Kansas Books

These are the words and reflections of Marines from one unit which saw a lot of combat action west and north of DaNang. The author has done a wonderful job of interviewing a good cross-section of officers and enlisted men and organizing their stories chronologically from 1966 to 1970. The pride of the Marines and these mostly young soldiers is evident even 30 years after the war. This is the "grunts" story told in their own words with humor, pride, and passion. J.Kratz, US Army, Vietnam '66-67, '70-71.

Otto Lehrack has edited a vast compilation of recollections of the front line grunts who fought the war up close and personal. The good, bad and grotesque are equally represented. Unlike the REMFs who conducted the war from air conditioned offices in the rear or in Washington, Lehrack talks with the foot soldiers who suffered, lost their buddies and were forever changed by their experiences. Perhaps most prominent is the unique sense of brotherhood embodied by these story tellers. Driven together by the senselessness of the Vietnam conflict they come together out of need for one another.

This book hits home because of the clear message it sends; the troops didn't always know what they were fighting for but it was clear that they had to support one another if they were going to get home. As Capt John Ripley, winner of the Navy Cross in 1972 on his second tour puts it, "The worst that can be said about a Marine is that he wasn't around when we needed him, that we couldn't count on im. That was absolutely unthinkable to him." The Marines who recount their tale in this book provide a clear understanding of what it was like to spend thirteen months in-country with the enemy trying to kill you each and every day.

Perhaps if Americans at home understood what was going on sooner this war might have had a different outcome. By the end of No Shining Armor, the reader will certainly have a new respect for the tremendous sacrifices made by those who chose to honor their country by serving in Vietnam.

Everyone, regardless of whether they were "for" or "against" the Vietnam War should READ THIS BOOK! It gives an unflinching, brutal and grim portrayal of ground combat by the men (specifically U.S. Marines) who know it best because they were there, they experienced it, and they lived to tell others about it. It shows what heroism and duty to country really are and it shows by the examples of these men. I've read many, many books, both fiction and non-fiction on the war, and none come close to giving the sense of how it really was for these men in ground combat in Vietnam.

Many veterans are still paying the price in physical, psychological and/or emotional terms for doing their duty as American citizens. And most non-participants will never realize the sacrifices these citizens/soldiers made. Personally I have no knowledge myself since I was only 17 when the war ended in 1975, however, I am still un-nerved by the treatment these men received by fellow-countrymen then, and to some extent now (even though it is now "OK" to be a Vietnam veteran).

Read this book and see how it truly was for these brave men in their own words (and for those of all the other services involved, as well). Whether you thought this war was good or bad, right or wrong, moral or immoral...READ THIS BOOK and see how it truly was for the soldiers fighting on the ground.

A nice work and very relevant about the Civil War in Lebanon. This showed the various fighting between Shiite, Sunni, Druze, and Christian factions. This war destroyed one of the few functioning democracies in the Middle East and brought in the armies of Syria, Israel, and the PLO. Lebanon has never been the same. Theocracy is rearing its ugly head through the Shiite, and the Christians have been marginalized resulting in mass emigration. The Palestinians continue to play a role in Lebanon's future, and Syria is still assasinating national politicians. The Middle East wars basically destroyed the demographics of the population resulting in the outside influences of her regional neighbors. It was interesting to hear Asad in the appendix justify his interference in Lebanon's internal affairs by saying they are a member Arab state, but it was strictly forbidden for the U.S. or other western countries to intervene.

This is a nice authoritative read about the causes of Lebanon's Civil War. It shows how each group overplayed their hand, and caused the death of thousands.

Itamar Rabinovich's The War for Lebanon is by far one of the most authoritative works on the Lebanese civil war. It is a quick survey that gives background information about most of the players, whether international, regional or domestic.

The account is concise, however, and sacrifices some details for the sake of brevity and coherence. Rabinovich's style is rich and attractive. For readers familiar with the Middle East, the book would serve as a fresh reminder and wouldn't take more than a couple of evening to finish.

Another drawback is that the book covers the period 1975-1984 without covering the rest of the civil war that ended on 1990. Perhaps an updated version with the war's conclusion and perhaps some analysis of the aftermath of the war are currently needed.

