Kansas Books

I can recommend all mr Citino's books. It is on the operational level that a battle/war is won and mr Citino's ability to explain and analyse operational warfare is unequalled.

In this follow-on to the author's "Quest for Decisive Victory", Citino analyzes how armies from World War 2 on achieved or failed to achieve decisive victories, including many cases rarely mentioned in other military histories. Although not quite meeting the extremely high standard set by the earlier book, it is still an outstanding book. Its footnotes will tell you what books to read to learn more about a particular campaign, and giving the strengths and weaknesses of each, which I think is extremely helpful. If you have any interest in an operational analysis of modern campaigns, but this book.

Robert Citino has written an excellent military history that has descibed the development of combined arms warfare. The first section of the book, Citino compares the military doctrines of the United States, Germany, Britain, and Russia during the Second World War. Citino believes that German military doctrine was severely flawed since it was mainly adaptable to wars in Western and Central Europe and did not make logicistical provisions for the campaigns in North Africa and Russia. Citino also praises Russian military doctrine for being able to plan for the mass encirclements of the German army in 1943-1945, but criticizes the Russians for lacking personal intiative in combat. Citino also criticizes the British for only attacking with tanks and showing no personal intiative on the battlefield. However Citino praises the American for being flexible and massing their forces on a single point during Operation Cobra.
The second part of the book, Citino praises the personal freedom allowed officers to conduct battle in the Israeli and Indian armies and writes about the lackluster performance of the Iraqi and Iranian armies that lacked competent officers. In the closing chapters of the book, Citino believes that the victory in Operation Desert Storm was due to superior firepower as well as tactics while Operation Iraqi Freedom was dangerously based on the assumption of internal rebellion and was eventually won by the use of armor. I would reccomend this book for anyone who believes that technology can replace officership and armor.

Despite all of the new technology, the rules of warfare always remain the same. In Blitzkrieg to Desert Storm, Citino analyzes every major military campaign from WWII to the present. The details are amazing. Most history books just tell you what happened, Citino tells you how. Every major battle is broken down into divisions and corps with a complete description of their objectives, capabilities, and commanders. His narrative tone makes book the enjoyable and entertaining while at the same time, informative and stimulating. This book is a must read for anyone interested in topics such as 20th century history, military history, or modern war studies.

This is an interesting and provocative book, well worth reading; see the other reviews for that. Unfortunately, it makes very clumsy reading. I think this was not Citino's fault. This seems, in fact, to be the worst edited book I've ever read. The main problem is not typos but repitition: Citino will often say virtually the same thing in virtually the same way within paragraphs. (See for example the comments on the US M3 tank on pp. 58-59.) This is the kind of understandable mistake a writer makes in the course of writing a book, and it is why publishers hire editors and pay them (albeit not very well). This book was published by University Press of Kansas. They need to have a stern talk with whoever edited Citino's book; they have done him an injustice.

Michael Bishop is a Nebula and World Fantasy Awards winning author. Blue Kansas Sky showcases four of his best novellas under one cover. These superbly written stories include Apartheid, Superstrings, and Mordecai Thuban; Cri De Coeur; Death and Designation Among the Asadi; and the title piece, Blue Kansas Sky. This outstanding anthology is enhanced for the readers with an informative introduction to Michael Bishop and his writing by James Morrow. Blue Kansas Sky is "must reading" for Bishop's legion of science fiction and fantasy fans.

Blue Kansas Sky takes us from the rural heartlands of the early 1960s to the furthest reaches of 21st century space and beyond. From ordinary people to extraordinary people, from human alien to the enigmatic alien. Michael Bishop's writing is engaging, thought-provoking, lyrically poetic; sweeping us along with the gentle lullaby of magic, memory, and estrangement that is, and will always be, the human spirit. Gary S. Potter Author/Poet.

Michael Bishop, Nebula Award-winning author of No Enemy but Time, has just released Blue Kansas Sky, which collects four of his short works - one never before been seen in print - in a single volume. These stories showcase his mastery of different genres, and provide the reader with an sampling from various phases in Bishop's writing career.

"Blue Kansas Sky" is a moving story of a young boy in 1950s small-town America, who struggles between his love for an uncle just released from prison and loyalty to his mother (who blames the man for her husband's death). Bishop incorporated many details from his own childhood to make this tale come alive. There's no science fiction here at all - just an engaging tale, extremely well written. Michael Bishop is adept at incorporating fresh words and unexpected turns of phrase without making the reader scramble for a thesaurus.

