DC Washington Books

The formation of the powerful Strange - Quinn team. Two opposite DC types that complete each other

My son lives in Italy and wanted this. Thanks for the speedy delivery of it so I could send it to him.

Terribly simplistic book. The only redeeming qualities are that it is a very fast read and it is always interesting to read books based in DC which do not involve politics. The story was weak and simplistic and the characters were right out of a cereal box. If only I could get/understand all of the music references, maybe that would have made the book more solid. In my opinion, find a different crime novel to read, maybe even another Pelecanos book.

This was my first Pelecanos novel. I became aware of him through his writing on "The Wire," which in my opinion is one of the best TV shows ever created.

When I first started reading this book, I thought I was going to be getting Richard Price without the beautiful language. It didn't stay at that lofty level, but it was an effective novel nonetheless.

The main characters here are an older black PI and a white ex-cop who shot and killed an off-duty black police officer, which caused a media mushroom cloud in D.C. (where the action takes place).

Strange, the PI, is hired by the slain officer's mother to clear her son's reputation and get his name on a memorial downtown for officers who have died in the line of duty. After Strange approaches Quinn, the ex-cop (he left the force after the storm his shooting caused, though he was found to be in the right), Quinn slowly starts to aid Strange in the investigation.

Unlike a lot of other reviewers here, I liked the story Pelecanos tells in "Right as Rain." It's not "The Maltese Falcon," but it's surely not an episode of "Scooby-Doo," either. Considering that Pelecanos clearly wanted to make this a story about what has become of D.C. and the racial tensions that exist there, I would say the story is nicely plotted and inhabited by real characters that give it a strong sense of legitimacy.

I think the one flaw of this book is that at times it deals with the racial tensions in mature, honest ways, and then at other times Pelecanos spouts off cliches and hits you over the head with a sledgehammer. I found that Pelecanos holds his white characters to an impossible standard. And he never examines the racism from the other point of view -- of blacks toward whites.

While I think Strange is a well-drawn, complicated, feels-true character, I never felt the same about Quinn. I don't think you get to know him that well. And constantly in the book people meet Quinn and say he's "disturbed," but where is the evidence of this? I just don't see what they see.

Overall, though, Pelecanos keeps his prose simple and his dialogue humming. Strange's eventual acceptance of Quinn is what this book is really about, and it's their relationship that I enjoyed the most.

There was definitely enough good in this book to make me want to read the next Strange/Quinn saga.

'Right as Rain' started the Derek Strange and Terry Quinn series of crime novels set in Washington DC by George Pelecanos. Strange and Quinn are each former-DC cops. Strange is black and Quinn isn't. Strange is a private detective and Quinn isn't. Strange is under control and Quinn - nope.

Strange is hired to look into the shooting of an off-duty black cop by a white cop - who turns out to be Quinn, which begins their unlikely collaboration. Pelecanos creates some vivid characters - an inner city drug lord, a junkie or two, a couple of redneck drug suppliers, as well as members of the urban black middle class.

Pelecanos was one the writers (along with creator David Simon and Dennis Lehane, Ed Burns, and others) who made 'The Wire' (The Wire - The Complete First Season) one of the best TV dramas of all-time. In the written word, Pelecanos creates the same gritty feel for the underbelly of the city's drug trade and of its collateral damage. Helluva read. Highly recommended.

I have a collection of Congressional Cookbooks and "White House" Cookbooks and such by former White House Chef's. Hillary's is beyond the traditional "family cookbook" but gives a white house glimpse and is much more than the tradition, which of course is Hillary!

I actually purchased this book in Washington, D.C., while there for a conference. One of the great First Ladies of the twentieth century provides fascinating glimpses into the most important Home in history, while entertaining the reader with bold and whimsical insights into its many and varied occupants. Did you know that a 145 year-old, crumbling White House was completely gutted by President Harry Truman, with every scrap of detail preserved to be replaced as it was when John and Abigail Adams first occupied it? Such are the fascinating details of history the reader is provided while experiencing the most intimate, day-to-day functions of a house that is both a living, personal family residence while functioning seamlessly as the epicenter of the free world.

I love the White House. Its history, its beauty, its timeless architecture, and its symbol as the center of democracy to a world hungry for freedom. Long may this home be occupied by men and women of good will who seek to serve the wishes of a free people.

This book has some delightful photographs of various White House rooms, furniture, and memorabilia. The text is fairly limited and the photos of the author are (thankfully) kept to a minimum. Overall this is a very enjoyable book and one I can recommend to anyone interested in the White House. As for the invitation, I wonder if the Girl in the Blue Dress received one of these...

Beautiful illustrations of the White House, there's no doubt about that. But if your looking for fancy recipes, this is not the book. Few recipes in it, I was expecting more of that, so I was a little disappointed. I thought I was going to have a book with lots of recipes, for special ocassions; I wanted to invite some friends and tell them, look this dish was served in the White House.
Not a bad book, just not what I was looking for.