If you are looking for the history of the Lebanese civil war, this book is the one you are looking for. If you want some more history of the war, get Kamal Salibi's A House of Many Mansions as a supplement. Between the two books, you would have a complete and comprehensive idea of the Lebanese modern politics and its history.

This is a good book, and few exist on the subject. A short easy, consice, and pleasent read not full of polemics or bias. It covers the main actors involved, the struggle and the outcome. The Lebanese Civil war began in 1976 with the attempted assasination of Pierre Gemayel, a Lebanese Christian leader. In retaliation a cycle of violence broke out originally between Phalange militias and PLO elements, widening into a costly wider war, that dragged in all communities eventually dividing the nation between christian and Muslim. In the ensuing violence and massacres more than 100,000 may have been killed. The Syrians intervened in the first year and in 1982 so did the Israelis.

After the Israeli withdrawel from Beirut Lebanon became a Syrian colony accept for the south which was jointly contested by israel and Shia Islamists, and the north which was largely given over to the Maronites. However more than 200,000(mostly Christians) were forced to flee in the period.

This is an important work.

Seth J. Frantzman

Emphasises the hardships of the trail and the creative drive of the women who were moving west. Provides excellent patterns relevant to the historic environment.

Barbara Brackman has a well-deserved reputation for writing compelling histories of women and quilting. One of her earlier works is out of print and if you can find it, sells for many times its original price. This book is well written, the patterns are clearly drawn, and the text is enjoyable. But . . . I feel mildly disappointed. Of the 12 patterns given, I will actually produce one, maybe two, of them. Is that a flaw of the book? Probably not. The patterns appear to be of a more primitive style, so that if you are looking for finer applique, you may want to examine this book more thoroughly before buying it. I think I can adapt the patterns I like by reducing the thickness of the stems and adding more detail to the flowers, maybe even some embroidery. Yes, I'll keep it, but it won't be on the shelf with my favorite quilting books.

There are so many books available with applique and patchwork pieced flowers. However, this one has simple and elegant patterns that are historically based. Excellent resource for quilters that love gardening or flowers.

This is another in the American Presidency series. Elbert Smith examines two of the lesser known and lower rated chief executives--Zachary Taylor ("Old Rough and Ready") and Millard Fillmore. By the end of the book, the author had convinced me that these two deserve higher ratings than most historians are willing to grant them.

The book begins by noting the ethos of the times when Taylor ascended to the presidency, with Millard Fillmore as his V-P. Smith says (page 1): "The United States in 1848 was a nation of many paradoxes. The prevailing mood of those who expressed themselves publicly was one of exuberant pride and optimism, but for many these feelings were tempered by bad conscience, hurt pride, and angry resentments." Taylor and Fillmore presided over a country badly divided by region and the issue of race, and there was talk of secession throughout much of their term. It was also a time of dramatic change, with the railroad beginning to change internal movement of people and goods, with newly invented farm tools making agriculture more productive, and with the telegraph presaging much more rapid communication.

The book begins by providing historical context: the changing technology of the era, as already noted; the political climate; the increasingly touchy Southern defensiveness regarding slavery.

Then, brief biographical sketches of both Taylor and Fillmore, giving the reader a sense of where they had come from and who they were when elected as President and Vice President.

Taylor only served a year and a half until his untimely death. In that time, he actually developed a decent record, with one of the highlights being his effort to prevent civil war from breaking out in 1850. He worked publicly and behind the scenes to try to create a compromise over admission of free versus slave states and other intertwined issues. he showed steadiness and political courage in the process.

After his death, Fillmore acceded to the presidency. This former Mayor of Buffalo also handled the threat of secession pretty well. While his position wasn't the same as Taylor's he continued the effort to work out a compromise. In the end, the Compromise of 1850 averted conflict and secession for another decade. Taylor and Fillmore appear to warrant some of the credit.

The tale continues with coverage of the rest of his presidency, his being "dumped" by the party in 1852, his later run for that office as a "Know-Nothing," and the final years of his life.

All in all, a nice volume. One clear index of the book's value. It sure changed my mind about two presidents and gave me a greater appreciation of their role in a turbulent time. Certainly, one would not rate them among the all-time greats. But they deserve better credit than what they have received.

