5 comments about Fighting for American Manhood: How Gender Politics Provoked the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars (Yale Historical Publications Series).

1. Kristin L. Hoganson's Fighting for American Manhood does an interesting job of walking the thin line between gender definitions, interpretations of discourse and traditional explanations of behavior in two fields that have been difficult for many newer historians to break into, international relations and military history. Although primarily a work explaining American motives in the first, Hoganson does bring some new insights on the latter to light. The work is a somewhat successful attempt to synthesize the various answers historians have previously put forward to the question, "Why did the United States go to war in 1898?" Hoganson suggests that by understanding the very real phenomenon of cultural perceptions of "manliness," and how these perceptions affected the nation as a whole and those in power in particular, we may reach a more well defined answer.
   Acknowledging the validity of many of the previous explanations put forward by historians, Hoganson weaves many of them together. For example, while acknowledging that annexationist aspirations were relevant to the political actors of the day, she points out that many of the underlying reasons for these aspirations may be ascribed to gender fears. Politicians wanted to appear "manly," and there was no better way to appear this way to the voting populace than to adapt a "jingo" platform. With a similar stroke she places explanations revolving around Social Darwinists in a broader picture by illustrating that at the root of many of the fears of social degeneracy and racial competition were definitions and discourse which is clearly painted with gender based pigments. In these areas Hoganson hits her stride and in large part succeeds in redefining the scope of our understanding to include gender.
   She does not, however, hit the mark in a few areas. Primarily because it appears that she never really aimed in that direction. Specifically, her treatment of the economic and strategic explanations for the Spanish-American War appear to be missing. While she does make a series of valid observations about the gender biases of several of the key actors in these areas, these observations are not relevant as causation. Naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan was almost certainly extremely gender biased, and in all likelyhood was also a racist, but neither of these were central to his reasoning. As evidence that the strategists carried little weight she points to the fact that the Army was not expanded in conjunction with the massive naval expansion of the period. One is left wondering why naval officers and supporters would have pushed for a large army when their whole theory of geostrategic influence and security rested not upon the occupation of land, but on the domination of sea lanes. Many of the same problems apply when she addresses economic factors. Overall, her dismissal of geostrategic and economic factors rests primarily upon a loose scaffold of secondary sources and the very real gender biases of the primary actors.
   This is a moderate work of synthesis that potentially serves as the starting point for a new generation of interpretation. Hoganson has met her goal, she set out to lay a new cornerstone for the interpretation of American imperialism at the turn of the century and she has largely succeeded. Gender is a valid lens through which we may view many of the factors contributing to the American imperialist experiments. What now remains is for Hoganson or others to follow this up with a valid and in-depth gender based analysis of the factors she dismissed or glossed over, military and economic.



2. Studying how gender norms and ideals contribute to, and at times create, historical events is not a revolutionary idea; but applying gender norms and ideals to how late nineteenth and early twentieth century Americans understood war and empire comes very close to being just that. Professor Hoganson's short study of how bellicose ideals of male virility which glorify physical prowess and anxieties about an altering gender landscape in the years just before and after the Spanish and Philippine-American wars adds a new level of complexity to the study of those wars, and the path which American foreign policy took during the twentieth century. Using the time tested method of simply taking seriously what policy makers and popular media outlets said and wrote, she builds a rock solid case for reinterpreting American foreign policy in particular, and war in general, through humans' more visceral conceptions of themselves.
   
   Zeroing in on the language norms and the gender ideals which they espoused, Fighting for American Manhood recreates the sense of urgency that much of America's political and cultural elite felt concerning the declining stature of elite men in American society. For the generation of American men who had been either too young to fight in the Civil War, anxiety about their personal and political worth in comparison to the Civil War generation mixed with a personal resentment about being continually marginalized by that generation-especially in the political arena. Even more troubling to much of the elite was the perception that, unlike the Civil War generation, these men could not measure up physically to the working men who were demanding, often violently, greater participation in American life. Accompanying all of these criticisms that the young American elite leveled at themselves was a poisonous interpretation Darwin's evolutionary doctrine which argued that only the physically strong could survive in the dangerous game of international politics. Add to this a resurgence the early nineteenth century standard of honor where slights would require physical resolution and the closure of the frontier, and Americans already had powder keg in the persons of young men itching for a fight.
   
   The changing role of women in American society added some of the most profound anxiety which was making young men hope for a fight-one that would reassert their sense of manliness. The fact that women were arguing for suffrage, were highly visible, and vocal, in civic and moral reform movements which were challenging men's prerogatives in what were traditionally men's private spheres, was cause for even further concern. This concern was exacerbated by general gist of many women activists argument that an infusion of feminine sensibilities into the political dialogue was the best way to assure a better world for all mankind. These sentiments struck at the core of ideals of robust manliness that the young, increasingly belligerent, and politically ambitious generation of American He-men found most dear.
   
   Enter Cuba. Though it is something of an overstatement to argue that insurgent Cuba represented for Jingoes an ideal land where men were men and women were women in the most reactionary sense imaginable, it is not complete overstatement. In recounting the political rhetoric used by the Congressional supporters of Cuba libre and the press coverage Spanish atrocities in the penny dailies, Hoganson recreates the image of a noble island of honorable fighters and dainty women that were more likely found to be in The Art of Courtly Love or the more middle-brow romances that were popular fare in the late nineteenth century. This was more the creation of fanciful imagination than it was of a product of reflection on the conditions of the Cuban insurrection, but like many myths it was taken very seriously even by those who helped to create it. Wanting to believe the officers and soldiers of Cuba libre were knights and squires in need of fraternal assistance from their powerful brothers to the north was overwhelmingly attractive to men who were questioning their own worth by the standards they believed Cubans exemplified. Only interaction with Cuban irregulars would alter the romantic conceptions fostered by government and popular media.
   