In "Apartheid, Superstrings, and Mordecai Thurbana," a well-to-do Afrikaner "ghosts" in and out of reality after a freak auto accident and is forced to watch as the security police interrogate two black laborers - one who plays around with cosmic string theory as a hobby; another who receives pirate radio broadcasts courtesy of a metal plate in his skull. This story is very difficult to get through - not because it is poorly written (indeed, just the opposite); but because it captures in chilling detail the horrors of the old Apartheid system.

"Cri de Coeur" (Cry from the Heart) tells the story of a man who must cope with the responsibilities, and revel in the joys, of raising a son with Down's Syndrome aboard a generational starship seeking to colonize another star system.

"Death and Designation among the Asadi" deals with a human anthropologist living in the wilds of an alien planet, struggling to understand the enigmatic rituals of its lion-maned hominids - without losing his sanity. [After reading this story I asked the author what I should do if I didn't fully understand it - read it again, or embrace the mystery? His answer: "Death and Designation" is my Solaris (a novel by Stanislaw Lem). Real aliens, Lem implies, defy comprehension because they ARE alien. On the other hand, you could read my novel Transfigurations, which incorporates the novella, and which more than one critic badmouthed for explaining rather than embracing the original mystery. They may have done so with some justice.]

Blue Kansas Sky is a wonderful collection of stories that I heartily recommend. It's published by Golden Gryphon Press (a small firm specializing in anthologies).

In his eloquent introduction, James Morrow, another writer of "moral fiction", deftly analyzes the major imperatives of the four works included in Blue Kansas Sky, focusing on two major themes, the inclusion and redemption of the "other." Although his insights add to one's enjoyment of the collection, they only touch briefly on another important facet of Bishop's work, the clash between his essential optimism, his generally hopeful attitude towards the world, and his seemingly reluctant acknowledgement that optimism alone does not suffice in the face of the hardships the world has to offer.

Optimism positively suffuses the title story, a Bildungsroman featuring one Sonny Peacock, a young man who comes to understand his place in the world through the almost shadowy presence in his life of his ex-con uncle, Rory Peacock. Although warned off by his mother, who blames Rory for her husband's death, Sonny is drawn to his uncle, who enters the story looking like an accident waiting to happen. That no "accident" occurs is testament to the human capacity for change; that Sonny learns so much about life from his neer do well uncle is both ironic and touching. Taut and intellectually satisfying, "Blue Kansas Sky" contains several uplifting messages about redemption and human nature. Yet, Sonny's essential optimism is in constant danger of being eroded, and the story's ending is a heartbreaker.

The story most like it in the collection is former Hugo finalist, "Cri de Cour," which examines the nature of bigotry and the power of the powerless. It is the tale of star traveler Abel Gwiazada, and his son Dean, who was born with Down's syndrome. For Abel and most of the crew, Dean is easily lovable, a veritable repository for the positive emotions for those one board. Yet, to crewman Kazimierz Mikol, he is a freak. Mikol's presence provokes much tension, and much exposition about the nature of parental choice in an age where gene technology may make conditions like Dean's obsolete. Even though Mikol grows to love and accept Dean as the others already do, the novella ends on mixed note, as the travelers are forced to deal with a disaster that nearly renders their long journey meaningless.

The remaining stories (both Nebula Award finalists) are far darker, dealing with the nature of prejudice and the power of obsession, describing two personal journeys into the very heart of darkness. "Apartheid, Superstrings, and Mordecai Thubana" is essentially a science fictional play on books like BLACK LIKE ME and Ralph Ellison's INVISIBLE MAN. The latter is especially pertinent, in that the main character, a white man, is rendered invisible, and thus given a special insight into the plight of the black man in South Africa. Even though it is obvious that the character has seen the light, his personal epiphany is essentially meaningless against a backdrop of institutionalized racism. "Death and Designation Among the Asadi" is also about a journey of understanding, but one which proves impossible to complete. Here, Bishop plays with the theory of the observed being acted on by the observer, but deftly turns the tables, as the observer is slowly driven mad by his inability to understand the alien race he studies. Seemingly about institutionalized alienation, it really is more about the arrogance of human beings in assuming their mindsets are universal.

