Kansas Books

If you want a real understanding of US/USSR military cooperation (or lack of) during World War II, read this book. I read this book and the classic John Deane book "The Strange Alliance" and feel I really came away with a much better understanding of relations between the Americans and Soviets during World War II, and also, gained a much better understanding of the coming Cold War between the two countries. Several other books have been written on Operation FRANTIC, but they pale in comparison to this work. Very scholarly research. Only wish in book was a closer examination of the propaganda generated in the United States by the shuttle bombing missions and any effects they may have had on FRANTIC.

Mark J. Conversino, Fighting with the Soviets: The Failure of Operation Frantic, 1944-1945 (Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1997). xi + 284 pp.

Conversino's book examines a little-known Soviet-American cooperative effort known as "Operation FRANTIC," which amounted to "the longest sustained contact between members of the United States and Soviet military establishments during World War II." (p. 210). A professor of airpower history at the Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama and a major in the U.S. Air Force, Mark Conversino is well-qualified to write this monograph. His overall conclusion is that Operation FRANTIC failed in its mission, but he provides a sophisticated account of its positive contributions as well. The objective of the operation was to set up bases in the Soviet Union from which U.S. bomber fleets could open a new front in the air against Germany, thereby dispersing and weakening the German Luftwaffe. The U.S. pilots had found that daylight bombing over Hitler's Germany was too dangerous; the attrition rate was too high. They reasoned that, if they could stage bombing raids from the USSR, they could cut their casualty rate and air travel time in half. They also hoped to lay the foundation for greater joint endeavors in the Far East. It was not a new idea to collaborate with the Soviets vis-a-vis the use of air forces, and experience in China showed the Army Air Force (AAF) that it was possible to mount and support aerial operations from even the most remote and undeveloped areas. For Averell Harriman, U.S. Ambassador to the USSR, a second purpose of the mission was to demonstrate solidarity between the two countries. A number of problems arose that caused tension among the American GIs and Soviet military officials. The process of establishing bases at Poltava, Mirgorod, and Piryatin were delayed because Stalin and other Soviet leaders were most concerned about relieving German pressure against the USSR's eastern front. Thus, they preferred an Allied second land front in Western Europe to an "air front" from their own territory. Moreover, Stalin apparently did not believe strategic bombing was very important, believing airplanes should be used primarily for tactical support to ground forces. He was also loath to allow such a large foreign military presence within his own country. Once the bases were established, the lack of accurate, timely information irritated American personnel. Soviet officials informed them that they needed at least twenty-four hours' notice for authorities in Moscow to clear flight plans and notify the front line troops and air defense units. Naturally this worried the Americans, who feared their operations would be hampered by such lengthy notification times. (p. 41) Also, since the vast majority of Soviet sorties were flown at or close behind the front itself, Soviet authorities tended to present information relative only to a particular mission and not to the entire theater. These procedures created problems for Eastern Command's intelligence officers during the FRANTIC missions as the aircrews would complain bitterly about the lack of accurate data concerning German fighter and flak defenses (p. 49). Although Soviet officials gave Americans total freedom to communicate with U.S. aircraft over Soviet soil, the Americans had to rely on a rudimentary Soviet teletype service among the three bases. Telephone lines among the three bases simply did not exist. By June 1944, Eastern Command had resorted to courier aircraft for interbase messages because of the technical unreliability of the teletype network (p. 50). Since the bases were extremely bare and isolated (especially Piryatin), maintaining the morale of the American troops became a challenge. U.S. soldiers began to "fraternize" with local Ukrainian women. Angry Soviet officials then forbade such fraternization, and the atmosphere between Soviet and American troops on the bases cooled. On the other hand, the Americans did recognize Soviet efforts to make the bases inhabitable for the Americans. While the U.S. Army Air Force brought most of the equipment it needed (including steel matting for runways, high octane gasoline, special purpose vehicles, most rations, and all housekeeping supplies), the Soviets agreed to provide some vehicles, fresh meat, fruits and vegetables, bedding, and of course, housing. They also provided 250-kilogram bombs and machine gun ammunition, and agreed to unload all shipments at the point of entry and move them by rail or truck convoy to Eastern Command bases. (p. 47). The Americans were impressed by the fact that the Soviets transported the equipment all the way from Murmansk in a relatively short period of time, and that much of the work in laying the steel matting was done by female Red Army soldiers. They also admired the Soviet commander, Major General Perminov, who was "a keen, straightforward flyer and routinely used his authority to cut through the red tape to settle on the spot the myriad problems that arose each day" (p. 41). Two possible weaknesses of the book are the lack of primary Russian-language sources and the excessive detail. On the other hand, Conversino makes excellent use of primary U.S. Army sources, such as unpublished manuscript and oral history collections and interviews with actual participants. World War Two and airpower historians will find this book a useful contribution to the extant literature, and selected portions of the book could also be assigned in undergraduate courses.