   Most interesting in Professor Hoganson's account of the period leading up the Spanish war is her argument, recounted with very solid evidence, that respect for the supposed valor and nobility on the part of Cuban soldiers trumped racism. Cuba was rightly understood to be an island of black and brown people and the fact that racist Southern papers like the Atlanta Journal-Constitution could describe the martyred Afro-Cuban General Antonio Maceo as "one of the world's greatest warriors," while the Prussian descended Spanish General Valeriano Weyler was characterized as a contemptible gun thug is something which is remarkable to the modern reader familiar with how race relations were in the United States at this time (45-48). Myths of white supremacy, whether believed because of supposed scientific rigor or simply taken on faith, were capable of being trumped by a mythos just as dangerously pernicious. Just as the nobility myth came under a deadly scrutiny when American soldiers encountered Cuban conditions, the oddly unhistorical anti-racism of the Jingoes would die with exposure to Cuban conditions-even if unfairly.
   
   Overall, the book is a creative look at what is an unjustly overlooked period in American history. Furthermore it is a creative look at what motivates young men, and increasingly young women, to pine for war without particularly caring about the cause for which they are fighting.



3. In a somewhat flamboyant pose with his tails and pinstripe pants, Uncle Sam breaks out of his regular pose . Kristin L. Hoganson uses the illustration to depict a rather loose portrait of American symbolism in her examination of how gender and cultural studies ties in with the historical narrative of the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars, FIGHTING FOR AMERICAN MANHOOD: HOW GENDER POLITICS PROVOKED THE SPANISH-AMERICAN AND PHILIPPINE-AMERICAN WARS. Hoganson's study is unique, and is yet an additional perspective about US history's most overlooked conflicts and possible blunders. Her interdisciplinary approach defines the roots of the conflict, which relates to the political, social, and cultural atmosphere that occurred during the late nineteenth century - women's suffrage, social Darwinism, and imperialism.
   
   Hoganson's suggests that manhood is the premise of President Mckinley's personality and leadership. It was the driving force that exacerbated engagement in a war that was culturally and politically perplexing. Hoganson touches on noncombatant aspects of the war, jingoism, imperialists, anti-imperialist movement, and economic annexation. However, Hoganson does not indulge in a military study of the war, but she correlates the romanticism of the US Civil War as an inspiration for jingoist behavior during the Spanish-American War as well as the Philippine-American War. Hoganson continuously emphasizes that the war was a response to maintaining fraternalism during a period where social issues engendered the perception and participation in war activity.
   
   With the accompaniment of political cartoons, Hoganson interprets her premise of manliness. The political-propaganda cartoons serve as a metaphor for both the Spanish-American and Philippine-American wars. This was the period where the mass media and the telegraph emerged as effective means of communication, but also lent itself to misinformation and misconceptions.
   
   I doubt that FIGHTING FOR AMERICAN MANHOOD is supposed to interpret the entire purpose of US engagement in the war. However, it is yet another perspective that delves deep within the historical lens and shows the reader how social influences may have an effect on individual leadership and the actions that are taken to achieve successful results.