I bought my copy cheap from one of Amazon's excellent network sources. I consider myself pretty neutral on Bill and Hillary, but this truly is a shameless advertisement for the two. I was expecting more on the house itself, but basically this is a photo journey through the happier social moments during the Clinton presidency. For this, I still consider the book documenting the Ford presidency to be far better, certainly more candid, and a better artistic statement. The most interesting part of this book for me was the documentation of the planning for a state visit. The recipes at the end of the book weren't very interesting. Certainly, anyone curious about the internal workings of the House itself will be disappointed; JB West's "Inside the White House" is far better. I'm unsure where this book should rest in anyone's library. It could easily be considered fuel for the Clinton spin on their own celebrity. I'm glad I paid only a few bucks for it as I'll have no problem getting rid of it. Recommend looking elsewhere; the Natl. Geographic video on the White House is done much better.

Stepha, Joseph and Kenneth are three immigrants in the Washington area after having fled their original countries - Ethiopia, Congo and Kenya.
I found the story depressing and anti-climatic. The crafting was confusing as well.Except for the parts with the neighbours Judith and her daughter Naomi, it was certainly not a thumb turner.
The story was very introspective and there were not many positives mentioned about the entire continent of Africa.
About Stepha picking up prostitutes...what was that about?

Mengestu's debut novel brings to life the American immigrant experience in a touching way. The novel is about an Ethiopian immigrant, Sepha, and his experiences in the Washington DC area over a seven month period in the 1970s. Mengestu captures the hopes and dreams, as well as the struggles and disappointment, of those coming to this country for a better life than in their native land.

Sepha owns a small neighborhood grocey story around Logan Circle, a community underground gentrification. We see his hopes for a more prosperous and successful business grow as work crews start renovating local buildings. Most notably, Sepha decides to start selling sandwiches and buys fresh deli meats and promotes this to what he hopes will be his new clientele.

The two dimensions of this book I found so rewarding are the interplay and relationships of the various characters with Sepha as well as the ups and downs of Sepha's experience representing the broader ebb and flow of immigrant experience.

Judith, a single white academic restores a four story brick neighborhood in the building and moves in with her wiser-than-her years 11 year old Naomi. The depth of Naomi's character was wonderful -- a somewhat sassy, precocious but sweet girl. We see Naomi take to Sepha and a deep bond created between the two of them -- Sepha becomes a father/older brother figure to her. Especially poignant was the joy and fun they had reading of the Brothers Karamazov together in the store.

At the same time Sepha begins to fall for Judith and we see the impact that race and language has on their relationship. Once again, the hope of a bright future gives way to the dim reality of the struggle most first generation immigrants face.

Mengestu ultimately crafts a very satisfying and enjoyable read. It brings smiles and laughter to the reader as well sadness and disappointment -- working both at the character level but at the broader level of immigrant experience. Mengestu is a young author that you'll want to keep your eye out for in the future.

Who can deny the difficulty of immigrants to the U.S., especially from third world countries and an African one at that? Some books shout out that message, and others whisper it. This is one that whispered. It chronicles the life of a young, fictional Ethiopian man, his difficulties with loss of home and culture, problems in integration into American culture, struggles and successes with relationships. We like the guy, empathize with his situation, but the book does not take us to another level. We want him to "win out," we like him a great deal, but find little to cheer him on for, as he seems lost in chaos in which he finds himself and is unable to find a way out.

I liked this book, particularly the relationships between the three immigrant characters. I thought their insights about life in America and about the wars and insurrections in Africa were revealing and poignant. The relationship between the central character and his neighbor didn't work so well for me -- it seemed strained -- and I'm not sure what I thought of the final incident that caused the neighbor to move, however, overall I liked the book's pace and quiet hopefulness.

I am glad to have found an Ethiopian-American " Jhumpa Lahiri". Who can convey and bring to light our African immigrant experience through his words. I hope Dinaw will continue to write, help us explore and make sense of our two world existence.

As an Ethiopian immigrant, my incredible journey, has taken me between the main character Sepha's & Kenneth's experiences. In addition, I and many other immigrants struggling through a sense of freedom, duty, and lack of connection.

More importantly though, I constantly wonder and worry how my first generation American born children will be impacted by my experience, their own view of these two worlds, and the reality of every day life around them.

I believe writers like Dinaw will build the bridge for the new generation. This book will be treasured in my family for many years to come.

The book is a waste of time. It takes only about 5 pages to realize that the author's knowledge of Western Pennsylvania history is very shallow but that his opinions are very deep.

You know...white people bad...Indians good...rich people bad...poor people good but oppressed.

The Whiskey Rebellion is an interesting part of American history but sadly this book does it no justice. It was the equilivant of reading an 11th grade school report based on a Time magazine article.

I have read dozens of books on early American history. This is by far the worst. I expect histories to at least attempt some balance. This book has none. It is simply big, evil, bad guys (Hamilton and owners of government debt) vs poor, oppressed, good guys (small whiskey producers in the West).

Purchased as a gift for my son-in-law who is a history buff. Received in time for Christmas and packaged well (as usual for Amazon.com)

I could list several errors in the text but the most notable is that of geography. Hogeland erroneously lists Newburyport as being in New Hampshire. It is in Massachusetts and as any well trained historian can atest it is one of the more significant municipalities of early America. Every liberal minded American should know all about Newburyport, MA before embarking on anything else relevant to the time and place from where our nation was born. To make such a clear error into print lets us know to always beware of what we read. It also arises questions of source types and research efficiency.