So, we have optimism, but optimism tempered by reality. We see closed minds opening, but also minds that shut down when reality intrudes. True, Bishop is an optimist, but this doesn't prevent him from being simultaneously tough minded, intelligent, skeptical, and morally aware. The magic is in the careful balance he strikes in his writing, tempered by his fiction's two essential ingredients: his clear, strong, trustworthy voice, and the obvious compassion he feels for his creations.

Blue Kansas Sky is a collection of 4 novellas spanning 3 decades and the full spectrum of Bishop's talent. The title story is a sweet, poignant coming-of-age story set in Bishop's semi-fictional Van Luna, KS: it's all about life and growing up and the random difficulties of doing so. The last line is guaranteed to send you reeling. "Cri di Coeur" and "Death and Designation among the Asadi" are stunning morality tales in the guise of science fiction; as usual, Bishop's characters, no matter where or when they are, portray humanity at its most believable, wanderers who find hope in the most fragile of circumstances. The ringer for me, though, is "Apartheid, Superstrings, and Mordecai Thubana," a magical-realistic look at the horror of racism, the sin of inaction, all neatly and convincingly tied up with the Theory of Everything. Quite simply: amazing.

This is a collection for fantasists, for realists, for anyone who enjoys one of our best unsung writers at his very best.

I am rating this book highly because I think that people should have a responsibility to learn the facts, before they form opinions that judge others. There are some great essays that help the reader understand some of the technical aspects, a great essay by Deborah Lipstadt about people seeing it as symbolic of apathy, a great "against" essay by Richard Levy plus a great "for" essay by Sir Martin Gilbert. However, some of the articles in the debate are actually conterfactual, sensationlist and have only served to misinform some people as evidenced by some of the reviews on very site. For example(quoted from one of the reviews):

"Especially compelling are the aerial reconnaisance photographs and contemporary documents included in the book. One photograph alone--showing Auschwitz from high above, with the crematoria bracketed by bombs dropped to destroy the adjacent IG Farben slave labor factory--is especially haunting, since it shows very vividly that not only could the Allies have bombed the killing facilities at Auschwitz/Birkenau, they did bomb a facility literally only a few miles away. (Former Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu is quoted to the effect that the Allies knew enough and had the capacity to bomb Auschwitz; the problem, he asserts, was that the Jews did not have enough political clout at the time to command attention and military resources.)"

The problem is that no one ever actually developed the negatives into print until 1979. As Yeduha Bauer is fond of saying "There is a difference between knoledge and information". We had the information, ie the film but the proof is that we did not have the knowledge.

Another quote from the same review:

"Among the documents included in the volume is a detailed report from two Slovakian Jews who escaped from Auschwitz, documenting very clearly that early in 1944 detailed information was available to Allied leaders about the massive murders being carried out there. It also included a remarkably accurate map of the area, drawn from memory by the escapees."

This is a reference to the Rudolph Vbra report also know as "The protocols of Auschwitz" which was recieved in summary (Not DETAIL) in July of 1944 not "early 1944". In detail it was recieved in November of 1944, after the camp had stopped the killings. There is a great deal of controvesy of the timing of the report and how is was diseminated. It also exagerrated the death toll by a factor of four.

Should it have been bombed, in my humble opinion it is hard to say.

Would it have saved lives ? In the book Lipstadt remaarks that she is always amazed that when she gives a talk, how many people believe it would have saved "millions" Yet while she does not actually answer the question the point she is making is that "millions" is clearly incorrect.
In his excellent book on Auschwitz, Laurence Reese suggest no. He points out the timing and the fact that had it been bombed, when it could have been bombed, that the Hungarian Jews had already been killed. That two crematoria (Little White and Little Red) were actually not on the Vbra report, were converted farm buildings and not likely to have be targeted and either was singularly capable of handling the killing of the victims that died from July to November. He also makes no bones about feeling the Allies were apathetic, just does not see the bombing as saving lives. This of course is a view which is in sharp contrast to the Stuart Erdheim article in the book.

All in all with it's strentghs and weakness I would highly recommend this book, it will make you think. But it should also be approached with an open mind.

I saw the bombers fly over the camps and we waived to them.