This is the fourth text I have read in the American Presidency Series, and I also rate this one a 5 star. This series provides a detailed overview of what is happening in the country socially and culturally, in addition to politically. I like that I learn not only about the two presidents ; but also, I was given details on many of the other major political figures of the time. An extensive use of primary sources is used, and the author makes an effort to discuss how previous biographers have presented each president, how the presidents have been viewed at different points in history, and how this account sees the presidents. This is a sympathetic biography of both, but the author's assessment is solidly supported with evidence. I am not a historian, just a person reading a bio of each of our past presidents. Interesting, story-telling. I did not find this work boring and dry. It also sets the stage for the Civil War and explores the issues that help build toward war.

Of all the presidents, Millard Fillmore may have the worst public perception. There is even a group spoofing him as the most forgettable president in history. I first learned of this group when Johnny Carson mentioned it during a monologue on an episode of the Tonight Show. It is of course absolutely false; Fillmore was a strong president with deeply held beliefs who acted in the best interests of the country. While he was a New Yorker and personally despised slavery, Fillmore upheld the great compromise of 1850 and continued the policies of Zachary Taylor.
Taylor was the owner of many slaves, but all indications are that he was a very benevolent owner. He was also a pragmatist, understanding all too well that economic conditions dictated that slavery was not viable in the newly acquired western territories. Above all else, he was a unionist, stating in no uncertain terms that he would use federal troops against anyone who tried to break the union. As a former general, he was very credible when he threatened to personally lead federal troops in the potential battle between New Mexico and Texas. All through the years of the presidencies of Taylor and Fillmore, there is the clear movement towards the war that broke out ten years later.
Both men have traditionally been ranked in the bottom level of presidents, largely due to the terrible events of the civil war. Smith is absolutely right in going beyond this simplistic view and explaining the tremendous successes that both men achieved as president. The circumstances were beginning to spiral out of control and three political giants; Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun all were passing from the scene. Even in retrospect, it is hard to see how they could have done more to preserve the union. Two great tragedies that helped lead to the civil war are explained in great detail. The death of Taylor after only sixteen months in office was a disaster. If he had survived and served two terms, it is very possible that the lurch toward sectional war could have been held in check. As a southern slaveholder and a strong unionist Taylor had credibility to oppose southern secessionists that few others had. His last complete year in office would have been 1956, and the Whig party would have survived. The demise of the Whig party was the key disaster, as it led to the rise of the Republican Party, which had trivial support in the slaveholding areas. While the Whig party had enormous internal problems, the fact that they could elect southern slaveholders to the presidency demonstrates that they were a national party.
While the events that came after their term in office must be included in any historical analysis of a president, a sensible sense of perspective must be maintained. Other people rise to hold political offices and their actions have more effect on events than their predecessors do. Taylor and Fillmore have been maligned for events that were largely beyond their control. Yes, there were things that they could have done differently while in office that could have helped heal the growing sectional rifts. However, on balance their presidencies were more successful than they have traditionally been given credit for. Smith breaks with that tradition, by concentrating on what they did, he describes two men who held the rudder of state on as even a keel as was humanly possible. Those were times of great looming dangers; they fought them with great skill and determination. Unfortunately, they passed from the scene all too quickly.

Although some background in constitutional law may be helpful, this book is very readable. Fisher is a thorough scholar, but he is also honest in giving vent to his frustration with Congress' cessation of war power in the modern evolution of Executive-Legislative relations.

This book is a great resource for historical and anecdotal information on the constitutional balance of power between the President and the Congress. Well-cited, and with a firm basis in constitutional logic and theory, Fisher develops a clear case that -although it does take on a diatribal flavor at times- does not require academic contortions to be demonstrated.

The criticism of the War Powers Act is very powerful, and needs to be understood more broadly in America. The unconstitutionality of the act is one reason it is never seriously invoked by the President or insisted upon by Congress, yet many people still refer to it as the crux for understanding the war powers balance between the Presidency and the Congress.

An excellent book for anyone interested in Constitutional allocation of power; useful for students, professors, and the concerned citizen.

Constitutional scholar Louis Fisher has done a magnificent job capturing the history of what he calls "presidential warmaking" -- that is, the tendency of presidents to usurp Congress's Constitutional war-making power. Fisher is not persuaded by claims advanced by modern presidents -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- that the Commander-in-Chief clause grants them broad discretionary war-making powers. His book is a long legal brief in favor of returning the war powers to the Congress.