4. The author approaches her subject from an interesting perspective. So-called masculine myths have always heavily influenced male roles in both domestic and foreign policy. For all recorded time, the ruling classes constantly produce the so-called 'idle rich," most of whom chose to remain remain comfortable idle, while others, with the benefit of that very idleness begin to question their place in society and the wider world. Some decide that they must play a significant part on the local-to-international stage. Whether Greek, Persian, Chinese, Japanese, Zulu, Roman, Incan or European, some of these patricians of their respective societies will have a driving ambition and will chose a path to leadership and this times means picking up a rock or spear or G4/M16/AK-47 and fighting. What role does gender politics play in these decisions? Sure - but only to a point - gender identification and gender roles sometime play a dominant part, but some of them have displayed no insecurity about their manliness at all. Think of Julius Caesar, captured by pirates and warning them, even as they laughed at him, that he'd return and punish them. Was he asserting his manliness. I think the pirates just picked up the wrong kid - someone who didn't like to be humiliated, regardless of his gender. If the hostage had been a female celt, she might have returned herself to avenge her honor. A lot of this has to do with the place of the warrior in society. For the Romans, that was almost the exclusive role of men. But for non-Romans of Europe, women were very much in the mix. Think of tribes in Britain where women could succeed men and rule. In all these societies, a case can be made that these young male patricians are just asking themselves, "What is my place in the universe?" and "Why has the Deity placed me in a situation of obvious advantage over my fellows?" and "What can I do to leave my mark on my world?" These questions transcend gender and are as much philosophical and theological as they are gender-induced. Not only are they questions asked by the elites, but they are often questions asked by anyone who wants to make a difference in his/her world. They transcend gender and have been asked throughout human history. Some known and unknown examples: Consider this - Was Joan of Arc a male, insecure about his masculinity? No. Was she even an elite patrician insecure about her masculinity? No. She was neither. The maide of Orleans simply saw the evils and injustices of the English occupation and destruction of France and decided that the Deity had selected HER to DO something about it. And remember those Celts? Go back to Roman-occupied Britain. Was Boudica, British Queen of the Iceni tribe, though an obvious patrician, insecure about her masculinity? What motivated her to take on the most powerful country in the world in an almost hopeless struggle? She was fighting for HER crown as Queen of her tribe because both the Roman culture and law refused to recognize female heirs. The wild and warlike Iceni and most other Celtic tribes DID recognize female rulers as well as the right of women to fight beside their men. Indeed, the Romans describe the incredible ferocity of these women in combat - female fighters who fought beside their men. When Boudica's husband died and the Romans responded to her just (under Celtic law and culture - though not Roman) claim to the throne by flogging her (a intentionally degrading and also non-lethal Roman approach) and her daughters were raped, and when Roman financiers called in their loans to the Iceni, Boudica rose up and led her people. She fought for HER own - her honor, her crown, her daughters' honor and her people. Boudica did just what Joan of Arc did. Was masculine insecurity driving her? She was fighting (and not in some symbolic 21th Century way) for HER place in HER world. Before her final attack, Boudica exhorted her troops from her chariot, her violated daughters standing beside her. She presented herself not as an aristocrat avenging her lost wealth, but as an ordinary person, avenging her lost freedom, her battered body and the abused chastity of her daughters. She told the men that their cause was just, and the gods were on their side. If the men wanted to live in slavery, that was their choice, it was not hers. She fought and died for a cause transcending some masculine inferiority complex or gender-role insecurity. Consider the Russian women who rose up and fought in both the First and Second World War. One woman, Maria Bochkareva fought so well that she was decorated 4 times and allowed to create an all-women volunteer battalion that fought in several engagements, even capturing 3 successive trench lines and a group of completely surprised German soldiers who were marched back to Russian lines. The French resistance in both WW-I and WW-II and Israeli experience have shown that some women, when feel pushed to the edge of endurance are willing to fight for causes altogether transcending gender. As this is being written, there is probably some young Arab Muslim woman training to be a suicide bombers in Iraq. Think about it. Even in the almost totally male-dominated Arab culture, women are picking up AK-47s, RPGs or strapping on bombs to do their "fair share" in their particular struggle. Does masculine insecurity-induced "gender politics" explain their actions? Of course, we're not even talking about the women in today's modern armies. Some of whom are flying high-performance combat aircraft and have participated in combat in numerous places including Iraq. Conclusion. Yes, so-called "masculine insecurities" and "male aggressive myths" of idle elites and even those other not so idle men, should be studied, but it has to be within a much larger context. From ancient times to today, if you get some women mad enough, they'll pick up a rock or a sword or a spear or a musket, or Mosin-Nagent or an AK-47 or an M-16 or strap on an F-16 or F-22 or a bomb and fight, gender-politics be damned .
   
   



5. A well researched and written account of reasons for America's participation in the Spanish American War. The author stirs the reader's interest with numerous primary source citations to support her point and presents revealing information about the American perspective for participating in the Spanish American War.

2 comments about The Edge of Terror: The Heroic Story of American Families Trapped in the Japanese-occupied Philippines.

1. Scott Walker's The Edge of Terror takes the reader back to the beginning of World War II and follows several families' ordeals as the Japanese sweep into the Phillipines. Walker's research is meticulous and he brings first hand knowledge of the islands from his childhood as the son of missionaries serving there. Walker weaves an engrossing story of two communities, miners and missionaries, and how they came together to elude and eventually fight the Japanese occupiers. Using both primary sources and interviews with participants, Walker tells a story that is both tragic and triumphant. If you like history, especially the history of World War II, read The Edge of Terror.



2. Well written! I found it so engaging I could not put the book down. What made it so interesting for me was not only knowing family members of two of the families involved, but the author as well. I highly recommend it.

No comments about Policing America's Empire: The United States, the Philippines, and the Rise of the Surveillance State (New Perspectives in Se Asian Studies).

5 comments about Imperial Grunts: On the Ground with the American Military, from Mongolia to the Philippines to Iraq and Beyond.

1. A wonderfully thorough and accurate account of far-reaching American imperialism, maintained by obscure small wars and nation-building and a near-religious quest for "hearts and minds," the globe over. Kaplan successfully reveals the full-circle the U.S. has drawn from conflicts of centuries ago to the present-day struggles (some well-known, others of a nature more stealth) from Columbia to Afghanistan and Iraq. Unburdened by left-wing bias, untainted by hawkish neo-conservative idealism, it is a work staggering in scope and satisfying in its delivery. Overall, it casts America in its proper role as peacekeeper of the world and highlights (as it alludes to) the ways our military leaders must change and adapt so the U.S. can continue filling that role. In doing so, Kaplan also portrays the utter humanity of the troops on the ground doing the hard work, even as he trumpets their heroism and acknowledges the intangibles that grace their collective drive to serve. As a military man, it is gratifying that Kaplan observes firsthand and clearly articulates so much about American military might; its collective mindset; and its service members that is otherwise overlooked; misunderstood; or altogether unexpressed, or at least normally loses more than a small measure of accuracy. The "yup-that's-how-it-is; can't- believe-I-never-thought-of-it-that-way" factor is all over this book.



2. In the current age of transnational threats and global insurgency, security for both the US as a nation and for the interstate system as a whole will only be found by bolstering those states that are weak and are unable to control their own borders are govern the entirety of their own territory. This is done through close military engagement on the ground with the armed forces of friendly states, what the US military refers to as "Building Partner Capacity."
   
   Kaplan's book takes readers to the front lines of these efforts, both in active war zones and in countries around the world where the fight against the forces of chaos and terrorism takes a much more subtle form. It provides an indispensable view into how security is gained and maintained in the modern age.
   
   The controversy arises because Kaplan's writing style leaves him open to accusations of jingoism and being an apologist for American imperialism. However, such a conclusion fails to fully understand Kaplan's point: that as the only superpower left, the US has to be proactive in its efforts to secure the world. But these efforts are conducted by working with, not against, other states. These sorts of efforts are central to pursuing security WITHOUT having to invade other countries and depose regimes on a regular basis, and are discusses without controversy in numerous academic works on the subject. To dismiss Kaplan as a war monger and neo-imperialist is to misunderstand his point.



