2 comments about The Spanish American Revolution 1808-1826 (Revolutions in the Modern World).

1. This book was a very well written and looks at every aspect of the revolution. If you want to learn and understand the latin american revolution, then this book will be a good read. But, if you are looking for a creative book that exhibits insightful opinions, then look farther than this book. This was a very well written, but was brought down by its lack of flavor.



2. John Lynch wrote a classic in Spanish-American Revolutions 1808-1826. He masterfully describes all the events that led to the independence of Latin America from Spain. The book starts in Rio de La Plata and ends in Mexico and Central America. Curiously one can note a common pattern of highly stratified societies lead by Spanish officials and merchants in not complete harmony with the Creole ruling class. The reluctance of Spanish Monarchy (and later even of liberals) led to independence basically motivated for the economic and social interests of the Creoles (Spanish born in America). For all of those who are interested in a better understanding of Latin American societies of today this great book is a must. Lynch cleverly combines historical and economic facts about the Hispanic American societies looking for free trade and in such a way clashing with the status quo of monopolies imposed by the decaying metropolis. Two thumbs up!

No comments about Los recuerdos del porvenir.

1 comments about The War with Spain in 1898.

1. A reader seeking to understand the causes and consequences of the War of 1898 would do well to begin with Trask's analysis. The volume is a broad overview of a pivotal moment in the development of U.S. foreign policy, but it manages to preserve clarity and insight despite its scope. It sharply undermines the standard revisionist interpretation of American behavior, forwarded for example by Perez and Foner, which holds that the United States engaged Spain in a war over Cuba in order to keep the island for itself. It does so by convincingly demonstrating that domestic politics in the United States and Spain set the two nations on a collision course with each other (but see Offner for the best presentation of these politics), although it does not say enough about how racism allowed the United States to ignore the legitimacy of Cuba's claims to independence. It mostly succeeds by showing how simple accidents of history, such as the de Lome letter, the mysterious explosion of the Maine, and the conquest of the Philippines by the United States (which was undertaken for reasons related to basic military strategy, not sinister imperial ambitions) prodded events along and restricted the legitimate options available to policymakers. In retrospect, a war entered into for ostensibly humanitarian reasons but resulting in a global empire for America seems obviously to have been the product of selfish, two-faced conspirators. As Trask's thoroughly documented and ably argued narrative reveals, however, sometimes intellectually coherent interpretations say more about the interpreter than the events themselves. A loaded moment in the history of the United States, Spain, Cuba, and the Philippines, the War of 1898 has generated almost as many interpretations as authors. For the best and least biased account of this episode, consult Trask.

5 comments about Empire by Default: The Spanish-American War and the Dawn of the American Century.

1. Being a Civil War buff and author who is considering doing a work on the Indian Wars, I have always been fascinated by that period between the Civil War and the turn of the century.

   Especially on its effect on the U.S. Army as it fought both the Indian Wars and the Spanish American War under the leadership of former Civil War Generals, and Musicant does not disappoint.

   Some of the names are familiar - Nelson Miles, Wesley Merritt, Admiral (George) Dewey,and of course, the Confederate Cavalry great "Fighting Joe" Joseph Wheeler. And the not-so-well known - men such as William Rufus Shafter, the corpulent former Union officer and presumed model for "Pecos Bill", who was named commander of the expeditionary forces in Cuba and who often clashed with both his superiors in Washington, and with one certain volunteer colonel by the name of Theodore Roosevelt.

   To be fair, I haven't gotten to the military operations nor the logistical problems experienced by the U.S. Army - poisoned (embalmed) beef, lack of smokeless cartridges (the antiqudated Spanish Army was more "modern" in this respect), as Musicant's account is an excellent read. But he does effectively score the two Presidents who bungled into the Cuban morass - Cleveland, definitely the Bill Clinton of his time, and William McKinley, a man of great character and virtue but hamstrung by a senile Secretary of State (William Tecumseh Sherman's brother) and politico appointees as well as his own desire to please all.
   The account of the destruction of the USS Maine which finally provoked McKinley is the finest that I have read.

   Musicant shows great knowledge of the Cuban situation and of the Spanish predicament. I only wish that he had covered the infamous "Virginius" affair, when the American Captain Joseph Fry, a former Confederate hero, and a score of American sailors were brutally executed by Spanish authorities after trying to smuggle guns to Cuban insurgents. This happened during the time of Grant's Presidency, and it nearly then led to war with Spain...Who knows - it might have been George Armstrong Custer leading the charge up San Juan Hill instead of Teddy.

   The US wasn't spoiling for a fight with Spain in 1873 - 25 years later, it was.




2. It takes some skill to hold a reader's attention for 658 pages. Musicant generally succeeds in his narrative of the Spanish-American war. A specialist in naval history, Musicant gives particularly close attention to the naval battles at Manila and Santiago de Cuba. His description of the gallant but hopeless attempt by the Spanish fleet to escape from Santiago is gripping. Other striking sections describe the chaos of the American embarkation at Tampa and the suffering of American troops investing Santiago. In other parts of the book, the detailed accounts of military politics and preparations may lead many readers to skip ahead. The most disappointing part of the book is the last chapter titled "Empire," a very abbreviated commentary on "the dawn of the American century." The book is reasonably well served by its few maps and its black and white photographs.