Flint Hills Cowboys by James F. Hoy places you on the saddle of a horse loping through the historic Flint Hills of Kansas. Mr. Hoy himself grew up in the Hills and was raised working cattle alongside some of the best cowboys the region has reared. Chock-full of authentic and personal stories, the reader continually feels like one of the cowboys living the exciting, and difficult, life of a Flint Hills Cowboy.
The book both informs and delights. Mr. Hoy lacks pretentiousness and his writing is accessible. After completing the book, it was obvious to me that he desires only one thing: to share his love and passion for the Flint Hills of Kansas and all the colorful and honorable people who dwell there.

Flint Hills Cowboys: Tales Of The Tallgrass Prairie by Jim Hoy (Professor of English and Director of the Center for Great Plains Studies at Emporia State University) is the engaging combination of personal memories, frontier history, and folklore tales about the prairie lands of the Flint Hills country of eastern Kansas. A remarkable and inherently fascinating anthology of stories and anecdotes of the rodeo, ranching, ranch hands, and working with stubborn cattle and contrary horses, Flint Hills Cowboys reflects upon a half-century of life and times in the Flint Hills. As a superbly presented compendium of action, humor, lore, and history, Jim Hoy's Flint Hills Cowboys is very strongly recommended and entertaining reading for all anyone with an interest in the landscape, people and history of the Flint Hills country.

I was getting really tired of books on people having affairs, or kids who suffer in broken homes, dysfunctional family, irresponsible parents, etc. when I came across this book. There is no affairs, sexual contents, divorce, or alcoholics/drug addicts in this book, thank goodness, and the protagonist's family is in good accord, even though there are some disagreements and distresses at times. From that perspective, one may call this book unique. It was quite refreshing to read about a functioning family facing external problems and issues which affect them internally.

The protagonist is a 9-yr-old girl, Eva, who is a mature thinker for her age. Her sense of justice and fairness and what is right and wrong is very strong, and she seems to know how to make good argument about moral and racial issues. She often strikes up a discussion about these matters with adults around her, is capable of carrying the discussion at adult level. Yet she's still emotionally a child, and sometimes her weaknesses and childish selfishness show involuntarily.

The Hoffmans have migrated from Vienna, fleeing Hitler's claws and settled in Topeka, KS. The father is a doctor (psychiatrist?), and the mother is a stay-home mama, with a very strong sense of moral and justice. Because of their own experience as Jews, they believe in human equality, and try to practice their belief in their daily life by treating black people, mentally ill people, white flood victims with the same principle, in the midst of white people who are trapped in racism and bigotry, and try to get along. They fled Europe's prejudice to the country of freedom (America), but they find the same prejudice, which is quite disappointing and disheartening. And they fight against it by living what they believe.
However, even though they share the same principle, they all have different ideas on how to practice it in details, in their daily life. When they take in the ignorant, bigotry red-neck flood victim family Willgers to their home, each of the HOffmans reacts and acts differently. The mother tries to be really nice, cheerful, and do everything she can to make the Willgers feel at home, despite the insensitive racial comments her guests drop here and there. The father tolerates their presence, but withdraws to himself, failing to pay attention to his daughters' emotional needs. Eva's young innocent sister Sarah hits it off with Jolie, the Willgers' naughty, poorly mannered, insensitive, disrespectful daughter. Eva, the protagonist, is the one who sees the hypocricy and unfairness all around her and simply cannot take the insults and bigotry that these strangers demonstrate at her home. The poor girl is retreated up in attic, as a result of giving up her room to the Willgers, no longer finds a place for herself in the family or home.

Each family member acts and reacts differently to this stress of living with people who belive in ideas which he/she doesn't approve of, who may well have hated their Jewish hosts if they weren't victims of the flood. And one wonders who's action or reaction is right and who's is wrong. Each one has good reasons for the way he/she acts and reacts, and one starts thinking that there is really no right or wrong, as each is trying to be honest and morally correct.

The issues are mind-boggling, and there are quite a few important discussions and dialogues that make you think and question yourself.
The ending is, as the editorial suggests, unfortunately dissatisfying. I wish the author has taken more time and pages to complete the story. But it is still worth the read. The 9-yr-old protagonist is totally believable and capable of receiving the reader's sympathy, and you will see the world through her eyes. It's a unique book, and I highly recommend it.