3. The item arrived on time in good condition and was in excellent condition. I could not ask more from the seller.



4. A central thesis of Kaplan's book is that the U.S. is now an empire with global reach. I just don't agree with his premise. If we are an empire, we're pretty bad at it. What is true is that the U.S. military has succumbed to "mission creep" with little or no public debate. Why are we training troops in places like Chad or Algeria ? Kaplan is fulsome in his praise of the ground-level troopers, and they deserve it for their dedication and resourcefulness. But it must be admitted that these qualities are often put to use in the service of missions of dubious strategic value.



5. I read this volume in reverse, starting with Hog Pilots. Coming back to this volume, with its journalistic travels concluded 6 years ago, and having also recently read Three Cups of Tea and Stones into Schools by Greg Mortenson, the linkage between the two was startling even as their points of reference were distinct. The "hearts and minds" approach, and the ability to solve locally through American military assets prioritizing community building in their agendas seems significantly evolved since Kaplan first spoke of it in his chapters on Afghanistan and Iraq. Note the military mandate of reading Mortenson's work in their Counterinsurgency curriculum, and then think back to Kaplan's insights in the Colombian, Philippine and aforementioned theaters. I would love those two authors to be on the same panel speaking to long term solutions of local contact and assistance and the role they play in protecting American interests, whether by design or circumstance.

5 comments about The Philippine War, 1899-1902 (Modern War Studies).

1. Dr. Linn's account of the Philippine war describes the complexities of fighting the Filipino insurrection both politically and militarily. Opposing the "popular history" accounts of this war, Linn suggests that victory in the Philippines was not merely a result of massacres and US atrocities against the Filipinos, but that Emilio Aguinaldo more so lost the conflict as a result of his inability to unite the insurrection under one, unified command. The American Forces also did much for the Filipinos in building infrastructure, making it difficult to produce a mass anti-American sentiment.
   Linn researched this book extensively using dozens of primary sources from national archives, both in the US and in the Philippines. A fantastic book and a great perspective.



2. This was required reading for a graduate course in the history of American military affairs. The goal of Brian McAllister Linn's book The Philippine War, was to debunk what he perceived as biased scholarship about one of America's least known wars, which also happened to be its only victory overseas in a counterinsurgency operation. The breadth of his research in American military archival holdings, personal papers from senior and junior officers, captured Filipino documents, and secondary American and Filipino sources, gave real impetus to his thesis that America's victory in the war was a combination of its military prowess and Filipino failures. "So accepted is this view that the specialists now argue over levels of degrees" (323). The only real criticism of the book is that Linn initially set out to write his account of the war using Filipino archival documentation, but due to its theft, he was unable to include them in his book. Thus, it became heavily weighted toward the American conduct of the war.
   
   The first half of Linn's book focused on the conventional warfare conducted on Luzon in 1899. The second and more compelling half of the book, examined the Filipino guerrilla warfare and American pacification operations conducted in the different regions of the archipelago. Historical events recounted in this part of the book is what Linn, on the centennial of the Philippine War, successfully aimed his main focus on to correct what he perceived as misinterpretations by past historians. Once Emilio Aguinaldo, the leader of the Philippine resistance, took his army into the hills to fight a guerilla action, the American's responded by effectively using its Navy to blockade the archipelago. This denied the Filipino guerrillas the capability to smuggle weapons and supplies, and it also kept them from freely moving between the islands. In addition, the Army divided the archipelago into U.S. Army departmental and district commands and gave its local commanders broad leeway to use the "carrot and stick" approach in "winning the hearts and minds" of the populace. One of the great strengths of the book was in Linn's account of how American "progressively minded" commanders used their institutional memory from their frontier service to institute civic improvement projects for the Filipino's in their districts. Such projects as building roads, schools, providing medical care, and forming locally elected governments, all helped the Americans to attain their goal of pacifying the population so they would accept American sovereignty. At the same time, in most instances these commanders used their troops effectively to search out and destroy the guerrilla forces. Linn did not shy away from recounting instances where the American forces exceeded General Order No. 100 delineating the laws of war and committed war crimes. However, he did not think these atrocities were numerous enough to besmirch the reputation of the American forces overall with prosecution of the Philippine War as has been done by so many history textbooks over the years. Linn also found in his research that the ultimate success of the American campaign was due to several factors beyond American control. One of the most important reasons for American success was the political and military actions of Aguinaldo. "Beyond outlining general policies--to pursue a war of attrition through guerrilla tactics, to keep the population from collaborating with the Americans, to launch an offensive in the fall of 1900 to influence the U.S. elections--he did very little to determine the course of the war" (185-186). Historians as well as military officers should read Linn's book.
   
   Recommended reading for anyone interested in military history, and American history.



3. Along with the Malayan Emergency, the Philippine war is the most often cited successful counter insurgencies. Again like the Malayan Emergency there is little written on this war and even less that can be called sound scholarly work. Dr. Linn is the exception and has written a detailed, well documented and easily accessible book.
   
   Dr. Linn breaks down all the major players on both sides of this conflict and traces them through the war. He breaks down the strategies and tactics that all the different factions. He also shows his research skills by showing what the tactics the U.S. Army actually employed and that there has been an over inflation of atrocities that were committed.
   
   This is good book for someone interested in the war, and it is an excellent resource for the student doing research. Either way the book is a must have for one's own personnel library.