3. A wonderful military book. This book details the Spanish America war and its environs. it details the important figures like Mahan, Dewey, Roosevelt. It details the rise of guerrilla warfare in Cuba and the Phillipines. Nevertheless I felt it did not eleborate on the importance of the conflict internationally. It iverestimated the Americans as showsing the war to be won before it was fought. The reality of the conflict, the first defeat of a European power by a non-european power(the Russo-Japanese war was in 1905). Although one passage relates the newspaper jingoism detailing the first shots of the rugged americans against the sparkling halmets of the Spanish soldiers, it underestimates the impact of this war in which the Americans whiped european colonism off the face of the American continent.



4. This thing...this book of Musicant's...isn't hitting on all of its cylinders. Musicant is incapable of maintaining a coherent chronology. His source material is limited. The work is not difficult intellecutally -- in fact, the opposite -- but is made difficult by Musicant's consistently poor use of English; he so often puts adjectives in the wrong place that the reader frequently has to stop and try to figure out (or guess) what he means...the difference between



5. Musicant has a difficult problem in writing about a two ocean war that was fought by different schedules and hampered by spotty communications between combatants. However, by breaking down the events of the war into a roughly chronological sequence, Musciant is able to produce a narrative that allows readers to see the war at a strategic and tactical level. Naturally there are some overlaps of chronology as the Battle of Manila Bay was fought and won before things really got set up around Cuba and Puerto Rico but these things do not disrupt the overall quality of his richly detailed narrative. Definitely worth a place on the shelf of anyone interested in 19th Century American History.

2 comments about Theodore Roosevelt: The Rough Riders/An Autobiography (Library of America).

1. In rankings of the American Presidents, the consensus pick as the first great president of the twentiety century was also the youngest man ever to serve in the office: Theodore Roosevelt. Reformer, rancher, conservationist, hunter, historian, police commissioner, and soldier, Theodore roosevelt led a rich and varied life that he vividly recorded in autobiographical writings, letters, and speeches.
   
   This book contains two books, both written by Roosevelt and edited by Roosevelt biographer Louis Auchincloss:
   
   The Rough Riders (1899) is the story of the First U.S. Volunteer Cavalry. This was the unit raised by Roosevelt, trained in Texas and then shipped to Cuba. This was a time when war could still be seen as a romantic adventure -- unlike what happened in France twenty years later. The biggest problems faced by Roosevelt were: the jungle, the heat, hunger, rain, mud and malaria. Kind of incidentally they also had a war to fight.
   
   An Autobiography (1913) recalls his lifelong fascination with natural history, his love of hunting and the outdoors, and his adventures as a cattleman in the Dakota Badlands, as well as his career in politics as a state legislator, civil service reformer, New York City police commissioner, assistant secretary of the navy, governor of New York, and president. What a life.



2. Reading this magnificent volume was a joy on many levels. First and foremost, Theodore Roosevelt could write. His prose is always strong, active, and colorful. In "The Rough Riders" he handles action better than most novelists. He picks just the right details about the situation to make it come alive. Whether it is talking about the sound of the bullets buzzing by and the value of smokeless powder because of the difficulty of spotting those using it against you or the plague of sand crabs picking at the dead the reader feels as if he were there.
   
   I also found real pleasure in reading about a time in American history that I did not know that much about. Theodore Roosevelt was a young boy during the Civil War (and he had family on both sides of the conflict) and died in 1919 just after The Great War (WWI). "An Autobiography" was written in 1913 after his failed third party run for the presidency. It is a magnificent work because it is not a chronology of his life. Instead he tells the story of his life through some events that allow him to illuminate at length on various aspects of his philosophy of life. He talks about morals, civil service reform, his views on productivity and the working man versus the big corporations negotiating the end of the Russo-Japanese War and a lot more. At all times he shows how he has considered all sides of an issue and how he came to his decision.
   
   One of the problems in reading history is that a false light is cast backward onto events in the past. The cataclysm of the two world wars and all the history of the following them have made understanding the time of T. Roosevelt, as they understood it, all but impossible. However, both of these books are completely uninformed by The Great War, the creation of the Soviet Union or anything later because both books were written prior to those events. We get a great feel for how that world looked to those who inhabited it, the vividness of the Civil War and how the policies of Lincoln were still well known and were debated as living choices and policies.
   
   He also shares with us his views on why he had to be such an active politician and especially as President. There is no doubt that the world was changing mightily in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The rise of the huge corporations and the industrialization of huge numbers of peoples as workers in those industries created many issues that had to be worked out. The old government structures were overwhelmed and TR was one of the leaders who helped fashion policies that he and others considered fair and progressive. Obviously, from our vantage point, we would have made different choices. But the present is always in flux and always seem simpler in hindsight than it ever was.
   
   Another treat is the way he characterizes the positions of those with whom he disagreed. He always tries to be charitable and often sounds like a kindly parent dealing with a sincere but wayward and somewhat dull child. It is also fascinating to read this progressive's views about moral character. He specifically addresses the evils of sexual licentiousness, abortion, divorce, and much more that has become our norm. It should give us pause.
   
   If you have any doubt about his character or courage, compare this example to anyone today you care to name. Theodore Roosevelt was an Assistant Secretary to the Navy. He saw the Spanish-American War coming and resigns his post to help raise a regiment of volunteer cavalry. He is offered the role of commanding officer, but leaves that to his friend, Leonard Wood, and is happy as Lt. Colonel. He is well liked by his men, never shirks from the hardships and leads his men in battle from the front. He wanted to be in the thick of things not for vainglory, but because it was the best place to communicate with and ensure the best use and protection of his men. Whom do you know like that today?
   