At another camp they flew low over us, bombed the factory (BRABAG at Zeitz) just by our fence and sent no bombs to liberate us inside the fence. Even our guards have fled. I ducked when the shrapnels started flying but oh how welcome the attack was.

Lets face it no one in power REALLY gave a... If we were all British or American troups being exterminated THE CAMPS AND RAILROADS WOULD HAVE BEEN BOMBED TO SMITHERENES./

It is a sad chapter, not even the FDR Museum at Hyde Park has
a good explanation except to refer to this book. It was FDR' decision not to bomb, as evidence now emerges in a recent article in NEWSWEEK magazine by Beshloss.

The point is made which I agree with is that the responsibility for the murders should be with the murders.

I found it this the best and quite a readable account of this issue. Its a series of articles which allow the reader to reach a conclusion. It discusses the US and Britain. It makes it quite clear Stalin did not care and did nothing.

There are basically two issue involved.

The first is could it be done. After reading the discussion in the book but its left to you the reader to decide. I think it could have been. There seems to be no reason, why not? The technical, military and intelligence problems seem quite solvable.

The second is if it could have been done, could it have made any difference. This question is more difficult to answer. If the operation had been done its quite possible that the people would have been killed by other methods eg forced marches or bullets. However this was harder and slower then the gas chambers. It goes on to discuss an air raid on Hungary scared the government there into stopping the transportation of Jews. This was purely an accidental effect of timing. The air raid occurred just when the transportation of Jews started. The Hungarian government thought it was because of the transportation and stopped them. It then discusses the effect of this air raid. Leaving the reader with the impression that maybe political action may have helped to stop some of these murders.

The question that I would like to ask the writers "Is if they had been Americans or English being sent to those gas chambers - would they have been bombed?". I think they would have.

This collection of essays about the feasibility of bombing the crematoria and gas chambers at the Nazi death camp Auschwitz and the railways leading to it in 1944 presents virtually every aspect of the issue--from the available intelligence about the camp to military logistical and operational considerations to the British and American politics behind the decision not to intervene to the likely casualties caused and lives saved by such an intervention if it had taken place. Don't come to this book expecting facile, clear, categorical answers to the issues. While most authors have their own viewpoints to argue, collectively, the essays present a reasonably balanced set of perspectives on the pros and cons of bombing Auschwitz and its environs. The editors largely leave it to the reader to decide what could and should have been done. They are to be commended for their overall objectivity.

Especially compelling are the aerial reconnaisance photographs and contemporary documents included in the book. One photograph alone--showing Auschwitz from high above, with the crematoria bracketed by bombs dropped to destroy the adjacent IG Farben slave labor factory--is especially haunting, since it shows very vividly that not only could the Allies have bombed the killing facilities at Auschwitz/Birkenau, they did bomb a facility literally only a few miles away. (Former Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu is quoted to the effect that the Allies knew enough and had the capacity to bomb Auschwitz; the problem, he asserts, was that the Jews did not have enough political clout at the time to command attention and military resources.)

Among the documents included in the volume is a detailed report from two Slovakian Jews who escaped from Auschwitz, documenting very clearly that early in 1944 detailed information was available to Allied leaders about the massive murders being carried out there. It also included a remarkably accurate map of the area, drawn from memory by the escapees.

Many of the essays caution the reader against the fallacy of "presentism"--reading the history of over half a century ago through the prism of the present along with its political and ethical standards. For example, at the time that it first became militarily feasible to bomb Auschwitz--late spring and early summer of 1944, when American bombers were operating out of southern Italy--the Allies were understandbly preoccupied with launching the D-Day invasion of Normandy, and most available British-American resources in the European theater were being devoted to that goal. Nor was victory over the Nazis a certainty at this time. Thus, the repeated response of U.S. War Department officials that military resources could not be diverted to bomb Auschwitz is a bit more understandable, albeit still morally obtuse in light of the boming of the nearby I.G. Farben works. (None of the essays seems to recognize that the allocation of military resources at the time was not 100-percent efficient--a point underscored repeatedly in Joseph Heller's "Catch-22.") Similarly, there was some political concern that openly proclaiming an Allied goal of halting the slaughter of the Jews might backfire, given the widely prevalent anti-Semitism in both the U.K. and U.S.A. at the time. None of the points like these seems to be presented to excuse Allied inaction so much as to explain it.