At times, Fisher's belief in the rightness of his cause borders on the polemic. Though he recognizes that Congress has been complicit in presidential war-making, he reserves his harshest criticism for the presidents themselves. Arguably, however, it takes two to tango; if Congress actually *wanted* the war powers, it could take them "back." But as research shows, it is easier -- and therefore more palatable -- to sit on the sidelines, sniping at the president in case of failure or claiming a share of the credit after success.

No student of American politics or American foreign policy can plausibly claim to discuss the role of the executive branch in military/foreign policy without having digested Fisher's book.

Fisher's book is the strongest demonstration of how far we have allowed the original constitutional design of the war power to be destroyed that I've seen so far. Originally the war power was designed to avoid allowing a single person (i.e. the President) to decide whether we go to war; that was the duty of Congress. Fisher documents this fact and then examines two hundred years of American armed conflicts. Until the early 20th Century, with only minor deviations, it was understood that the President had to get authorization from Congress before entering armed conflicts. Only after WWII did the President claim the sole power to go to war, with Congress simply along for the ride. Fisher is nonpartisan in his criticism, attacking every President from Truman to Bush II, though he is supportive of Eisenhower's limited return to Congressional consultation. Fisher explains how practically every military action taking in this period was unconstitutional.

What I like most about this book is the fact that Fisher, unlike many other critics of this problem, does not seek to push the Supreme Court to intervene and restrain the President. Instead, he places the burden upon Congress. Fisher examines attempts to constrain presidential power, such as the War Powers Act, and illustrates that each has been insufficient and offers proposed changes to improve these checks. An interesting and informative read and we can only hope that someday Congress will again take up its responsibility rather than hide behind the President and then blame him if things go badly.

I have read all but one of her books and I don't think there is one thing I don't agree with her on. She is a gifted writer as well as a compassionate person. When I think of a TRUE Christian, she definately hits it dead in the center. This is so transparent from her writing. You get to know her. As Christians we are to love everyone! Not beat them up with our words and actions. We all could use more of the love and understanding that she willingly offers in so many of the "hot debates". Thank you Barbara for this one. It has personally brought me to a better place as a person and as a Christian.

I am a big fan of Barbara Curtis's writing. As a non-Christian liberal, I often have a lot of trouble even understanding what Christians are trying to say, much less finding areas of common ground. So when I discovered Barbara's blog, Mommylife.net, I was thrilled to find a person espousing different beliefs than mine who I could not only communicate with, but also connect with.

Barbara has lived on both sides of the equation, living in the San Francisco Bay Area for years, and changing from being a liberal activist to a strong conservative with her conversion to Christianity, so she understands a lot of the ways in which liberals think about things. This knowledge makes it easier for her to know how to communicate her Christian and conservative beliefs to liberals.

Christians would like to think that for a liberal like me, reaching out and conversing with Christians about their religious and political beliefs would be easy if the desire was there to do so, but it is not. In the section on communication, Barbara says that, "Most Christians are probably not aware that sometimes the "language" they speak is almost as alien to nonbelievers as Spanish is to English-speakers."

As a non-Christian, I can assure Christians that this is absolutely true. I reached out and tried to speak with a couple of Christians that I know in person, and didn't have much success in finding common ground. Words and phrases like "the good news", covenant, "feel convicted", testimony, "sin nature", and the frequency with which Christians say the names Jesus, God, and Christ, are disconcerting to non-Christians, and Barbara has a whole section listing some of the words that non-Christians may find off-putting or not understand. She also shares some communication strategies that Christians can use to be true to their God without stunting conversation with non-Christians.

Barbara also talks about a lot of politically charged social issues such as abortion and homosexuality. She talks about the liberal belief system that leads us to many of our beliefs and shows some of the most compelling conservative and Christian arguments against those beliefs. She also has a section at the end of each chapter with questions to ask yourself and discuss with others, issues to research or think about more deeply, and things that real people can do to get involved in their community and make a difference on the issues that Christians and conservatives often care about the most.

What I loved most about this book is the way Barbara is able to be clear-eyed and honest about the ways conservatives and Christians need to improve in order to make a convincing stand against these issues. She doesn't just bash the evil liberals like many have made a living doing, she endeavors to provide understanding of both sides, and constantly encourages humility and warns against self-righteousness, so that Christians can make good use of their opportunities for friendship and discussion with those who don't think like them.