   As a side note it is interesting to read the differences in his orthography from our present day usage. I don't know if the umlauts in double consonants in words such as reelection (reëlection), cooperation (coöperation), or reenter (reënter) were peculiar to him or some school, but I actually like it a lot and wish we would bring it back. It looks better and makes reading all that much simpler. Maybe typewriters did away with them because they lacked the keys to make them. However, our computers can make those characters easily.
   
   If you are interested in American History, the two books in this volume are treasures you owe it to yourself to read. Oh that anyone in public life could write like this with the kind of inner strength and courage Theodore Roosevelt had. We would be the better for it regardless of our policy differences.
   
   Also, this edition from the Library of America deserves special praise. There are many high quality black and white photographs that were used in the original editions that enrich the reading experience a great deal. As always the LOA has made a high quality book that is a delight to hold and read. Thank you, LOA!
   
   Strongest Recommendation!
   
   Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Ann Arbor, MI

5 comments about History: Fiction or Science? (Chronology, No. 1).

1. There is no doubt that history as most know it is a sham, & institution's version of History both University & Church is fradulent & inaccurate. Everything was established with an agenda, The real "Dark Ages" are now when we have access to incredible amounts of information past authorities & more important 'common folk' didn't have but our institutions & educators are slow to evolve because of what has ignorantly & arrogantly been taught for too long. This is on many subjects not just Chronology.
   
   For anyone to question "Why would a Mathematician have anything credible to say of History?" The answer is from Dr. Fomenko's preface in the book: "It would be worthwhile to remind the reader that in the XVI-XVII century Chronology was considered to be a subdivision of Mathematics." These volumes could possibly be some of the most important works to date & should be read by everyone with an interest in History, especially professors & educators who have a duty to the public. I have read both books & must say that 'Chronology 1' has some very eye opening & revolutionary information. Even if these volumes are part true the implications are profound & opens the doors to further investigations & questions which must be done. I speak several different lanquages & must say the logic Dr. Fomenko uses with "inflection" of words & words being read from left to right in one region & right to left in another then written backwards, the removal of vowels & get down to basics of words, or different cities & locations having the same name etc. is correct. Vowel usage has always been optional & varied, actually complicating linquistics & study. The first thing one has to understand is that words never had a fixed spelling in history like we do now, the spelling of words was mutable & regional, as well as names & titles of people were vast, varied & changed, NOTHING WAS FIXED or understood linear. Matters of Life & Death as well as financial profiteering yesterday & today were & are made with ignorant, illogical & conspiratorial views of history & reality, it's time people get closer to the Truth & society collectively grow up.



2. Will people ever read before spamming? Yes, Jesuits could not rewrite world history alone, they had help. Anyway, Dr Prof Acad A.Fomenko does not point to jesuits as the driving force of world wide history manipulation in published volumes 1,2,3;, actually he barely mentions the poor devils. Check it with 'Search inside' feature, please. China is rarely mentioned either, in fact, Dr Fomenko is completely eurocentric. Right, his theory contradicts all mainstream schools of history, because in their actual state they are all built on blatantly erroneus chronology. You don't need a mysterious cabal (conspiracy) to falsify history, the falsification is its modus operandi. It is inherent to history(ians) to falsify (distort) events, as it is inherent to humans to boast as it is inherent to power (authority) to legimize itself by referrring to glorious past made to its own order. Dr Prof Fomenko and team have identified scores of instances of such manipulation in Russian, European, etc.. history, and delivered valid statistical proof thereof. His own 'reconstruction' is completely another story. Forget c14 as a valid method of dating. W.Libby has initially discovered a brilliant method of INDEPENDENT dating. Too bad, c14 method has become a joke after a forced marrige with dendrochronology with consensual chronological scale inbuilt. Radiocarbon method can't stand blind tests, but is so very productive as a rubberstamp.



3. Yes, we can all agree that mainstream history is nearly 100% BS due to politics, economics, ego, problems with dating techniques, and various conspiracies. Agreed. But, I've been researching the distinct possibility that human history (in terms of civilizations) are much more ancient than we've been told, so coming across this book was very interesting to me. I wondered how Fomenko could be wrong (if at all) because he is very persuasive in his presentations. Then it dawned on me. If at previous times in prehistory, due to the various catastrophies that are well documented (comets, asteroids, planetary disruptions, plasma discharge, pole reversals, etc) the Earth was in a different position in relation to the sun (ie. closer), different tilt on its axis (ie. less than 23.5 degrees), different orbit (ie. more circular), different rotation (ie. in terms of velocity and DIRECTION), and the continents were in different relative positions, then would this not cause the ancients to see the sky (constellations) differently from how we would today? In other words, is Fomenko making erronious assumptions about the physics of the Earth in pre-history, which then corrupt his data with regards to dating the relevant astrology? The last event to seriously disrupt our planet occured roughly 3500 years ago, according to other good researchers, so is it possible Fomenko has been confused by this? The vastly different physics of our planet in the not so distant past may explain this confusion, which is not to say the "mainstream" version of history or geography is correct; on the contrary. I am not an expert in these fields, but wanted to see if this idea could spark discussion.



4. Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/RAZQNMXM4M9CL Has history been tampered with? Yes, it has! Did events and eras such as the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the Roman Empire , the Dark Ages, and the Renaissance, actually occur within a very different chronology from what we've been told? Yes, they certainly did!
   
   The history of humankind is both drastically shorter and dramatically different than generally presumed.
   
   Why is it so? On one hand, it was usual custom to justify the claims to title and land by age and ancestry, and on the other the court historians knew only too well how to please their masters. The so called universal classic world history is a pack of intricate lies for all events prior to the 16th century. World history as we learn it today was entirely fabricated in the 16th-18th centuries. It's likely that nobody told you before, but
   
   there is not a single piece of firm written evidence or artefact that is reliably and independently dated prior to the 11th century.
   