Overall I found the text acceptable and easy to read. The Adobe font used is easy on the eyes even in dim light. The use of uncommon words I find uneccessary. One should leave the literary genius to works of greatness. I understand that his publisher pushed him but Mr. Hogeland was not being crafty just careless. Another word should be said on that of casting unwarranted character judgement throughout the book. I know some characters are colorful individuals to say the least but cut someone down based upon your own social moray is simply juvenile. It just leaves a bad taste in one's mouth. Overall I do enjoy reading books like this as it fun to expose myself to shoddy writing. I myself am a terrible writer and it makes me glad to know that I am not the only one.

I will keep this book on my shelf and reread it but I doubt if I'll ever purchase another one of William Hogelands works on any of those edited by Lisa Drew. Nor, do I expect to cite this text.

Hamilton doesn't fare well in this text. Once again, I'm left wondering why He is on our Money. 'Wondering why Gallatin wasn't even given a guest appearence on one of the Lewis & Clark Nickles.

My Thanks, again to the S.F. writer L. Neil Smith for starting my questioning of Hamilton, That was over 20 years ago. The Novel was "The Probability Broach".

This book provides little tidbits of information that we don't necessarily know about the first families. In some cases the authors left out some things that might have explained why the families were the way they were. The book becomes a bit tedious if read for too long a period of time. Read sparingly and soak it in, don't rush through it.

Former White House curator Clement Conger calls this one of the best White House books he's read. White House scholar William Seale also endorses it. I found it full of fasincating stories that really show what it was like for forty families to live in one house over 200 years.

I was so excited when I got this book. I love stories about Presidents. However, everything in this book I had read somehwere else. Same old boring stuff. No new pictures. Basically, I thought it was awful.

This book is a waste of time and money. It presents nothing that two other more significant works do not already present in more accurate, better edited ways. These two other works are: 1)Inside the White House: America's Most Famous House, The First 200 Years by Better Boyd Caroli, published by Canopy Books; and 2)The White House: Its Historic Furnishings and First Families by Betty C. Monkman, published by Abbeville Press. Caroli has much more research experience with the White House and the nation's first ladies, and Momkman actually worked in the White House Curator's Office.

If it were not for sloppy editing and factually incorrect information, the Whitcomb and Whitcomb book would be a nice addition to these two more accurate, and frankly more interesting works. Grammatical and punctuation errors pepper the entire book and really take away from its readability. Worse are the blatantly wrong facts presented in this book. For example, on page 371 in the chapter on Lyndon Johnson, Clark Clifford's wife is erroneously called "Mary." Her name was actually "Marny," which was a nickname for Margery (Margery Peperell Kimball). The authors interestingly cite Clark Clifford's memoir, Counsel To The President published by Random House, as a source of infomration for the chapters on Presidents Truman and Johnson.

On page 395, in the chapter about Richard Nixon, the authors state that Daniel Ellsburg was a psychiatrist. Had the two authors consulted Ellsberg's memoir, Secrets: A Memoir Of Vietnam And The Pentagon Papers, published by Viking Penguin, they would have seen that Ellsberg is indeed NOT a psychiatrist, but that he earned a doctoral degree in economics from Harvard and later worked in the Pentagon under Secretary McNamara. The authors are undoubtedly confused; there was a break-in at the office of Ellberg's psychiatrist (a Dr. Lewis Fielding...the real pshychiatrist), which was a scheme carried out by G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt.

Another misconception put forth by Whitcomb and Whitcomb on page 395 is that the so-called "White House Plumbers" were the infamous Watergate burglars. The team known as the Plumbers consisted of four men: Liddy, Hunt, Bud Krogh, and David Young. Only Liddy and Hunt were present at the June 17th break-int. However, they were not members of the break-and-enter team. Hunt had recruited five cuban nationals and two Americans, one of whom (James McCord) worked for the CIA and was director of security for the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP) to go into the Watergate. The authors negelected to consult the most accurate account of Watergate and events leading up to the infamous burglary, Watergate: The Corruption Of American Politics And The Fall Of Richard Nixon, published by Simon and Schuster. This book is the accompaniment to a documentary on Watergate developed by the BBC and the Discovery Channel.

These mistakes make me wonder what else the authors got wrong....and such factually inaccurate information really takes away from a historical work. I encourage readers to consult the Caroli and Monkman books for all things White House, as well as the independent biographies and memoirs of the presidents, first ladies, and their staff members (e.g., the memoir by Clark Clifford) instead of wasting their time and money on this sloppy attempt at historical writing.

I found this book full of information about the different Presidents and their families and how they adjusted to living in the White House.

There is a lot of information about earlier, less known Presidents, and I enjoyed reading those chapters.

I was also interested to read about all the pets over the years.
Every family seemed to have all sorts of animals.

It was interesting to read about the First Ladies and their "quirks". Mary Todd Lincoln ran up clothing bills that she tried to hide---just like Jackie.

Other stories that I found amusing were that Nixon would not allow guards or policemen to speak to him or Mrs. Nixon. Betty Ford couldn't understand why they ignored her greetings until this was explained to her.

Ronald Reagan served tea to Prince Charles who did not touch it because, as he explained later, he didn't know what to do with the little bag!

Many such amusing stories made this a truly enjoyable book. I recommend to anyone wanting to know about living in the White House.

