furthermore, this helps us see the domestic aspect of Caesar's tragedy. Also, the appearance of Brutus' wife helps us to see that Brutus' concern over Rome's well being has struck him so much that his domestic life has taken a back seat. Also, Shakespeare makes use of bad omens like the soothsayer who warns Caesar (as well as all of us) of the dangers to come. When the ghost of Caesar appears to haunt Brutus, it would seem that Caesar becomes to Brutus, what the soothsayer was to him. Finally, I can not overestimate the mastery of Shakespeare's writing when the first 3 acts lead up to the brutal slaying of Caesar. And, just when we think the worst has happened, Mark Antony delievers his soliloquy and makes it clear that the game has only started. In addition to the play, I highly suggest the old (1953) black and white movie where James Mason does Brutus and Marlon Brando does Mark Antony.