   Naturally, after what you've learned in school and university, you will not easily believe that the classical history of ancient Rome, Greece, Asia, Egypt, China, Japan, India, etc., is manifestly false.
   
   You will point accusing finger to the pyramids in Egypt, to the Coliseum in Rome and Great Wall of China etc., and claim, aren't they really ancient, thousands of years ancient? Well, there is no valid scientific proof that they are older than 1000 years!
   
   The oldest original written document that can be reliably dated belongs to the 11th century!
   
   New research asserts that Homo sapiens invented writing (including hieroglyphics) only 1000 years ago. Once invented, writing skills were immediately and irreversibly put to the use of ruling powers and science.
   
   The consensual chronology we live with was essentially crafted in the 16th century by the Jesuits.
   
   The world history was compiled from contradictory mix of innumerable copies of ancient Latin and Greek manuscripts and other irrefutable proofs delivered by late mediaeval astronomers that were cemented by the authority of writings of the Church Fathers.
   
   Early in life, we learn about ancient history. Children love the magical lessons of history - they are like fairy tales. Teachers recite breathtaking stories; very soon We learn by heart the names and deeds of brave warriors, wise philosophers, fabulous pharaohs, cunning high priests and greedy scribes.
   
   We learn of gigantic pyramids and sinister castles, kings and queens, dukes and barons, powerful heroes and beautiful ladies, emaciated saints and low-life traitors.
   
   Ancient history is based documents, manuscripts, printed books, paintings, monuments and artefacts - called primary sources.
   
   The problem is that neither these ancient documents, nor events described therein can be irrefutably dated, moreover they contradict each other for the most part.
   
   When a school textbook tells us that Genghis Khan in year X or Alexander in year Y, have each conquered half of the world, it means only that it is so said in some of the written sources.
   
   There are no answers to simple questions:
   
   When were these primary sources written?
   
   Where and by whom were these sources found?
   
   It is wrongly presumed that ancient and medieval chronicles, written by Genghis Khan's or Alexander the Great contemporaries and eyewitnesses, are readily available. Actually, only sources written hundreds or even thousands of years after the events are there, compiled mostly in the 16th 18th centuries, or even later.
   
   As a rule, these sources suffered considerable multiple manipulations, falsifications and distortions by editing. At the same time,
   
   innumerable originals of ancient documents under various pretexts were destroyed in Europe under various pretexts.
   
   The names of persons and geographical sites often changed meaning and location during the course of the centuries.
   
   Geographical locations became clearly defined on maps only with the advent of printing.
   
   This made possible the circulation of identical copies of the same map for purposes of the military, navigation, education and governance tasks.
   
   Historians from Oxford say: "hey, everybody knows that Julius Caesar lived in the first century B.C.
   
   `Julius Caesar' statement is only a point of view as
   
   there is simply no irrefutable documentary proof that Julius Caesar or any other great name of antiquity ever existed.
   
   Better than that - extremely rare sources that can be reliably dated back to the 10th-14th centuries A D, do not show the polished picture of classical history.
   
   They show a picture both contradictory and confusing.
   
   All methods of dating of ancient sources and artefacts are erroneous:
   
   Radio-carbon C14 method produces dating with exactitude of plus minus 1500 years, therefore it is too crude for dating of events in historical timeframe!
   
   The Almagest tractate, which lies as corner stone contemporary chronology, compiled in the 2nd century A D by Ptolemy, the founding father of astronomy, contains astronomical data of 9th to 16th century!
   
   The Bronze Age,that has supposedly began 5000 years ago. Bronze is made of 90% copper and 10% tin, but the technology for tin extraction dates back to 14th century A D!.
   
   All eclipses contained in manuscripts, like Thucydides one, relating 'ancient' events have exclusively medieval dating. All horoscopes cut in stone or painted in Egyptian temples, like Dendera have exclusively early medieval dating solutions.
   
   Not quite what you have learned in school? Open your eyes, and, you will find sufficient proof to reach step by step the inevitable conclusion that the classical chronology is false and therefore, that the history of ancient and medieval world universally accepted today, is also false. Have a fresh outlook on everything said or printed about "ancient" and "enigmatic" Roman, Greek and Egyptian, medieval as well as all other "lost and found" civilizations.
   
   Antiquity and Dark Ages are phantoms invented in the 16th 18th and polished in 19th 20thcenturies. Human civilization is in fact barely 1000 years old!
   
   This book will change your perception of History forever!
   What if Ancient Rome, Greece and Egypt were invented during Renaissance?
   What if The Old Testament was a rendition of events of the Middle Ages?
   What if Jesus Christ was born in 1053 and crucified in 1086 AD?
   Sounds Unbelievable?
   Not after you've read "History: Fiction or Science?" by Anatoly Fomenko, the genius mathematician.
   Armed with astronomy and computers Anatoly Fomenko turns History into a rocket science.



5. The professional historians faint as prominent mathematician Doctor Fomenko et al research the known historical data and come to fairly controversial conclusions.
   
   For example, the English historians rage at the suggestion that the history of Ancient England was de facto a Byzantine import transplanted to the English soil by the fugitive Byzantine nobility. As the sign of recognition of the special role of the English historians who consider themselves the true scribes of World History, the cover of the present book portrays Tintoretto's Jesus Christ crucified on the Big Ben.
   