I have used other "Eyewitness Travel Guides" before and I really like having all of the pictures, renderings, and map layouts. It makes it much easier to correlate what is in the book vs. what you are seeing in front of you. There were a couple of attractions (like the capitol or Washington monument) that were a bit tricky to get into or get tickets for, and it would have been nice if the book had covered those better.

The book was sufficient to be the only that I need, but still sufficiently small to stash in a bag and carry around with us.

First Eyewitness guide and I love it. Wish it was a bit more up to date.

I usually love the DK Eyewitness Travel Guides, which may have raised my expectations of this one on Washington, DC. There could easily have been an extra twenty or thirty pages - or am I just being greedy?

As I live in Australia, I thought Washington DC would mean the entire capital. The book mainly focuses on the areas along the Potomac, such as the Mall, Georgetown, and Foggy Bottom. Areas such as Dupont Circle and Kalorama have been relegated to the 'Further Afield' section, which I found disappointing.

There's quite a good section on the White House and the beautiful buildings which surround it, but again I was left wanting more.

It's still a beautiful book though, and the photographs are clear and crisp, but there just wasn't enough for this armchair traveller. I guess I'll have to get out of my armchair and experience Washington DC for myself. At least this travel guide has whet my appetite!

For the first time visitor to Washington, D.C., this book is invaluable. With it's excellent descriptions and insights, grasping a sense of the city's many offerings is easy and fun. But what truly sets this book apart from other travel guides, are the unique and informative full color layouts of the city streets, complete with 2-D images of the buildings for reference. It's nearly impossible to 'get lost' with this guide in your hands!

Another success for the DK Eyewitness series. Well thought out, with the excellent graphics that are DK's hallmark. Well indexed, user friendly, and pocket sized. As a DC resident I own a lot of DC guidebooks; this is the one I'd recommend first, to both visitors and new arrivals alike.

My husband and I have just returned from DC and found this guide very helpful. It helped give us brief snapshots of the places to go and see in specific neighborhoods. The reason I didn't give it a five star rating is the maps. We ended up buying a seperate map because they were very limited. The size of the book was a plus, it was easy to stash in my backpack. Having this to plan our trip prior to arriving in the city, was a great asset and helped make our trip more enjoyable. I'm planning a trip to NYC and plan on buying a Top 10 Guide for that trip.

I like the size of the book and the different categories. It may not be as complete as some others, but it has a lot of information in a size small enough to carry.

My son chose this book for researching our trip to DC. So far it is the usual great quality of information from DK Publishing. So many small maps, pictures with facts and great reading information. These are great for kids and adults. Thanks DK Publishing! ...We did take the trip to DC and found that this book was easy to carry with us and had ton of very valuable information. This was that best book for Washington DC. We got it for our son but we ended up using it alot!!!

If you are looking for a guide to carry with you when exploring DC than this is the guide. It lays out excellent recommendations on where to eat and visit. I would plan your trip with a bigger guide but this is the one I would carry with you on your day to day travels in DC.

My ultimate opinion on how to rate a guide book is the frequency with which I use it while traveling. I spent 6 days in DC, bought this book on my first day there, tried to use it that day and the next, and finally just gave up. While the graphics are very attractive and while the guide LOOKS very helpful, the appearance proves to be mostly superficial. It seemed like, whenever I'd consult the book with a question about a particular site, it lacked the information I needed. I found myself using it mainly for the phone numbers, which I think I easily could have obtained without paying for a whole book.

A guide book should provide quick answers and clear directions and information, but I got very little from this. Instead I found myself consulting other sources. I had a map from my hotel, several National Parks brochures, and a pamphlet from the Smithsonian institute, all of which proved infinitely more useful than this book. And, as previous reviewers have pointed out, I found the restaurant section very lacking. I carried this book around with me for the duration of my stay, but whenever I reached into my bag for information I invariably grabbed something else.