4. As Linn makes clear in this book, the conflict between the Americans and Phillippines after the Spanish-American War was unexpected. The Fils wanted independence and the American government did not know what it wanted. When McKinley finally figured out he could establish a base in the Pacific and get a colony, the Phillippinos fought the Americans for Manila and subsequently waged a standard and then guerrilla war in the islands for the next three years.
   
   Linn makes it plain that the behavior of American troops overall was very good (my reading). There were some incidents such as stopping inter island trade and concentrating the rural peasants in the towns but there were few killings and torture sessions. In fact, the Phillippino insurgents used more grisly techniques on those who worked with the Americans. They included assassinations and torture. There were some instances of American troops looting and killing innocents, but they were the exception rather than the rule.
   
   Although this book does not preport to be the overall history of this conflict, it gives a good insight as to what happened when the U.S. grabbed the Phillippine Islands as a colony. The book shows the perspective of the common American soldiers from general down to volunteer.



5. I started reading Linn's book after a retired colonel with expertise in counterinsurgency recommended it to me. This book is hands-down the most informative document published to date regarding the 1899-1901 U.S. campaign. Linn not only takes the reader through the history of the war, he also explains (with complete objectivity) the successes and failures of methods and strategies utilized by both the U.S. and Aguinaldo's guerrillas. Unfortunately, many of the useful COIN "lessons learned" derived from the campaign were ultimately forgotten following the U.S. military's focus on more conventional warfare operations throughout WWI and WWII. The dismissal of small-wars COIN doctrine in favor of a more conventional approach contributed (in my opinion) to many faults throughout Vietnam. With the U.S. facing a strong insurgency in both Afghanistan and Iraq today, books like "The Philippine War, 1899-1902" will undoubtedly prove useful. I would recommend this book to the COIN practitioner and history buff alike, as well as those interested in learning more about America's true "forgotten war."

5 comments about Halsey's Typhoon: The True Story of a Fighting Admiral, an Epic Storm, and an Untold Rescue.

1. I read most of the Amazon reviews before starting this book, which was given to me by a friend who was a doctor on a tanker during the typhoon. Despite one reviewer's criticizm of inaccuracies (e.g.mess hall instead of mess deck)I found the story absolutely riveting, especially in the latter part when the rescues/deaths/shark attacks were happening. I congratulate the authors for digging out these stories and preserving them for generations that will never know the agonies these young men suffered. I have been calling my friends, especially fellow aviators, encouraging them to buy and read the story.



2. This book could have begun with "It was a dark and stormy see". The authors try to impress us with their vocabulary, often using archaic terms, and overuse adjectives. The writing is in the style of a bad romance novel with overuse of adjectives. Many of the similes are inappropriate for a sea story.
   
   My biggest complaint is reserved for the lack of citations. The book is filled with quotations, but there is no notes section to tell us where the quotes came from. The book might as well be labeled fiction. The magazine and newspaper section citations are lacking and the electronic sources section follows no style. Websites are listed with URLs nor access dates. In the miscellaneous section, one of the sources is history.navy.mil. The high schoolers I work with can put together better bibliographies.



3. These authors speak to the reader. If you like this book then you will like "The Last Stand Of Fox Company".



4. A story not well known, told with incredible detail and imagination where needed,but based on extensive research. It brings this great tragedy alive with amazing reality and feeling for those who lost their lives. A fast and must read.



5. The book is primarily a recount of the suffering of those who were aboard the three lost destroyers; it pays too much attention to the sufferers and not enough to the good work of the survivors and the other ships that were properly handled. It also blames Halsey for taking unnecessary chances, and that is not accurate. Halsey and his advisors were unaware of the storm until it was too late to evade it. I was aboard a carrier in Task Group 38.2 (Halsey was aboard the New Jersey, the guide of that group). Halsey did everything possible to aid and save his ships from a menace that nobody thought would as bad as it turned out to be. I congratulate the authors on their research into the actual happenings, obviously based on reports directly from survivors. The authors could have used a good Navy editor, however, since their language is far from that of a seagoing person. M.D. Van Orden, Rear Admiral, USN (Retired); an Ensign aboare USS Independence (CVL 22)during the typhoon.

5 comments about Clash of The Carriers: The True Story of the Marianas Turkey Shoot of World War II.

1. Tillman's book on the Marianas Turkey Shoot has great research and great details. It covers the massive air sea battle that marked the end of Imperial Japan's naval aviator forces and I just didn't like the writing style.
   
   Tillman assumes a strange level of knowledge by the reader. For example he refers to Essex class Carriers as "the DC-3 of Aircraft carriers" without explaining what a DC-3 is. He used the term `CAP' or "CAPPED" frequently without explaining that they mean a Combat Air Patrol. He frequently rattles off the heading for a plane such as "they headed out on course 50" without explaining what that means You feel he is writing to people with a certain level of knowledge but then he goes into detail about how Carriers are built, the need for wind to launch planes, the need for fuel oil and how radar operated. This is such an odd mix it makes you question to whom he was writing. If you already know what a CAP or a DC-3 is you probably know the ships need fuel oil and have wooden decks.
   
   The pacing is odd. After more than 100 pages of set up, as you think you are getting to the meat of the battle "it was the start of what would be a 14 hour day" he suddenly breaks off for a long explanation of carrier construction and tactics. The idea is so that the reader will know what is going on but this should have been the start of the book, giving the reader an education in carriers so they can understand what is to come. Not a sudden break off for basics just as you think the action is starting.
   
   One thing desperately needed by the book is at least one good map. there is one early on showing the sea between the Marianas and Philipines but something showing the relative places of the different fleets as the battle progressed would have been invaluable. The opposing leaders suffered the fog of war, the reader shouldn't have to.
   