In Reaching the Left from the Right, author Barbara Curtis gives new meaning to the phrase, "been there, done that." As a previous I-hate-America hippie activist to a reformed Christian woman who loves the Lord, Curtis opens our eyes to what it means to look at all of God's children with love and acceptance--even when they have different moral or political values than yours.

You know what I enjoyed about this book? Truth. The kind of no-holds-barred truth that hit me right between the eyes and convicted me of my own prejudices towards others, who thought and believed differently than I did. I didn't avoid them because they didn't act or look the way I did. I avoided them because I didn't understand their position, their thoughts, or their beliefs. And because I didn't understand, I never took the steps to get to know them better. My great loss.

But as Christians we're called to action. Curtis lends sage advice stemming from years of experience of living on both sides of a movement on how to bridge the gap between the left and rightmovements. As she describes these groups in her book, the similarities between the two sides is uncanny, "It's justthat members of each group--thinking inside their own established paradigms--have a hard time seeing this about the other side, because the ways of going about it are radically different."

Curtis coaches us to compare what the Lord says in the Bible and the beliefs of others, while sharing ideas on how as Christians we can step outside of our comfort zones and reach out to others who we might normally avoid.

If you want a book that will teach you to compassionately connect with those around you, then I highly recommend Reaching the Left from the Right. Jesus did not come to minister to those who were saved, but to the unsaved. If we are going to do what Christ calls us to do, then we must first learn what others believe so that we have the compassion to meet them where they live.

Armchair Interviews says: An appropriate book for this world today.

A very good work, this book discusses the Red Army officer corps from its inception to its disintegration. The author uses several sources to look at "typical" Soviet officers at different period of the Red Army's existence, including the Purge era, post WWII, etc. Changes in demographics, schooling and political influence are all discussed. First-hand accounts are used whenever possible.

I found it especially interesting that Mr. Reese chose not to perpetuate the idea that "the best and the brightest" were eliminated during the Purge, paving the way for the disaster that the Red Army suffered when Germany attacked. As the author pointed out, bad officers must have also been eliminated, since the Purge seems to have been almost arbitrary.

An excellent book but not a light read.

Reese makes many excellent points and I commend him for producing such a fine piece of literature on the Red Army, and specifically the officer corps. I found only one error on his part so far, he claims that battalion commissars were labeled 'kombats' and battalion commanders 'batkoms' while in fact the opposite holds true. A small mistake but one that immediately caught my attention.

What I give the author a lot of praise for is showing how intertwined the officer corps was with the politics of the nation. This is one of the biggest reasons, that the author argues, which allowed the purges of the Red Army to reach such heights. In fact it is his opinion that without the intermingling of party politics with the Red Army the purges might have never come about. I can agree and disagree with this statement. I agree with the fact that one of the biggest reasons Stalin decided to purge the Red Army was because he had a fear of it since it participated in some of the worst deeds under his government. Many high ranking Generals, and certainly the Marshals, were members of the Bolshevik party, and held various posts in party organizations. Because of this many had allegiances to various factions that had been gotten rid of by Stalin (those who followed Trotsky or Zinoviev for example) and it also clouded their perceptions of what their jobs as high ranking officers should have entailed. Where I disagree with Reese is the fact that without these connections to party politics there is still reason to think some of these commanders could have been convicted of "Bonapartism" if they had any friends in the government, for example, or if they had ever expressed anger or disdain for what the party was doing. It will never be known if Reese is correct in his interpretation of this aspect of the officer corps but it is food for thought.

As previously mentioned the higher ranking officers cared little for those subordinate to them and even less for the average enlisted man. This gap would show itself in the fact that many divisions and other formations were not up to the challenges of the future war. Training was not taken seriously nor given the amount of attention and time it deserved. Drunkenness, abuse of subordinates, and other actions which should have been outlawed were allowed. Reese also makes an interesting case for the fact that while the purges most definitely took some talent out of the Red Army this cannot be claimed for every single person discharged, executed, or sent to a GULag camp. He is also correct in the fact that the army itself had blood on its hands when its own military districts started to discharge officers, since they had permission to do so without Moscow's approval, all they had to do was phone in and state who was discharged. An order was also issued to discharge officers of various nationalities, Finns, Koreans, Poles, etc. As this process began it proved too hard to stop, one order issued by Voroshilov was ignored and it took another, coming from the NKO and NKVD to stop the bloodshed and discharges.