As might be expected, the essays vary a great deal in quality. A few seem excessively detailed and verbose, but most are quite thought-provoking, well-written, and informative. None is an easy read, however--this is not a book for the reader who does not feel like investing a good deal of time, concentration, and energy. Nonetheless, it is a book not to be missed by anyone seriously interested in the Holocaust and World War II in Europe. I learned more from this book about both those topics than I have from any single book in a long time. Pay attention to the endnotes, too--they are filled with additional insights.

I love a good debate and this book is probably the closest one could come to a well thought out debate and not actually participate in it. The authors / editors do a great job of selecting the historians to write the chapters, I do not think you could ask for a more well spoken, knowledgeable and balanced group. I thought the book would have a lot of emotion shading the arguments almost to the point of making the debate fall into a day time talk show format of pushing and shouting, but that never happened. The chapters provided very convincing and detail laden essays on each particular facet of the issue with a for and against article to balance the debate.

To be honest I did not have an opion one way or the other on this topic before picking up the book. What then happened was that I kept bouncing from one side to the next with each article until I sat back and viewed the book in its totality. My opinion really only maters to me so I will spare you, but this book will definitely help you in forming one. The editors also did a good job of making sure that the book had a nice flow, sometimes I find that with books of different articles by different people you can get a choppy book. It also provides a ton of interesting details about the air war in Europe something I was not expecting but came as a pleasant surprise. Overall this is a very well thought out, well written book that will provide you with a great deal of information.

This book has very good coverage of the major generals who had the dubious honor of working for Churchill but it has one major failing...NO maps! As vast as the territory that this book covers it is unbelievable to me that the author/publisher did not provide maps to allow the reader to follow along. There's not even a general Mediterrenean map despite the fact that a good portion of the book centers on the Desert War with all the battles and skirmishes tallied. If you are not an expert in WWII history or don't have a military atlas while you read this book you can get lost pretty quickly. A military history/battle book without maps shouldn't be printed.

This is an excellent book that describes many aspects of the alliance in World War II that are unfamiliar to most Americans. Fascinating read.

Raymond Callahan's 2007 "Churchill and His Generals" is a rare combination of superb historical analysis and readability. His subject is the often difficult relationship between Churchill, British Prime Minister 1940-1945, and his senior military leaders, as they struggled to transform the British Army while waging a global conflict with Germany, Italy, and Japan.

The British Army at the beginning of the Second World War was a relatively small Imperial Policing Force belatedly transforming itself into the mass army that would be needed to fight the war. Transformation was the more difficult for being done under fire and with inferior weapons and equipment. Callahan makes the excellent point, repeatedly, that British Army leadership was haunted by the horrific casualties of the First World War and by the awareness that Britian lacked the manpower to field the numbers of divisions of its opponents or its principal ally, the United States. Ironically, by 1943-1944, the British Army had completed its transformation but become a wasting asset due to Britain's inability to replace combat losses.

Much of the focus of the book is on Britain's efforts early in the war, as it strove to hold off the Germans and Italians in the Mediterranean, and the Japanese in the Far East and South Asia. The problem of inexperienced forces and leaders was acute and the result was an almost unbroken strings of defeats. The British were kicked out of Malaysia, Singapore, Burma, and Greece, and only barely held their own in the Middle East and North Africa. Callahan notes the division between Regular Army officers and British officers serving in the Indian Army as a source of professional jeolousy and misunderstandings.

Callahan does an excellent job illuminating the political context of Churchill's relationship with his senior officers. As leader of Britain and of a coalition that would include the United States and Russia, Churchill needed victories to stay in power and to retain leverage in alliance negotiations. The result was immense pressure for results, often well ahead of capability.

In surveying the field of generals who played important roles, Callahan's concise analysis is often critical but seemingly even-handed. Bernard Montgomery comes in for his fair share of accolades and criticism, but Callahan gives due credit to overlooked officers such as Harold Alexander in Italy, Claude Auchinleck in North Africa and India, and Bill Slim in Burma. Callahan expends no little effort to identify Slim as the most capable British general of the war.

Callahan's faults are few. This book is perhaps a little too concise, at just over two hundred pages, for a very rich subject still being explored half a century on. Callahan's advocacy for Slim, while justified, threatens to exceed the impartial approach taken to other generals. Readers are urged to skim the footnotes and read the bibliographic essay for additional fascinating information on Callahan's topic.