Nine year-old Eva Hoffman is an Austrian refugee whose family has found a precarious safety in Topeka, Kansas in 1951, the year of the landmark desegregation case. As the rising river inundates the town, the Hoffmans open their home to refugees from the flood, and Eva learns the complexities of prejudice-and courage-both within and outside her family.

"A richly evocative story of the awakening to adulthood." -- The Los Angeles Times.

"A refreshing and extremely moving novel." --Ms. Magazine

"Eva is...reminiscent of a Carson McCullers heroine." --The New York Times.

Nine-year-old Meg Wells and her seven-year-old brother, Preston, were sent away from their St. Louis home in the spring of 1856 during a cholera epidemic, and went to live with relatives in Kansas Territory. But now their parents and their little sister, Grace, have joined them on the prairie, and it looks like their stay in Kansas will be longer then expected. Meg wants to return to St. Louis, but with Kansas Territory a battleground between those who want it to enter the United States as a free state and those that would have it allow slavery, Meg's father is determined to stay in support for a free state. Meg describes in her diary her family's life during the summer and fall of 1856, as they face a dangerous prairie fire and are caught up in the crossfire between pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces. I reccomend this book to readers who enjoyed the first book about Meg, As Far As I Can See.

In the continuation of nine-year-old Meg Well's story, she and her brother Preston have finally been joined by her parents and little sister Grace. However Kansas at this point in history might even be more dangerous than the cholera stricken St.Louis the Wells family escaped from. Fights between the people who want Kansas to stay a free state and those who want it to turn towards slavery ensue and threaten anyone who disagrees in sight. Slaves aren't the only danger, as prarie fires threaten to tear down all things in sight. However young Meg mananges to grow up in this time of turmoil and I can't wait to read the conclusion of her story coming out in August 2003.

Very well written stories that meld together seamlessly. With each turn of a page it became harder and harder for me to put this book down even for a minute.

Fragile Hopes, Transient Dreams: And Other Stories

Make sure you are comfortable and situated before you even start reading this book.

This is a fun book to read to help you escape back to the days where the plains were still wild. It gives you a glimpse into the lives of those who settled in the early days.

Now that George Brett has finally been elected to the Hall of Fame (with the 4th highest vote total in history no less), interest in reading about this baseball immortal is at a high and it's very unfortunate that Garrity's book is no longer in print. The book was written after Brett's wonderful 1980 season, when he captured the hearts of America with his quest to become the first player to hit .400 since Ted Williams did it in 1941. The book's a great look into the life of a player on the brink of superstardom. It'd be great now to get a book on Brett's entire career, because many of his highlights occurred after the '80 season. If you're a Brett fan, I strongly urge you to find this book!

Now that George Brett has finally been elected to the Hall of Fame (with the 4th highest vote total in history no less), interest in reading about this baseball immortal is at a high and it's very unfortunate that Garrity's book is no longer in print. The book was written after Brett's wonderful 1980 season, when he captured the hearts of America with his quest to become the first player to hit .400 since Ted Williams did it in 1941. The book's a great look into the life of a player on the brink of superstardom. It'd be great now to get a book on Brett's entire career, because many of his highlights occurred after the '80 season. If you're a Brett fan, I strongly urge you to find this book!

After reading the book, I realized how much more I knew about American History in general. Little did I know that Washington was such a conservative. I did not think I knew so little before I read this, but now I am filled with information that wants to be shared. His explanations on the state of America from pre-revolutionary times until the signing of the constitutions are extremely interesting. This is on top of the extensive information on the father of our country. I came out of this book with a new understanding of how the country was formed and a new love for the work that out founding fathers did. Great book for anyone interested in American History. Especially great read for George Washington fans. This is scholarly writing at its best!