   One element that I cannot put down to just a matter of taste is how he handles Navy officers. Tillman seems to be a hopeless snob. He loves the professional officers who passed out of Annapolis. Indeed he can't seem to name an officer without adding as a suffix the man's class, but he doesn't give any example that they were superior to the non-graduates or that non-graduates were strikingly inferior. He marks them as separate and as we know "separate is inherently inferior." Without such proof this is a grave disservice to all of the many war time commissioned officers who served in the war.
   
   Tillman has done his research. He has compiled it and tries to give as much credit as possible to all parties, focusing not just on the Admirals and the pilots but also to the officers who direct the planes to their targets and the `lowly' supply ships who were invaluable. He uses very flowery phrases in the middle of spaces which seem badly out of place in a book written recently but would have seen more in place in a book written in the 1950 and seem to me to be quaint today. But this is clearly just a matter of taste. He wants the reader to know this was the biggest, baddest, greatest battle to date and the United States was the very best there was and we were great and...you get the idea. It seems overblown to me. Let the acts speak for themselves and you don't need to impress the reader with hyperbole.
   
   The jingoism also is a little unbalanced. A japanese ship is said to be only 6 months old and it is, to the author, an example of how unprepared the Japanese fleet is. An American ship only 6 months old is an example of America's great industrial output. Similarly the failure of the Japanese to bomb American carriers is regarded as the excellent combination of fighter cover and anti-aircraft fire. But the myriad of near misses, meaning they didn't hit either, by American fliers is just the chance of war. I just find the imbalance, at best, distracting.
   
   This book does have the facts and if you like Tillman's writing style then this is a great book for your collection. No ifs ands or buts. Unfortunately I found it too cluttered with jingoistic styling's to really enjoy it. It will sit on my shelf as a reference book, but not as a good read.



2. i agree with all the 1-2 star reviews: this is not a well-written book, and the jingoism makes me cringe, sort of like watching borat. 3 stars, because it is oddly engaging, and indeed rich in facts.



3. I have often wondered why the United States won the war with Japan. I believe this book answers this question. Our pilots were better trained and they were equipped with better aircraft and carriers. I also appreciate a balanced view of both American and Japanese operations. Also, we outnumbered them. I am still enjoying the book.
   
   Robert Wysor



4. This book was published in 2005. Consequently it suffers from lack of first hand sources. It is mainly a rehash of other works, written in a Reader's Digest "Drama in Real Life" way, that detracts from the historical significance.
   
   Very poorly written and I do not recommend it. I recommend the other accounts of this battle published in the 1950's whose authors could talk extensively with the principal players in the battle.



5. Fairly good book on the battle of the Phillipine Sea (or the Great Marians Turkey Shoot) marred only by oft repeated facts at the very beginning.
   
   If you're an American, this works, he gives an idea of distances between the USA and these islands by having you imagine that if, for instance, Saipan were Tacoma Washington then the US coast would be in Florida - if you're not American this overly parochial way of measuring doesn't work.

5 comments about Some Survived: An Eyewitness Account of the Bataan Death March and the Men Who Lived Through It.

1. I am reviewing the 1984 hardback edition of this book which was entitled "Some Survived. An Epic Account of Japanese Captivity During WWII."
   Although this is not the first book on The Death March I have read, it is probably the best. It is well written and easy to read. The thing I liked best was the fact that not only did it give, in great detail, an eye witness account of the atrocities committed by the Japanese on American POW's in the Phillipines, it went on to describe life in the camps after the march, then on to a very detailed description of their treatment on the 'Hell Ships' that took the prisoners to prison camps in Japan.
   This is not a book of despair only. It is also of faith, guts, determination, and final victory by Manny Lawton and a few others that survived this horrible period of time. It also prompts us to remember those that didn't. God Bless them.



2. This book is a must-read. These guys literally went through hell. You must get this book, it is outsading. If you feel terrible about how your life is, read this book. You'll realize how good you have it.
   
   Well written book. Hard to put down.



3. Amazing details and a true story of survival! This is a first hand account of the cruelty of the Japanese Army! As I read about the beatings, lack of food, and cruel conditions they were put through I wonder if I would have given up and died or struggled on. Great details of how man can turn into animals under any circumstances! Try living off a spoon of water and a handful of rice for 4 days at a time then you will know how they lived.The stories of prisoners on transport ships is AMAZING! The cruel treatment from the Japanese Army and the Joy the Japanese army had in watching prisoners die can raise a little bit of hatred and resentment to the Japanese army after reading this book.
   
   If you want to know about POW survival under Japanese rule during WW II then read this book!



4. The worst of the worst Japanese soldiers responsible for the horrific savagery inflicted upon allied soldiers and civilians during the Bataan Death March were tracked down, tried, and executed after the war. Still, once can't help but be deeply troubled by reading over and again, of the pleasure Japanese guards took in the starving, beating and killing of allied prisoners during World War II.
   
   Ignoring even the most basic rules of international humanitarian law, Japanese soldiers behaved in as depraved, evil and barbaric manner as one can imagine. They slapped, kicked and brutalized prisoners on a daily basis, beheaded others at will, and - by war's end - they had enslaved, tortured, and killed thousands of civilians and defenseless allied soldiers.
   
   The author, Manny Lawton, takes the reader back in time, back to the beginning of the Pacific Campaign. He is a 23-year-old Army Captain, a couple of years out of Clemson University's ROTC program and the U.S. Army's Infantry School. Assigned as a "battalion military advisor," to the 500-man, 1st Battalion, 31st Infantry of the Philippine Army, he is the only American in the battalion. Then, when the American forces are overrun in the Philippines - four months after Pearl Harbor - we see that he and the other soldiers are already shell-shocked, exhausted, starving, and suffering from malaria, beriberi and a host of other tropical maladies.
   