Five stars to Gregor Dallas! He has written one of the best history books on WW1 that I have read at any time and with a particular interest in WW1 this mean I have read many. It is eminently comparable to Massie's "Dreadnought" in depth and readability. Come to think of it, the one complements the other since there can be no better introduction to the origins of WW1 and no better narrative of the transition from war to peace.
I read Dallas' "The Final Act" which relates the end of the Napoleonic Wars and the transition to peace through the Congress of Vienna in 1815. Thus, his latest book treats the same process after the "War to End all Wars" and where appropriate he draws useful parallels. The difference between the two transitions is striking: after 1815, Europe remained peaceful for almost exactly 100 years, except for the altercation between France and the newly formed Germany of Bismarck in 1870, but after 1918 the peace lasted just over 20 years before another world war.
The seeds of WW2 were sown during the peace process which began with the armistice of November 11, 1918. The entry of the United States into WW1 came at a late hour and by the time US military intervention began to have any effect the war was virtually over. Indeed, we learn that the refusal of Pershing to integrate the US Expeditionary force into the allied command had two consequences. One was Pershing's naïve belief he could do what the allies could not by making mass frontal attacks. Both the British and French had taken years to learn this was not the way to win a war, but in the typical NIH syndrome that we seem to suffer from, Pershing refused to listen. Thus he made three attempts to break through the German lines and failed miserably each time, incurring horrendous losses quite on a par with anything the allied command had inflicted on their own forces. Meantime, both the British and French were forging ahead: Clemenceau expressed his frustration on two occasions at the slowness of Pershing to effect a contribution in accordance with the plan. Finally, on the 4th attempt, Pershing broke through, but by then the German flanks were in great danger from the allies on each side. Only in the last week of the war did the US army make a significant contribution, but Wilson took little time to announce it was America that won the war!
The book relates the formulation of Wilson's 14 points, written with his friend Colonel House (who was not a colonel at all!) without consulting either his cabinet or the Congress. He then sent the 14 points to the German government without informing the allies. This contrasts with Lloyd George, the British premier, who was careful not only to keep his cabinet informed, but also parliament, so that when he did make his policy speech, it was with the support of the elected representatives. A lesson of democracy, indeed, when compared to Wilson's method! Clemenceau equally was careful to keep all those that mattered informed of his thoughts and intentions.
Wilson's misplaced and naïve idealism in the end cost the allies a good deal as Dallas demonstrates. Wilson was never able to comprehend the French concern about the future and its imperative to prevent Germany from making war again. The British understood this very well, but placed themselves in the middle. The question of German reparations for the extensive damage they caused was a common aim of the allies, but Wilson did not really want to see Germany stuck with reparations, though in the end he accepted the principle he did not foresee enforcing any payments. In short, the intervention of Wilson directly lead to WW2 far more than any so-called 'appeasement' by Chamberlain or the French. While all parties concentrated on Germany's western borders, no one bothered too much about what was going on in Poland, nor for that matter in Germany itself. Thus the myth of the non-defeat of the German Army was allowed to fester and to lay the blame, later, on the Versailles Treaty not to mention 'appeasement'.
Reading other critiques on this site, I find the claim of errors by one critic nonsensical and, moreover, the allegation is unsupported by evidence. I also note the typos are not as frequent as alleged, but even more important, I wonder what typos have to do with the substance of the work? I accept the truth is hard for many of us to swallow, brought up on the usual myths of US hubris, but the critics should say so and not use subterfuge to denigrate a serious, excellent book.
This is an important book, because it overturns accepted ideas, places a perspective on the aftermath of WW1 not found, to my knowledge, elsewhere. It is thus not only a rattling well told story, but also a work of scholarship.

Gregor Dallas has gifted the world with a splendid introduction for history laymen like myself on the question of what happened after the war ended and why we let it get that way. The short answer is that after November 11, 1918, Europe burned only at one end instead of both. Dallas's genius lies in giving you the overly-long answer and, as a consequence, a very nice bookstop once you have finished reading its contents.


If I sound a bit miffed about the length of the book, please don't take it quite that way. I found certain passages that soared upon the wings of swallows. Others, however, merely shuffled along like an arthritic elephant. Mr. Dallas's tome shuffles a bit too much. It needed tighter editing. I was also distracted by the number of typos I ran across, including one of my all-time favorites the "the the" mental stutter, which is liberally salted throughout the book.


So, what about Dallas's historical analysis of the events surrounding the Armistice and its aftermath? He's on his firmest and most fascinating footing when recounting mayhem, most notably Germany's descent into near anarchy, the swirl of conflicting groups contesting one another for control of Berlin or parts of it and the rise of paramilitary groups that ultimately curbed the unrest in a bloody, extra-legal manner.


Dallas's greatest achievement lies in reminding Western readers that when the guns fell silent in the trenches in France, they continued to roar everywhere in Europe east of the Oder. He takes the time to explain why the Bolsheviks were able to seize and consolidate their control of the new Russian state. There are plenty of books already out that will give you a much more thorough account of the convoluted fighting between Red and White armies between 1919-1921. Dallas, however, is interested in the question of how the vicious civil war in Russia and its outcome affected all of Central Europe in the interwar period. Poland's defeat of Russia in a brief war in 1920, often overlooked in Western accounts of the aftermath of the Great War, is placed in a much more appropriate context here.


This is a book you read once, put back on the shelf, then return to over the years as you learn more about that particular era of history. Dallas's palpable dislike of Communists along with Americans in general and liberals in particular may put off some more patriotic readers, but it doesn't detract from the book's worth as a reminder of what happens when peace is not waged with the single-mindedness, intensity and ingenuity of modern war.

What a year 1918 was on the western front! 1917 had experienced the mutinous near-collapse of the French Armies, the economic near-collapse of the British Empire, and the actual collapse of the Tsar's Russia. The first was only quelled by Marshall Petain's promise to his army to sit-tight until the Americans came, and the second by the gargantuan financial and munitions assistance provided by those same Americans. In the spring of the new year the Germans gathered divisions freed from the war now ended in the East and proceeded to almost win the war in the west with their Kaiserschlacht in the spring of 1918. Its quite a history, and I picked-up this book in hopes of finding more of it fleshed-out.

Instead I found history rewritten and the American contributions not just downplayed but actively mocked.