This book is also helpful in the fact that Reese gives numbers for those troops discharged as well as those who were then reinstated. There was an affect on the Red Army officer corps but it was not as serious as many claim. Interestingly enough, there were previous purges within armed forces for years before 1937 in which tens of thousands were discharged for various reasons, many times due to their political orientation. The officer corps was suffering throughout the late 1920's and all of the 1930's as the Red Army expanded. Officers were also in short supply and lacking in their training and education, even worse many were being manhandled into the army which created a caste of officers who had no desire to belong to the army nor did they see a future in it. This book is a must for those interested in the Red Army, it gave me (someone who's been reading on the subject for a decade) a brand new glimpse into the Soviet system and the operations of the Red Army officer class, highly recommended!

Reese writes that the Soviet officer failed to develop an independent identity, impose dicipline in the ranks, and train small units. Reese mantains that the Soviet officer corps lacked a professional sense of identity since Soviet officers had to be members of the Communist party and this involved them in interparty disputes further political commissars with no professional abilities could be generals. Soviet officers also used commissars to try to impose order in the ranks and this made them fail to have any sense of group identity with the ranks. Furthermore, this neglect of enlisted men, made it possible for abuse to occur betweem NCOs and lower ranking members of the Red army. Soviet officers also did not develop small unit tactics that required individual intiative, and this greatly impeded the effectiveness of the Red Army throughout its history. The only weakness of the book is that Reese leaves out the reason why that the Soviet officer corps managed to conduct effective strategic moves, such as the 1944 summer offensive, during the Second World while failed in the area of tactics. I would greatly reccomend this book for anyone has an interest Russian military history.

After seeing Chonda live in Chicago last year, I am convinced that she's our very own comedian angel sent by God to wake and shake us! Chonda's book is a true inspiration, but actually listening to her speak and sing is an even bigger treat. It's hard to find her tapes, both video and audio, but definately worthwhile to search for. I've purchased three extra books and tapes to give as presents. This is truly a MUST Buy for Christian women of all walks of life.

I saw Chonda at a Women of Faith gathering in Cincinnati. She moved 15,000 women to tears of laughter and emotion. If she is ever speaking in your area, go see her! Truly amazing and inspiring.

This is by far one of the best Christian books I have read. I laughed until I cried, and then I cried until I laughed. Chonda uses humor and then the incredible story of her life to make us all realize that God is indeed in control

Beland's study of the history and politics of the U.S. Social Security program provides a solid historical account of the establishment, expansion, and curtailment of old-age insurance. There are, however, flaws. Beland (like many academics) spends too much energy trying to locate his own methodology within existing intellectual fads (a good editor would have cut Chapter 1 by two-thirds its ultimate length). Also, the prose is turgid and repetitive (how many times does Beland really think it is necessary to refer to "credit-claiming strategies"?). And, despite his claims to the contrary, this book really is not for the general reader (any book that uses the term "instauration" should be excised from any general reader's list). Again, it's solid book and should be read by anyone seriously interested in the current Social Security debate. Just keep your expectations within reason.

This book is a must read for those who are interesting how the U.S. Social Security evolved into its present state, and is indispensible for those interested in understanding the context of current political debates (not only in the US, but in other countires - social security debates in other countries have been influenced by the U.S. system, and vice versa). Beland explains the political origins or social security, and it is clear that in order to understand current social security politics, including recent discussion of privatization, you need to start at the beginning.

I bought this book to read for the 70th anniversary of Social Security (Aug. 14), but it came out earlier than expected. It's good to read a social science book that's not full of jargon or boring policy details. The author gets to the point, and he writes clearly--for an academic. The book is really concise, as it covers nearly eight decades of history in less than 200 pages (w/o the notes). It also addresses broad issues, from the role of unions and business interests to Bush's Social Security agenda. But what I really like is that this book is not just about Social Security: it explains how American institutions work, how politicians and think tanks set the policy agenda, and even why the US doesn't have national health insurance! This book didn't change my life but it certainly helped me to understand why (and how) privatization is now such a big deal.