   We follow Lawson, from the beginning when he is captured and joins the thousands of others as they are force-marched five to six days, on the notorious "Death March"; then we follow him as he is moved and marched from one prison to another, one ship to the next, through the Philippines, to Japan and then - by war's end - to a hard labor camp in Korea.
   
   We meet his friends from his old units, from the ROTC program back home and then - as the years pass - from previous prison camps. We hear him, as he tells in his own words, his feelings of fear, anger, and then sheer determination, as he suffers and watches hundreds of others go through sheer hell. We read of the horrendous suffering and thousands of men who died aboard the Shinyo Maru, the Arisan Maru, the Oryoku Maru, the Enoura Maru and the Brazil Maru.
   
   Lawson honors the dead by telling their story very effectively. With the guidance and assistance of William Emerson -- former editor of the Saturday Evening Post -- and the noted Southern scholar, and editor, Dr. Louis D. Rubin, Jr. his words flow easily. The reader can't help but feel that they "are there" in the bunk, in the foxhole in the ship's hold, there with him. He tells the story in a patient, painstaking way; the truth, and nothing but the truth -- allowing the reader to learn what really happened during those years, in a manner that is not exaggerated, not overly emotional or glossed over in any way, just the truth.
   
   It is important that this story not be forgotten, that we honor the memory of all of the American, British and soldiers of other nationalities, who died so savagely at the hands of their murderous and truly evil Japanese captors during World War II.
   
   Lawson's book is a testimonial - a story of sorrow and thanksgiving - it belongs on the bookshelf of every public library in America, the Philippines and Japan. Highly recommended.
   
   Note: This review is written in memory of my old friend, Sgt. Pasquale S. DiGiacomo, of Brooklyn, New York. Captured as a Japanese prisoner of war at age 29 on Bataan on April 9, 1942, "Pat" participated in the "Death March," was imprisoned at Camp O'Donnell and then shipped to Japan where he was a slave-laborer in the Osaka Camp steel mill. Beaten almost daily, starved, and suffering from malaria and broken bones, by war's end he had worked 3-1/2 years of his life as a slave for the Japanese. Now deceased, Sgt. DiGiacomo never understood why he never received a penny of reparation or an apology of any kind from the Japanese government.
   
   R. Neil Scott
   Middle Tennessee State University



5. Excellent book. Puts the reader in the midst of this incredible true story. This amazing story will rend your heart and amaze you with the incredible courage exhibited by our soldiers.

5 comments about We Band of Angels: The Untold Story of American Nurses Trapped on Bataan by the Japanese.

1. Many Americans do not know what happened in the South Pacific during World War II. Many members of my family were lost in those campaigns. They were in the Death March, the camps and the Hell Ships. The many books on those incidents explain those stories but this book tells of the suffering experienced by the female members of our military. This is a good informative book and is easy to read. The women gave a lot during those years and were for the most part ignored by our government. I salute those ladies and although most have left us we are better off having had them in our military. Only a few knew of the sacrifices they suffered. They were part of the forgotten casualties of the war.



2. This book shows us the true unsung heroes of the Pacific War. Nurses treating wounded soldiers on the jungle floor in Bataan; pulled back to the caves of Corregador; deserted by MacArthur and left to survive in a Japanese prison camp until the Philippines were liberated. That's the stuff great novels are made of. I enjoyed this book so much and I have recommended it to various friends. I have "lent" my copy out on numerous occasions and it has rarely been returned. As it is one of the books I intend to keep forever, I have purchased at least five copies over the years.



3. As described. shipped in a timely manner. would buy from again. Good book only becuase I was told I needed to buy it. Would not have purchased it on my own.



4. This is an outstanding book and I would recommend it for anyone in or outside the nursing field. I had to make myself put this book down. Ms. Norman puts the reader in the Phillipines with these brave women who didn't think twice about their duty. The pictures were clear and poignant. I recently purchased this book for Christmas for a friend who has been a nurse for over 30 years and served in the Army.



5. Regardless of what some view of the authors writing style, this book fills a forgotten niche of WWII history. I have been a student of WWII for over 40 years, and the information in this book, and they way the story relates to their treatment at the hands of the Imperial Japanese Army fits right in with what we know and what had been documented.
   
   One historical inaccuracy, is very early in the book. Contrary to the author's allusions, the Army Air Force at Clark Field was not caught unprepared because of officer arrogance. The US was a victim of the fates of bad timing. The Japanese had planned to attack Clark and the Phillipines almost simultaneously with the attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japanese air forces based on Formosa, were delayed by thick fog. The US air forces were in the air, awaiting a Japanese attack, but none arrived due to their weather delay. The Japanese took off as soon as the fog lifted, and by the time the Japanese arrived, the US planes had landed or were in the process of landing to refuel. By a twist of weather, the Japanese caught the US planes on the ground. Not by American arrogance of Japanese capabilities.

5 comments about The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors: The Extraordinary World War II Story of the U.S. Navy's Finest Hour.

1. As former "tin Can" sailor on a WW2 type destoryer I can tell you, this book tells it all. Our Gearing class destoryer had 6-5 inch, 6-3 inch, and torpedoes. We also were lucky to have a John Wayne type skipper and we all knew what we would have done if we were a part of Taffy-3. I think General Patton would have summed it up about those guys on the DE SAMUEL B. ROBERTS, "They were a bunch of heroic son's of bitches" If you would like to know what a Naval battle at sea is like when you're out numbered and out gunned, read this book and you will see what the "Greatest Generation" was all about. There was one not so heroic skipper in that battle. Hornfisher did a magnificent job and you won't want to put it down. If you liked this book, you will probably be compelled to read "HALSEY'S TYPHOON" by Drury & Clavin.