   The Russian historians brand it as pseudoscience because Dr Fomenko asserts that there was no such thing as the Tartar and Mongol invasion followed by over two centuries of slavery, providing a formidable body of documental evidence to prove his assertion. The so-called `Tartars and Mongols' were the actual ancestors of the modern Russians, living in a trilingual state and aspiring Global Empire with Arabic and Turkic spoken as freely as Russian.
   
   The ancient proto-Russian state was governed by a double structure of civil and military authorities and the hordes were actually professional armies with a tradition of lifelong conscription (the recruitment being the so-called `blood tax'). Their `invasions' were punitive operations against the regions that attempted tax evasion.
   
   Fomenko proves for a fact that official Russian history is a blatant forgery concocted by a host of German scholars brought to Russia by the usurper dynasty of the Romanovs. Their ascension to the throne was the result of conspiracy, so they charged these German historians-imports with the noble mission of making Romanov's reign look legitimate.
   
   Dr Fomenko et al prove Ivan the Terrible to be a collation of four rulers, no less. These rulers represented the two rival dynasties - the legitimate Godounovs and the ambitious Romanov upstarts.
   
   The European historians fume not only because Fomenko blows consensual Russian history to smithereens, successfully removing a crucial cornerstone from underneath the otherwise impeccable edifice of World History but for asserting that all medieval European Kings and Princes were but breakaway vice-regents and vassals of the Global Empire who badly needed glorious and very `ancient' past in order to legitimize their new independence from the Empire.
   
   Dr Fomenko adds insult to injury, wiping out one by one: the Ancient Rome: the foundation of Rome in Italy is dated to the 14th century A. D., the Ancient Greece and its numerous poleis, which he identifies as the mediaeval crusader settlements on the territory of Greece, the Ancient Egypt: the pyramids of Giza become dated to the 11th to 14th century A. D. and identified as the royal cemetery of the Global Empire, no less.
   
   The civilization of the `ancient'' Egypt is irrefutably dated to the 11th to 15th century A. D. following the breakthrough in decoding of the ancient Egyptian horoscopes cut in stone and painted on the temple walls.
   
   Arabic historians may find some consolation in the crucial historical role of the Ottoman Empire as a part of the Global empire in the 15th - 17th century. The trouble is that this Empire was initially a proto-Christian state, with Hagia Sophia identifiable as Temple of Solomon, but built in 1550-1557 A.D. by Sultan Suleiman according to Fomenko and Islam with all its key figures is datable to 15th 16th century A. D.!
   
   The Chinese historians are also an unhappy lot because Fomenko wipes out the Ancient History of China outright. No such history. Period. The compilation of the so-called Ancient Chinese History is reliably datable to the 17th 18th century only. It is perfectly recognizable as the Ancient European history, reworked and transcribed in hieroglyphs as yet another historical transplantation.
   
   The Divinity excommunicates Dr Fomenko because the history of religions according to Fomenko looks as follows: the pre-Christian period (before the 11th century and Jesus Christ ), Bacchic Christianity (11th to 12th century, before and after Jesus Christ), Jesus Christ Christianity (12th to 14th century) and its subsequent mutations (15th to 17th cy) into Orthodox Christianity, the Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, and so on..; and The Old Testament written after the New Testament in xiv-xvi cy A.D., if you please! Everybody served? Saint Augustine was quite prescient when he said: "be wary of mathematicians, particularly when they speak the truth."

4 comments about The War of 1898: The United States and Cuba in History and Historiography.

1. Louis Perez can hardly be faulted for not doing his reading. He leaves scarcely a stone unturned in his survey of the historiography of 1898. Yet this book falls far short of its potential.

   I suspect the reason for this is both political and methodological. Perez writes from the left and he focuses on Cuba. Nothing is wrong with either, however, taken together these produce a skewed and inaccurate description of American policy in 1898. Perez criticizes his predecessors for thinking that they can write about Cuba from an American perspective. He makes the same mistake, however, in thinking that his command of Cuban history gives him some kind of special insight into McKinley's motivations.

   The academic left has generally had little to offer studies of the Spanish-American War. Julius Pratt's Expansionists of 1898 blew their argument out of the water by arguing that American businesses did not want war with Spain. That hasn't kept authors like Perez from trying to cast McKinley as some kind of scheming imperialist.

   One does not have to be a fan of McKinley to find this characterization inaccurate. It is underpinned by entirely circumstantial evidence. Worse, it is contradicted by McKinley's biographers, and by accounts which emphasize the extraordinary pressure that the President faced in March of 1898. Perez writes snidely and dismissively of the impact of the explosion of the U.S.S. Maine, while refusing to offer his own theory of the impact of the event. He never directly refutes the accounts emphasizing the Maine, he just makes it clear that he really dislikes them.

   Perez' conclusion - which makes Fidel Castro one of the few heroes of the book - does little to redeem this overly political, snidely written, and surprisingly incomplete text.




2. In this well researched work, Mr. Perez examines the Cuban chapter of the War of 1898. (Historians now prefer 'War of 1898' instead of 'Spanish-American War' to avoid confussing the issues in Cuba and Philippeans which led to war.) He does this from a Cuba-centric point of view; a breath of fresh air for those sick of American ethonocentric views of history. Historically documents show the U.S.'s prime motive was preventing another European power from assuming colonial control of Cuba; hence having a power base close to America. History also clearly shows Cuba defeating the Spanish-- until the U.S. stormed in to 'help.'

   Those who like to live with blinders over their eyes and believe legends and myths about US Glory (i.e. the Rough Riders etc.) will not like this book. However, those who want the truth to be preserved instead of propaganda will enjoy. The book can be read quickly, but offers more than enough detailed information to be used as reference in scholarly writings.