I eventually stopped reading this absurdly biased book when I got to the part (early on) where the author scorns the AEF, the U.S. forces, for losing 9000 men in their first day of fighting in the Argonne - a rate of loss he claims to be higher than anything else in the war. Have the 60,000 lost by the British on the first day of The Somme been relegated to the memory hole? Can the four years of bungled leadership and slaughter of the French and British armies be ignored: a British army whose courage is certain, but whose history of losses is bitterly encapsulated by a phrase describing their decimation in the first months of the war as "The First 100,000." For almost any day of actual battle that the British generals sent their men forward nine-thousand lost was trumpeted as a smashing victory!

This pathetic attempt to highlight Pershing's flaws leading the AEF over the genocide committed upon British soldiery by Haig and upon the French by Joffre and Foch and Nivelle was enough for me to realize that Mr. Dallas is of that breed of monomaniacally Anglophile WWI historians who occupy a special roost amongst the vultures picking at the corpses of the prior century. Factor in Dallas's apparent amnesia with respect to one of history's most infamous slaughters and one must wonder at what, exactly he might be fleshing out except the long-dead corpse of British martial and imperial glory.

Rather than trust your own background on the war to allow reading this fat book with balance, consider some others instead:

(a) Dallas holds the Germans 110% responsible for the war. Read Niall Ferguson's "The Pity of War" instead for a view that strongly supports the idea the Brits need not have entered the war at all and did so through the sly manipulation of fact and public opinion. Read McCullough's "How the First World War Began" for a detailed look at the manipulations of British and French militarists in the 20 years prior to 1914. For that matter read David Fromkin's "Europe's Last Summer" for a more studied view, albeit one leading to the same conclusion as Dallas.

(b) Dallas considers the Americans to be bumpkins and military incompetents. For alternative views read Mosier's "The Myth of the Great War" (or almost any contemporaneous German military report of their reaction to the arrival of one million fresh American troops on the front). Even Fleming's "The Illusion of Victory" presents a more considered view within its critique of the Wilson government's trampling of liberties at home to feed the hungry maw of the Franco-British war machine.

(c) Dallas considers the leadership of the British war effort to have been an astute bunch. For alternative views consider Laffin's "British Butchers and Bunglers of WWI" or Denis Winter's "Haig's Command." For anglophilia that at least honors not the butchers but those who actually fought and died read any of Lyn MacDonald's books.

I admit I never got to the parts of this book where it, presumably, treats with the armistice and the creation of the peace. It seems certain that you'd do better to read Fromkin's "A Peace to End all Peace", or the aforementioned Fleming book, or Macmillan's "Paris, 1919: Six Months that Changed the World."

Two stars for a good example of how malleable history can be at the hands of apologists for fools.

Most books that speak about the beginning of World War I parcel out the blame among several different countries, on both sides of the conflict. The author of this book is pretty unambiguous: the fault is entirely that of the German Empire. Once he gets down to the peace treaty, he does tend to apportion blame for its ultimate failure in several directions, not the least among them the United States, for its indifference to Europe and its insistence upon being paid back every penny lent during the conflict. The book covers a lot of territory, and its broad scope tends to limit its coverage to any one particular region, which leaves the average reader wishing for more information, particularly about the fighting in Poland and the eastern portions of Europe. Also, this book is badly in need of a good proofreader, for there were many sentences which contained too many words, and then there were some that were missing words. This tended to distract the reader, and I found it extremely annoying. All in all, the work is well done, and gives some different insight into a conference that changed the course of history, unfortunately for the worst, rahter than for the better.

'1918' is a grand book about the end of the most significant war of our times, It aiso illustrates how making peace can do more harm for future generations than the war itself.

The peace was negotiated until 1926; the Treaty of Versailles- June, 1919- was first on the agenda so Europe could contain Germany as soon as possible- at least on the Western Front. The war in the East was germany's problem for a while. However, the treaty was just the beginning of how the Paris Conference played a role in changing the whole world.

Nearly every country on Earth was held in the balance after the war that was to end all wars; four empires died their timely deaths, leaving behind the debris of centuries. All wanted what they believed was rightfully theirs: self determination.

The Great War did what Napoleon failed to do: it ended the Age of Empire. Prior to the war, European Empires ruled the world through their colonies, money and weapons.
But the 1918 armistice and the peace worked out in Paris ended that age of domination. The men meting out peace created countries, changed borders, gave promises of independence. They shaped the world- and its problems- we live in today.

Although the USA was not in the trenches for long, it had the biggest hand to play- because the United States was the only major player left with any money.
Therefore, Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations theory and Fourteen Points (he really had nothing but a theory to offer) had to be accepted first so Europe could get funding to
contain Germany.
France insisted any peace plan had to keep Germany far from its borders. France's self interest was a demilitarized Germany. France, the victim of Germany, did not win here.

Soon enough, Germany wanted to punish France- For the Germans believed it did not lose the war. They thought France, backed by the USA, decided to blame its losses on them.
It is a fallacy France let Germany roll over them during WWII. It was a mere 20 years earlier French soil was soaked with the blood of millions of Europeans, most of them Frenchmen.
When Hitler invaded, France wanted to keep the orphans of the Great War from the fate of their fathers.

Chamberlain, blamed for Hitler's land grab, was in the same position. England was not ready to fight again. By letting Hitler take the Sudetenland, hopes were high that was as far as he would go. The area was mostly German anyway (and intensely anti-semetic). A more perceptive negotiator would have seen Hitler was determined to even the score over WWI. But so many turned a blind eye, since no one wanted another war.