2. Not often, but every now and again you run across a book you cannot put down and this is one of them. It reads like a suspense-laden, action adventure and one must continually remember it is really a history of actual events. By the halfway point you get to know the characters personally and the need to know how events are going to unfold begins to grow beyond the point of putting the book down until you know. I read a lot of military history and this book easily ranks in the top 5 best of all time. Very highly recommended.



3. This should be required reading for all those who serve in the Navy--on or above the sea. It is the story of Taffy 3, a WWII force of America's smallest ships--Destroyers and Destroyer Escorts. Tasked with protecting the carriers that were part of MacArthur's return to the Philippines, they ended up the front line against Japan's largest collection of battleships and the island nation's last gasp to turn the tides of WWII. No one expected these tiny ships--therein lies the name, 'tin cans'--to face down Japan's massive force of light cruisers, heavy cruisers and carriers. In fact, one of the Destroyer captains said, "This will be a fight against overwhelming odds, from which survival cannot be expected. We will do what damage we can."
   
   And damage they did. They flitted in, their tiny guns booming and flashing. When they had no more torpedoes (each only carried 10), they charged anyway, shooting their small caliber deck-mounted guns. Wave after wave of aircraft buzzed the Japanese ships, American pilots continuing to attack even when their bombs ran out, hoping to frazzle and frighten the enemy. Despite the bravado, the sailors knew they had no chance to stop such a superior force. They could do little but pray for the best, understanding if the enemy got past them, they would get to the carriers.
   
   But this isn't as much an historic account of the Battle of Leyte Gulf--that can be found in other books--as it is the story of the men who fought, their all-American roots, their unquestioning commitment to fight the good fight, their bottomless courage. They joined the war in response to Pearl Harbor, giving their brains and muscle to defend what was most important to them, and ended up giving their lives.
   
   Hermon Wouk wrote of this battle, "The vision of Sprague's (the commander of Taffy 3)three destroyers--the Johnston, the Hoel, and the Heermann--charging out of the smoke and the rain straight toward the main batteries of Kurita's battleships and cruisers, can endure as a picture of the way Americans fight when they don't have superiority. Our schoolchildren should know about that incident, and our enemies should ponder it."
   
   When the battle ended, Japan lost almost 10,000 men while America lost 800+ brave sailors, three of the tin cans and only one of our carriers--the only American carrier ever sunk in a naval battle. When the tiny ships sank and the sailors tredded water, fought off the sharks who smelled their blood, one incident stood out: A Japanese heavy cruiser approached. The stranded sailors didn't know if they'd be killed or captured. Instead, as the ship sailed by, the Japanese lined the side and saluted the bravery of their enemy.
   
   If you are an American soldier or the parent of one, read this to see what will be expected of him or her. If you are our enemy, read this and beware.



4. The book was shipped on time and the condition as described. I would gladly use this seller again in the future.



5. Last Stand... is a decent collection of anecdotes from the men who fought off Samar, assembled with some unreliable historical narrative and mediocre-looking but useful maps. It is clear in the book that the author focused most of his attention on telling the story of the men, combining new interviews with material previously published by the various ship memorial associations. By and large, I think Hornfischer succeeds in telling the stories of these men's experience as they remembered it. It is always difficult to draw together narratives from people telling different levels of detail and using different kinds of vocabularies, but Hornfischer meshes the stories together well. His ability to jump from man to man in a given ship and then from ship to ship is impressive. The only time the narrative starts to break down is about the time the Hoel is sunk, and so much is happening in that time that I think a completely coherent narrative isn't possible.
   
   What fails in this book, though, is the material that Hornfischer himself brings to the table. He clearly has little experience dealing with Navy terms, and so has ships arrive in port and "weigh anchor" when weighing anchor is, in fact, the process of raising the anchor. He gets himself completely turned around a few times on the difference between a naval gun's shell and its round (the former is what leaves the barrel, the latter includes the power and casing), and he uncritically accepts the memories of the veterans as to how many people were at a given battle station, despite the lack of room for that many people. He twice notes that the Gambier Bay was the first carrier sunk by surface gunfire, when that fate had befallen HMS Glorious in 1940.
   
   Perhaps the least professional element of Hornfischer's scholarship is in recounting the damage inflicted by the Taffy 3 escorts (particularly torpedo hits and the effects of strafing) without checking them against Japanese records of the battle. There is nothing wrong with reporting what the men claimed, but there is something wrong with leaving the impression that these claims were all valid. It takes away nothing from the bravery of these men to note that none of Heerman's torpedoes actually hit (contrary to what the her crew believed).
   
   The book makes an attempt to provide tactical maps of the engagement at key periods, which I applaud. Maps are getting all too rare in history books. These maps are usable but ugly, the artist having chosen to represent the ships as black squares rather than as hull shapes. The maps do a nice job illustrating how the weather affected visibility at these points in the battle, though, and that is a welcome change from the style of naval maps I am used to seeing. Taking the time to do the maps as snapshots, rather than a single plot with tracks on it, makes the action far more understandable.
   
   I would recommend this book to anyone who enjoys a good story told by the people who were there, and who either can filter out the inaccuracies or doesn't care about them. I wouldn't recommend that anyone use this book as a reference for more than sailor's anecdotes, because it just isn't reliable.