   In light of a previous review I must add the book sticks to the revelant subject; not propaganda for Castro. Castro only gets mentioned on 3 of the last few pages. His revolution was against elites placed into power by the US in 1904. Perez simply restates that fact after explaing the process that turned control of Cuba to Cuba. Perez also leaves the Maine incident as mystery because IT IS A MYSTERY! There is nothing worse than a historian claiming unknowns as 100% fact-- it degrades the intellectual integerty of historial research. Perez explores each theory but leaves the final question unanswered.

   This book raised the standard for research into US involvement in Cuba from 1898-1904.




3. This book is a mess. In the name of revising old truisms that have been discarded a long time ago - historians have known for decades that the Spanish-American War was hardly the crusade it was pitched as - this book creates William McKinley the Extraordinary Supervillain as an explanation to US policy. There is no mention of the fact that he tried to keep the US out of war, or of the fact that the country and congress basically went crazy after a certain ship called the Maine blew up. He can't disprove theories about the Maine - he can't challenge the evidence of others - so he just writes snidely about how every other historian is a dope.

   Discarding the old jingoistic Rough Riders stories (which were forgotten a long time ago) doesn't oblige one to embrace bizarre conspiracy theories. Ernest May's "Imperial Democracy", John Offner's "An Unwanted War", and David Trask's "The War of 1898" are far better at explaining this event.

   For another review of this book check out Theodore Draper's article in the 1998 volume of the New York Review of Books.




4. The easy American victory over Spain in 1898 is generally considered to be a watershed event in American history. It is treated as the point where a nation content in its' isolationist introversion became an imperialist nation. In the United States, the war is considered to have been a noble venture, where the United States was "forced" to intervene and rescue the Cuban people from their vicious Spanish oppressors.
   The historical reality is much more complex and does not match the general perception. In the years before the American Civil war, there were several attempts to annex Cuba, bringing it into the Union as a slave state. Unauthorized, armed expeditions to do exactly this were thwarted several times. Immediately after Abraham Lincoln was elected President, Secretary of State William Seward suggested that Lincoln provoke a war with Spain over Cuba in the hopes that the exterior crisis would keep the nation together. After the Civil war, the interest in Cuba remained. As it became clear that there would be a canal in Central America connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, there were some serious attempts to buy the island from Spain. The argument was that it was needed to control the eastern approaches to the canal.
   It is also not true that before 1898 the United States was isolationist. Hawaii and Alaska were acquired in the later half of the nineteenth century and it was United States vessels that sailed to Japan, making it clear to the Japanese that they could no longer maintain their isolationist position. In the years between the Civil War and 1898, the United States was involved in many places around the world, from Korea to the Congo.
   Perez understands this and uses an extensive number of quotes to justify his position that the political machine in the United States chose to intervene militarily in Cuba at the time when it seemed that the Cuban insurgency was about to defeat the Spanish forces. The Cuban liberation forces had been fighting the Spanish for three years and the Spanish forces were on the verge of collapse. It was the Cuban forces that secured the beaches where the American troops landed, allowing them to land unopposed. However, when the Spanish forces were defeated, the Cuban forces were not allowed to enter the cities and were shut out of all negotiations. The United States then took control of the island, considering the Cubans to be incapable of self-government. When the Cubans voiced objections, they were criticized for their lack of appreciation for their liberation.
   This book is a revelation of how the war in 1898 really took place, it goes beyond the jingoistic hype and presents the political and social backdrop of the war as it really was. While many idealistic justifications were stated in support of the United States going to war with Spain, the reality was rooted in long-standing imperialistic ambitions in the United States. Perez uses the statements of U.S. leaders at the time to support his positions and explains how there were consequences sixty years later when the rebellion led by Fidel Castro was victorious.

4 comments about The Spanish-American War and Philippine Insurrection: 1898-1902 (Men-at-Arms).

1. Not up to the usual standards of Osprey. Its a pity because this time period when America went out to build a real Empire is worthy of a better effort.



2. How many more idiotic reviews of Osprey titles are we to put up with along the line of the previous one? Osprey Men-at-Arms series books are designed to show the UNIFORMS, and to a lesser extent equipment, of those involved in various conflicts. They are NOT supposed to provide, in the limited number of pages they contain, a detailed factual analyses of military conflicts and campaigns. It seems some reviewers fail to grasp this simple concept.
   
   This book does a fine job of showing the uniforms of the various combatants, although there could have been an extra plate detailing Philippino forces, and one less of the US troops. Stephen Walsh's illustrations are, as usual, excellent - his earlier title on the Mexican Revolution is one of the best Osprey titles in years. Both that book, and this one, are highly recommended.



3. Much had been written about the Spanish-American War. The book follows the standard Osprey format whereby the work focuses primarily on the uniforms and equipment of all sides during the Spanish-American War. If one wants to gain my info on the tactics and more in-depth history of the conflict then one must find another book that is more than 65 pages.



4. For a decent survey of the Spanish-American war, the rebellion in Cuba that preceded it, and the troops that fought in it, this is an adequate book to start with.
   
   For the Philippine Insurrection it is less then adequate, which is surprising due to the fact that much has been written on the Spanish-American war and little on the insurrection that cost more American lives then the war itself.
   
   Hopefully, someday, Osprey will produce a dedicated book on the insurrection, because this is not it.

3 comments about The Spanish Civil War.