Signs of The Great War can be found all over Europe; very few were untouched by its impact. No country anticipated a brutal war that would go into a stalemate within months. Not one country believed the battle could last four years.

Dallas spells all this out in a book that I could not stop reading. He takes on each country, its current status as of 1918, and its war and peace interests. Dallas is honest; he uses the leaders' personalities as part of the process- because that's how the peace was finally made.

'1918' is a must read for many reasons, especially anyone interested in how Europe was forced to cut the roots to its empires.
The book shows how a war that could have been fought longer finally ended, with France finally achieving victory over its invader. it also shows the perils of peace. Haste fomented resentment; haste laid the ground work for the next brutal war- only 20 years later.

'1918' is also a fascinating read for those curious how we got to where we are today. One example: Iraq became a country created by the Paris Conference.
History haunts us all.

A littany of distortions and fabrications, on par with Holocaust-denial. Think the USA provoked WW-II? That the USA faked the moon-landing? Then you'll love this book. A series of cherry-picked factoids, "cleansed" of anything that would undermine the pre-developed hypothesis, ignoring of eye-witness testimony where it undermines the conclusions, etc. Other investigative reporters went and interviewed many of the people Meyssan quoted in his book, and found he had manipulated their words. In an article "Panoply of the Absurd" (Der Spiegel, 37/2003 - 08. September 2003 online versions in both German and English) Meyssan's deceptions were unmasked: "Another example is the use of statements made by TV journalist Mike Walter, who witnessed the attack on the US Department of Defense as he was driving to work. Meyssan used Walter's statement to support his theory that the Pentagon was destroyed with missiles or remotely guided aircraft. Walter is still furious about this manipulation. He saw the aircraft fly toward the building and accelerate in a "soft curve." Then, says Walter, "it went into a dive and hit a light pole. Shortly after that, it slammed into the Pentagon. The wings collapsed, I heard the explosion, and then I saw the fireball. The guy who was flying it knew what he was doing. It behaved like a cruise missile." Meyssan only quoted the last sentence.

For ordinary people, this is called **lying**. Likewise his use of photos where smoke shrouds the images -- only those which support his murky conspiracy theory are used. The man is an America-hater, in the same manner that some people are Jew-haters, for irrational emotional reasons. Save your money.

The events of 9/11 were devestating, this book doesn't try to refute those facts. This book does, however, bring forth several ideas backed with enough logical evidence that makes a person think twice about what was really going on that day and how the government used the event as leverage to forge war. A few of the ideas mentioned in this book are; the 767 hitting the pentagon, yet no piece of the plane was ever recovered (the first time in history there's been no recovery of ANY piece of a plane after crashing on american soil), the mysterious stock-dumping of the airline companies affected on 9/11, and a very intresting piece on the heroin trade in afghanistan as being the main reason to forge war. As an American, I'd stand behind this book 100% with what's presented, it's obvious there's more going on than meets the eye.

The book indeed shocks you for many reasons. The author does not claim that the victims of the American Airlines Flight 77 who took off from Dulles Airport are false, or that we shall not join the grief and anger that the events of 9/11 brought to US citizens.

What the author argues is that departing from the physical evidence gathered at the Pentagon as well as from the graphic documentation of the crash, indeed a huge explosion occurred at the Pentagon. The problem is, that such evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that such damage could no be caused by a Boeing 757 travelling at a speed of no less that 250 mph.

Indeed, looking at the reasoning of Mr. Meyssan and the evidence he places before you the reader feels at loss to explain how the crash of the Pentagon would be the only case in the history of aviation when after the collision not a single piece of the plane is recovered because all the plane is melted in an explosion, which oddly enough does not affect the green grass on the field right in front of the building. Or how a plane of that size and with such a wide wing span makes a crack on the building which is al least 50% smaller that the size of the plane. In other words how is it possible that the wings and the motors did not touch the building? Or how a plane of that size and characteristics gets into the most heavily guarded air space of the USA and no single civil or military radar cares to wonder what is it doing there.

Mr Meyssan feels that such lack of coherence of the official version with the stark reality of the facts only proves that the US government is knowingly lying to its citizens in order to hide that what really happen on 9/11, including the destruction of the twin towers was a coup d' etat by the industrial military sectors of the US, covered up as a Muslim conspiracy against the US, in order to gain sufficient support from its citizens to attack Afghanistan and Irak and make a [heck] of a profit with the blood of honest, kind, patriotic but misguided Americans, while simultaneously gaining absolute control of the petroleum of the region.

If he is right or not I do not know, but indeed the absence of a single piece plane debris, together with the photos that the damage suffered by the Pentagon do not have the scale that should occurred if a real Boeing 757 had fallen against it makes you uneasy about how right Mr. Thierry might be.