We tend to be too focused on the constitution as a document that is somehow frozen in time. We forget too often that as ratified it was very vague on any number of subjects as to how the various branches of government would work. We also too often assume that the way it broadly works now is the way it always worked. Hah!
Recently, we have been blessed by work by scholars like David Currie and Akhil Amar Reed that remind us that the Constitution is not just a document but a history of practices based on that document. Our early Congresses, Presidents and Supreme Court Justices had to decide how to perform their functions. How were the seperation of powers and the checks and balances to work?
Many of these issues took years to settle (e.g., the idea of judicial review).
George Washington played an incredibly vital role in many of these decisions. Flexner, in his biography called Washington, 'the indispensable man". This is as true of his role in the ratification debates and the early years of the new government as it was in the Revolutionary War.
So says Glenn Phelps to which I say, "Amen". There is a telling moment in the first volume of Farrand's Records of the Convention when the delegates first consider placing the executive in one man. After the motion is seconded, Madison notes, "A considerable pause ensuing.." (Farrand, 1:65) which is broken only after Washington asks if they just want to go ahead and vote on the motion and Franklin asks everyone to speak their mind. The delegates were reticent about speaking their minds on the reasons they would limit the powers of the office of President simply because they all assumed that Washington would be that President. Only after they were encouraged by Washington and Franklin did they then speak their minds!
I would also argue that one of the factors that contributed to the new Constitution being accepted was that everyone in the country thought that way. Most people trusted Washington to not abuse the powers he would have. They trusted him to set the tone for the office. Amazing, when you think about it.
Phelps argues (rightly, I think) that Washington's ideas about government were formed by a rather classical republicanism and by his experiences in the Revolutionary War.
His classical and conservative republicanism led him to believe that government had to be founded on the people but that the people should be represented in the government by the "best" men in their states. The best were those who had the capacity to rise above local interests to discern the true national interest and who also had the virtue to persue that national interest over any of their own. In this he was no democrat. He did not believe that representatives were to mirror local interests or to be tied down by instructions by those local interests. The people had to trust their representative to do what was best. (Phelps, p.83)
For me the most interesting part of Phelps' book is his examination of Washington's terms as President. Washington set many precedents as to how appointments were to be made, what the function of the Cabinet would be, what would be the relationship of the President to the Congress and both to the various departments of the Executive.
There are too many examples for me to be inclusive so I will give you one that was new to me. Phelps feels that Washington was very influenced by the success of his "council of war" policy during the Revolution. Washington would explain overall strategic objectives to his junior officers and then ask for advice on a series of questions. These councils served the dual function of giving the junior officers the big picture and, perhaps, of improving that same strategy. Phelps feels that Washington tried to model his cabinet on that idea (pp 160-3). But he went further than that initially. He tried unsuccessfully to incorporate the Supreme Court and the Senate into the idea of the "consultative presidency". Phelps argues that Washington's well-known visit to the Senate where he asked for advice on the instructions to be used in negotiations with the Creek Indians is an example of this (pp. 167-72). Washington took literally that part of the Constitution that the Senate had an "advise" function to play in treaties as well as an approve function.
All-in-all, this is a very enjoyable, informative and well-written book. The overall picture of Washington that emerges (as pretty much the leader of the Federalists) will disturb some people but it should not really surprise them.
One more brief comment. I almost always have to throw something in on the limits of originalism as a judicial philosophy.
All aspects of our government have a history. There is no denying the vagueness of our Constitution on most subjects that it touches. That vagueness can be somewhat focused by the ratification debates. But even then most of the details of governance went unanswered. Phelps, Currie, Reed and others are very right to point out that those details were filled in by the early administrations and beyond. Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Polk, Lincoln, Cleveland, McKinley, both Roosevelts and others more contemporary have interpreted their role as Presidents. I know people hate the phrase but it really is a "living document". We the People are what gives it life not the other way around.
In any case, this is an excellent introduction to the effect on Constitutional development by Washington. Phelps is to be thanked for having filled an obvious void with this fine volume.

I had the pleasure of taking several classes taught by Dr. Clinton at Southern Illinois University. His knowledge of the classics and how they relate to modern government is simply incredible. I highly recommend this book to anyone with an interest. It is defintely written for a scholarly audience, however. Don't pick it up if big words and lots of footnotes intimidate you.

Clinton's approach to American Constitutional Law takes the reader through the logical foundations of our law and constitional theory and then reveals the fatal weaknesses of modern judicial activism.

I enjoyed this book very much for the historical content. I am a quilt artist however I have not accomplished the blocks at this time.

This book is laid out very nicely. There is a journal entry to go along with each block. If you enjoy making quilts that have a story behind them, then I think you would enjoy this book. It gives you something to think about as you sew away!

Product could have arrived a bit quicker, but the prices were a hell of lot better than the local book stores. The book was in great condition.

Martin Nie (associate professor of natural resource policy in the College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana) presents The Governance of Western Public Lands: Mapping Its Present and Future, a big-picture survey of the history and future of America's public lands, with especial attention paid to the contentious debate concerning how they should be used, and to what extent their wildlife should be protected. Examining both individual case studies (such as that of conflict over the forests in southeast Alaska) and broader general dilemmas of opposing viewpoints concerning national resource management, The Governance of Western Public Lands offers a balanced, serious-minded assessment of both present and future needs. "Experimentation could help ground some of the ideological debates discussed... We could use a few concrete cases to examine the virtues and drawbacks of trying something different on our public lands. Experimentation might thus give a strong shot of pragmatism to public land politics by rejecting sweeping generalities and abstract theorizing in favor of more practical experience and empirical knowledge. Instead of hypotheticals, we could focus our attention on the outcome of a particular project." Highly recommended.