1. Since the war ended in 1939, the Spanish Civil War has been obscured by romantic mythology created by foreign writers like Ernest Hemmingway and subsequent historians, who have tended to portray this conflict as, "the first great, heroic confrontation between fascism and democracy." Frances Lannon, an Oxford history professor, notes that in this traditional interpretation, "the Second Republic remains a great cause that was worth dying for." Lannon eschews this traditional depiction of the conflict in simplistic black and white terms, a fight between fascists and communists for the soul of Spain, and views the war in much more complex terms. Lannon's account is well written and rich in detail; her particular areas of interest are the role of women in both sides of the war and the role of the Catholic Church in the conflict. Overall, Lannon's book is an excellent primer on the war as well as representing a far more balanced and objective account than has come from other quarters.

   The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939 begins with short sections on the background to the war. These sections are interesting because they demonstrate that both sides had compelling reasons to resort to violence. While the Republicans (encompassing such diverse groups as urban trade unionists, rural peasants, intellectuals, communists and anarchists) viewed the Church, monarchists and the military as obstacles to the development of more liberalized conditions in Spain, the Nationalists fought to defend the traditional order from what they viewed as the imposition of alien cultural values. Due to the period of violence and disorder that preceded the outbreak of civil war, Lannon notes that, "many ordinary Catholics concluded that the new state would not respect their religion or protect property." Rather than the simplistic political depiction of democracy versus fascist, Lannon shows that the conflict had a strong religious dimension, and thus the conflict also could be depicted as Catholics versus atheists. Indeed, once the civil war started, Lannon notes that, "Catholicism went underground in Republican Spain, as churches burned and religious images were destroyed."

   Lannon's section on the warring sides is a bit short at three pages, but she gets the relative balance of the two forces. Her section on the fighting is 32 pages long and again, gets the main points, but without embellishment. At heart, this is more of a social history of a civil war, rather than a purely military history, and some readers may be disappointed by the short shrift given to topics like the German Condor Legion or the International Brigades. The text is complemented by nine maps: Spain in 1936, the first defense of Madrid, the route of the African army in 1936, fighting around Madrid in 1936-1937, the Battle for Madrid in November 1936, the fall of Malaga, the war in Vizcaya, the Battle of the Ebro, and Spain in July 1938. Lannon clearly likes the colorful propaganda posters produced by both sides during the war and includes eight full-page examples(almost 10% of the volume); a few more actual photos of the war might have been a better choice.

   Some readers may feel that Lannon goes easy on the nature of the Nationalists, given the terror bombing of Basque villages like Guernica and the subsequent repression under Franco's regime. In fact, something of a "Lost Cause" mythology has developed around the Republican cause, ascribing all sorts of democratic and liberal aspirations that were not evident in the policies of the Republicans. Indeed, reading Lannon, most readers will feel more revulsion at reading about the abuses of the Republicans, who murdered over 2,000 people (including 68 monks) in Madrid in November 1936. Lannon notes that, "one side protected religion, the other [the Republicans] attacked it and drove it underground. Churches were destroyed, religious symbols and statutes defaced and smashed." Not only were church marriages outlawed under the Republic but Lannon notes extreme examples where one witness saw, "the exhumed bodies of nuns in their shrouds that the revolutionaries had torn out of their tombs and displayed in the street." Was this a regime worth dying for? Lannon does note the repressive nature of the Franco regime, particularly in its hour of victory, when no effort was made at reconciliation with the defeated Republicans. About 50,000 people lost their lives in post-war executions and tens of thousands spent years languishing in prison. There is no doubt that both sides fought a brutal war of extermination against the other, but Lannon's account offers the possibility of distinguishing between the lesser of two evils. Despite an authoritarian structure, Lannon notes that Franco's Spain "was still a dictatorship, but its economy and society had modernized" by the 1970s. Lannon calls the rapid dismantlement of Franco's regime after his death in 1975, "one of the most successful transitions from dictatorship to democracy of the late 20th Century."

   Another theme that Lannon touches upon is the failure of international diplomacy. The British and French pushed the Non-Intervention Agreement in August 1936, by which signatories promised not to ship arms to Spain. Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union signed the agreement and then promptly violated it. However the failure of the Anglo-French to inhibit German intervention in Spain, coupled with the Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia, helped to instill more resolve to oppose German aggression in Eastern Europe.




2. This is a good book for who seek a brief introduction to the Spanish Civil War, but don't have time to wade through a 700-page history.
   
   Lannon handles this divisive war evenhandedly. She points out that both sides were somewhat co-opted by the movements of international communism and fascism and by the end of war, some no longer knew for what cause they were fighting.
   
   This book is subtitled, "1936-1939." Still, I wish Lannon had spent more time on the before and after of the war, rather than concentrating so much on the fighting.
   
   The book is well illustrated and designed, with posters, photos and maps on many pages.



3. For a slim volume this book packs a lot of information. The Spanish Civil War is often called a prelude of World War II but in calling it that you really do it a disservice. The Spanish Civil War was a unique conflict in its own right, with many aspects, such as the International Brigades and the Condor Legion, which caused the war to have an impact far outside Spain's borders. This book gives a fairly nonpartisan assessment of the conflict, a treatment which is rare given the gut reactions many have towards the conflict based upon fascist and communist roles there. The photographs which illustrate are excellent as well but not overdoen, which explains how so much info got into such a small book.

4 comments about The Reckless Decade: America in the 1890s.