This is essential reading for serious students of intelligence as well as WWII buffs. Dr. Stephan demonstrates in lively fashion the unlikely impact of tactical intelligence and counterintelligence operations on the outcome of WWII. Dr. Stephan puts his prodigious erudition to good use in animating the various penetrations and double agent operations, and depicting the contribution of an effective counterintelligence program to the defeat of the Germans. A first class work of historical documentation.

The author does an excellent job with this book. Descriptions of various Soviet operations, what happened during and the outcomes are all written out and described with details and excellent sources. The reader will see that the myth that all Soviet POW's who were either liberated or escaped back to their lines from encirclements or German POW camps were sent to Gulag labor camps is a lie. After thorough checking by the NKVD the majority, 90% or more, were sent back to their units or used in another form at the front or in the rear, only around 10% were put into Penal battalions and companies or sent to Gulag camps because of various reasons. An excellent section on how the Germans tried to penetrate the Red Army and NKVD by using POW's and others, the sheer volume of the amount of agents the Germans sent through Soviet front lines will give rise to an understanding that the NKVD had to be thorough in their jobs and many of those who did return might in fact have been working for the Germans in one way or another. All in all an excellent piece of literature on the time period and a great addition to our understanding of what went on during this war on the Eastern Front. As a comment to the other reviewer, the Soviets did not need to crack the German 'Enigma' codes, they had spies in top levels of the US and British secret services and through them received all the knowledge they needed about German activities. Sometimes British and US agencies shared information with the USSR and the NKVD or GRU (military intelligence) would then double check that information from their own spies in the respective agencies.

Robert W. Stephan's book explores hitherto ignored,hidden dimension of war on the Eastern Front:Soviet counter-intelligence ops and its impact in shaping the outcome of Great Patriotic War[1941-45]We know from the works of V.E Tarrant,Paul Carrel,Heinz Hohne Soviet penetration of German Armed Forces High Command,highest echelons of Nazi regime.Success of Soviet spynetworks[Red Orchestra]eroded Wehrmact's ability to defeat Red Army;derailed Hitler's plan to conquer Soviet Union.Concurrently GRU,NKGB's penetration of Abwehr,Gestapo,SD helped Soviets to uncover to the fullest extent possible German secret agent network operating in Russia.

German agents caught were turned into double agents.Using them as 'radioplaybacks'Soviets started feeding controlled information which fooled German High Command.Information supposedly coming from authentic sources made Germans misinterpret scope,magnitude,direction of Soviet thrusts.Maskirovka ensured the destruction of German Army Group Centre{Bagration] in summer of 1944.Intially to establish the credibility of information passed on by double agent Stavka with the connivance of Stalin betrayed few Red Army ops.Most important being 'MARS'launched by Marshal Zhukov to eliminate Rzhev salient in Nov 1942 which ended in a fiasco.

Soviet success in deceiving Germans hastened Wehrmacht's defeat on the Eastern Front.If not it would have prolonged hostilities or may have ended in a stalemate.In narrating Soviet counter-espionage ops author draws parallels with what British [XX]committee of MI5 did to dupe Germans.Like the British Soviets molded deception into a decisive weapon.

So far analogy holds good;but no further.Unlike British Soviet covert ops are shrouded in mystery.Why this secrecy even though 60 years have passed since capitulation of Nazi Germany is a conundrum which has continued to baffle experts.For instance the memoirs of top Soviet commanders Zhukov,Shtmenko,Rokkosovsky,Vassilievsky,Chuikov does not say anything about Soviet intelligence triumph.Another intriuging aspect it is not known wheather Soviets had cracked German Enigma codes.But one has to assume that Russians must have had some success if not how could they hope to monitor progress made in deceiving Germans.

This book establishes beyond doubt Bolsheviks were masters in the art of espionage ,counter-espionage,covert operations.I feel circumstances surrounding the birth of Soviet state dictated it to be so.Soviet Union was besieged by foes assailing it from different directions.Defence of revolution demanded Soviets have highly efficent secret service which could foil plots ,machinations of imperialist powers.

So in the secret war that followed German intelligence was outclassed,outwitted,outmanoeuvred.Inthe field of espionage Germans were made to look crass amateurs.Reader will get to know this while perusing chapters related to operations Monastery,Berezino in this book.Operation Barbarossa was colossal blunder ;Germans underestimated strength lay latent Soviet Union.Superior German intelligence would have helped them to uncover that strength.But that was not to be.