Besides the version of the facts proposed by Thierry Meyssan which can leaves the reader septic, although it is more logical than the one given by Washington, the elements brought here cannot leave us inflexible, as for example the testimony of the lieutenant Vreeland to the Canadian authorities on AUGUST 12TH, 2001, which contained a precise description of the attacks such as they occurred 1 month later. Obviously independent, we have to recognize the quality of the information here condensed, among which some very rare although they are essential to understand these events. Thierry Meyssan goes of revelations to revelations, quoting for every assertion his sources which each can reach. Every sentence bases itself on facts, and the author never flares up in silly reasonings, although they're horrifying. Far from the catchy title obviously advertising, it's a TRUE SERIOUS work of investigation which goes much further to wonder whether yes or not, this plane was crushed on the Pentagon... Don't buy the book for the Pentagon Plane Crash thesis, there are only 20 pages about it. This part is much more detailed and convincing in the last Thierry Meyssan's book "Pentagate". "The big lie" is however essential and still the best book about the Attack.

WHAT? Give me a break! To even suggest that the US was behind the biggest tragedy many of us have ever seen is absurd. I find it hard to even comprehend where the author collected his turdbucket of information. It's almost as stupid as a Jordanian taxi driver once claimed to me during the summer of 2002, "Israel was behind 9/11. You will see!" Yeah...what would Israel have to gain? What would the US have to gain by beating the hell out of itself? That suggests we made attacks on ourselves to pin the blame on Arabs and wage a war. Whether you think the war in Iraq OR Afghanistan is worthwhile or not, if you have one iota of common sense you'd know that this book makes NO sense. Utter crap.

Being a travel junky I found this guidebook very valuable. Some points:

1. It has color maps all located in the same place (back of the book). On the backside of each map is an index with a page reference! So you see the map, you flip and find the attraction/restaurant/whatever, and you go to the referenced page for more info. This is invaluable since the last thing I like doing is flipping through maps embedded throughout a book only to not get any information on what's around me.

2. Did I mention the maps? There is also a subway map overlay on each map so you can plan getting there and getting back. There's also a complete map at the very back.

3. It's a compact book. This is a BIG deal. Lug around a monstrous book for a day and you'll be ripping out unneeded pages later that night (which is a good idea anyway, really). This guide was slim and fit nicely in an outside pocket. Just enough history to occupy the time on the subway, not so much as to displace Washington's biography.

4. It's a well built book. Bend it, fold it, get it wet. It's going to stay together and readable. While weathered guide books held together with rubber bands show some flair, it's no good when you're standing there on a corner with pages falling all over.

Overall a highly recommended guide book. I try and find the best overall guide book for whatever my destination and keep coming back to the Lonely Planet.

I took this book with me on a one week trip to DC. I was mightily disappointed. It started with the trip from the airport. I had to pre-plan on the internet, which took awhile, because the book offers no advice for getting from BWI or Dulles into DC.

There is no useful information on how to get around DC, most notably to the Jefferson, Lincoln and FDR Memorials. It wasn't until the end of the trip that I figured out what options there were for public transportation to this end of the mall and the Tidal Basin. A good guidebook should guide you, not make you search all week for the answer.

The authors apparently used a car to get around. Lots of info on parking spaces. So if you're traveling by car (fat chance at hotel parking being $41 a night), this book might be for you.

The restaurant listings dwell excessively on expensive places to eat. Mostly with bad food. I guess if you can afford to park in DC, you can afford to spend $50 on a bad dinner.

Contrary to another reviewer below, the book seemed to be entirely without opinion, at least where it was needed. But this has been a pattern at LP lately. The Air and Space Museum? Feels like walking into a museum that hasn't been changed since 1986. All the guys walking around with sub-machine guns strapped over their shoulders? Makes you feel like you're visiting El Salvador. And the 'bag checks' at the Smithsonians, one after another, each making you hold your bag in a specific way unique to each security guard. Those would be useful opinions.

You can get just as much useful information as contained in this book (actually more) from the DC's visitors websites.

Good book, lots of detail, good maps, good details of accomodation (though this is a bit pointless in the internet age I think), food options... just a standard, good LP. If you like format of LP you'll like this.

I went for a vacation in Washington DC for a week. This book kept me going. I had a little problem with their updates (the walking tour for Embassy Row still lists a certain mansion as the Pakistani Embassy, but it turns out that the embassy moved somewhere else back in 2005, a good two years ago). But aside from that, things were still well-covered.

I disagree with the previous reviewer saying that there were no directions from BWI or IAD, but p. 263 gives the information about this. Regarding public transportation in the National Mall and Tidal Basin, there aren't a lot of options, but all the available options were given in the extensive maps at the back of the book. One really should prepare for large amounts of walking for this area of the city. And regarding the parking spaces, the book also gives information about how to get to places using public transportation, for every time that they give information about parking spaces. So I do not see why it can be concluded that the authors researched this using a car.

A travel guide is just that, just a guide. It shouldn't be mistaken for a tour operator. One should not rely on it a hundred percent. It simply gives suggestions on where to go and what to visit. For my purposes, it served its purpose well.

An easily portable and thoroughly user friendly compendium of invaluable information on America's capital, "Washington, DC: City Guide" offers more than maps, but provides a complete introduction to the city in terms of its nightlife, arts, history, sights, and memorials. Of special note is the section on the 'National Mall'. Whether the traveler is in Washington for business or pleasure, this outstanding and very highly recommended guide offers descriptive recommendations for walking and biking tours, dining establishments, bars, entertainment, activities, shopping, sleeping, and excursions. Enhanced with the inclusion of a directory, an index, and maps, "Washington, DC: City Guide" is the ideal companion when planning a stay in one of the most dynamic of America's major cities.