1. After the Civil War and Reconstruction, America was witnessing revolutions in every field. Not only in industry were there innovations, but in politics, economy, and society as well. These changes, including the emergence of multi-millionaires like Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan, labor unions, and the fight for free silver, continued well into the final decade of the 19th century. The 1890's was a time of unrest in America with corrupt politicians, an agrarian downturn, and other problems. H.W. Brands tries to get a hold of this turbulent age in The Reckless Decade: America in the 1890's.

   Brands' objective in this work is to illustrate the rich history of the "reckless decade," while at the same time drawing parallels to the modern day. His introduction serves as a reminder of this goal. In it, he compares the end of the 19th century to the end of the 20th century. Both periods felt the "brink of a new era... most pronounced in America's cities." The cities in both eras helped reshape the economy. Brands notes that the politics of both decades were entrenched in fear and weariness. Those of the 1890's feared the change of the lives of the farmers with industrialization, while those of the 1990's feared a "ubiquitous, iniquitous liberalism." These comparisons are offered in the introduction, but not given directly in the book.

   Brands covers a startlingly broad selection of events in such a narrow timeframe of history. The competition between the business juggernauts, Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan is presented in almost a narrative form, making a mundane matter of economics interesting. Brands spends a chapter discusses the "other half" of society, in distinct contrast with the aforementioned business magnates. He alludes to the work of journalist, Jacob Riis, in how immigrants managed to get by in the slums of New York. Much of the chapter is taken directly from Riis' gloomy portrayal of the ramshackle apartments. Brands discusses in depth the Spanish-American War, Jim Crow laws and segregation, and the national frenzy over gold and silver. One of the more interesting parts of the book was a retelling of the Homestead Strike of 1892. Brands depicts the event as having "the atmosphere a circus. (The better educated of the Pinkertons might have thought of a Roman circus with themselves as Christians and the strikers as the lions.)" The scope of the book misses very little: educational reform may be the only theme untouched in The Reckless Decade.

   The book is written in a very approachable style. Brands is, at times, captivating in his narration of events. Unfortunately, the reading is also slow at some points. The author should be applauded, however, for his extensive research, as the material is exhaustive. The Reckless Decade encapsulates ten years of history in a mere 350 pages.




2. H.W. Brands is one of our best popular historians, and he doesn't disappoint with this book about America in the 1890's. He starts the book with two tales that demonstrate the closing of the frontier- the final major land rush in the Oklahoma Territory, which occurred in 1893; and the fighting at Wounded Knee, in the Dakota Territory, in December 1890, which resulted in the deaths of Sitting Bull and many women and children (noncombatants) at the hands of U.S. Army cavalry troops. The Sioux Indians were left demoralized by this event. Professor Brands grabs our attention with the first sentence of the book: "Fred Sutton had watched the earlier rushes into Oklahoma; he had seen friends no smarter, tougher, or more discerning than himself grab homesteads; and when word came that the government in Washington was going to open up the Cherokee Strip to settlement, he determined that this time he'd get a piece of the action." Later on in the chapter, the author switches from the concrete to the philosophical, telling us what thinkers such as Frederick Jackson Turner and Henry and Brooks Adams had to say about the significance of the closing of the frontier. This balance, in addition to the gripping narrative style, is what makes Professor Brands such a good writer. The book is just plain fun to read, but it is also intellectually challenging. Later chapters deal with the growth and centralization of big business (Carnegie and Rockefeller); the importance of the financier (J.P. Morgan); the urban, immigrant poor and the role of the political machines (Tammany Hall); economic downturn and the plight of farmers; racial discrimination and the different philosophies of Black American leaders on how to improve the lives of Black Americans (Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. DuBois); the political battle over the Gold Standard vs. bimetallism (the Populist party, William Jennings Bryan); and the exercise of American power abroad (the Spanish-American War and Theodore Roosevelt). Professor Brands wrote this book in the mid-1990's and he points out some parallels between the two decades- the most obvious being the tendency of people to begin looking outside the political mainstream during periods of great economic uncertainty. During the 1890's people felt under stress from industrialization, economic centralization and also from the severe depression the country was going through. Americans in the 1990's felt the heat of global competition and the uncertainties involved in the ongoing transition from a manufacturing to a more service based economy. The author gently points out some similarities. He wisely doesn't take the analogy too far. As you can see, the book is brimming over with topics and ideas, but it is always a joy to read- not least because of the many fascinating characters who are portrayed. In the section on the rise of big business, Professor Brands entertains us with the story of the competition between Thomas Edison and George Westinghouse. Westinghouse originally made his fortune by inventing the railway air brake. When he decided to branch out into electricity, Edison wasn't amused. He muttered to a colleague, "Tell Westinghouse to stick to air brakes." Edison was working on commercializing direct current, while Westinghouse favored alternating current (which uses higher voltages). To try to influence public opinion, Edison had his technicians wire up stray cats and dogs to the higher voltages and switched on the current. Edison put out pamphlets implying that alternating current would do the same thing to people that it did to the unfortunate animals. And when Westinghouse got the contract to provide the electricity for New York State's "electric chairs," Edison remarked that prisoners could now either be hanged or they could be "Westinghoused." So, apparently "The Wizard Of Menlo Park" didn't spend all of his time inventing. He had a few moments left over to engage in some below-the-belt boxing!



3. "The Reckless Decade" is a very readable synthesis of biography, social history, intellectual history, and just good old-fashioned storytelling art. Brands's writing style is electric, his wit sharp, and his discretion as to when to use well-chosen quotations and when to render his own pithy judgments seldom erring.

   A thoroughly enjoyable period history of a time very much like our own.




4. I'm a novelist who does a lot of research. I needed information about the 1890s in the US. This book totally delivered. The book was thorough and dramatic and interesting.