This book is very highly recommended to students of the British Army and of the Second World War, for whom it will provide fascinating insights into the challenge of command. American readers will recognize the recurring problems of rebuilding and/or transforming an army under fire.

This is a well written, and concise, perhaps too concise review of the course of the leadership of the British Army in the second world war. The author does a good job of describing the evolution of British generalship in the war, and the difficulties of both finding capable leaders, as well as those who could pass muster with Winston Churchill; not an easy task. Particular emphasis is placed upon the war in North Africa, which perhaps most illustrated how lackluster leaders resulted in defeat; despite having many advantages in men and material over the enemy, the redoubtable Afrika Korps.
I agree with an earlier reviewer, and the author, that Gen. William Slim was perhaps the finest British general since Wellington. Most have heard of Montgomery, and opinions on him are sharply divided, but unfortunately, many have little or no knowledge of Slim and his accomplishments in Burma.
One general that I believe should have been covered in a bit more detail in this book was the CIGS, Gen. Sir Alan Brooke. To my mind, his leadership was indispensable in the professional direction of the army, selection of commanders, and above all, dealing with Churchill, and deflecting some of his more outrageous schemes. They proved to be a great team, but I believe Brooke, despite great respect and admiration for Churchill, harbored a resentment towards him until his death.
When I earlier said that this book was perhaps too concise, I was referring to it's somewhat short length. I believe another 100-200 pages could easily have been writtten. My main complaint is the utter lack of maps; they are essential for a book of this nature.

The British Army of World War II began the war deficient in leadership, doctrine, equipment, and training, leading to a series of military debacles in Europe and the Pacific between 1940 and 1942 that overshadowed the army and its commanders for the remainder of the war. By 1945, however, it had evolved into an effective fighting force, despite manpower shortages that forced British generals to adopt caution in their operations and eventually led to the disbanding of some seven divisions.

In "Churchill and His Generals" author Raymond Callahan focuses on Great Britains key military leaders and formations: the Eighth Army, which fought in North Africa and Italy; the Second Army, which fought in Northwestern Europe from D-Day to the end of the war; and the Fourteenth Army, which fought in Burma.

It was the Fourteenth Army which emerged as the greatest fighting force of the war. It's commander, General William Slim, is described by Callahan as "the finest British general since Wellington" for it was he that built and transformed that army it into the best of Great Britiain's World War II formations. Unfortunately, for Slim and his veterans, the Fourteenth received little recognition from Winston Churchill for their tremendous contributions to the defeat of the Japanese in Burma.

Despite his reputation as one of the greatest British leaders of World War II, Field Marshal Sir Bernard Montgomery emerges as a commander who had not advanced beyond 1918 tactically and the legitimate descendant of the generals of World War I. After the years of defeats, retreats and evacuations, the ascendency of the Field Marshal Sir Alan Brooke - Field Marshal Mongomery team, meant a return to tactical and operational caution (reinforced by manpower concerns). Victory through firepower at an acceptable cost in lives became the aim - and the British Army delivered those victories.

Field Marshal Sir Harold Alexander, consistently denigrated and undervalued by both Montgomery and Brooke, emerges as a capable soldier as well as the closest thing the British Army had to an Eisenhower-style coalition commander.

The major shortcoming of this work is that it is a synthesis of secondary sources and relies heavily on the postwar memoirs of most of the British commanders of the Second World War. Unfortunately, in those memoirs, Great Britiain's World War II military leaders spend a great deal of energy disparaging each other. The attentive reader is left wondering if Callahan has not presented Great Britian's World War II Army and its commanders too negatively.

What a joy to read an author who *knows* about women. Having found myself on the floor under the dining room table (with cereal in my hair) more than once in my 49+ years I applaud the author. She spins a tale that is real. How refreshing.

I stumbled across this book at the library and checked it out on a whim. I am so glad I did ... This is a book you want all your friends to read so you will have someone to discuss it with -- was Pete a bad guy or a good guy? Was his death justified? All things considered, did these people treat each other the way friends are supposed to, especially 'the girls'? Bottom line: An Excellent Book.

This book provides different points of view on the same man after his death. The reader is able to see that although a womanizer, this man had something to contribute to his relationships with the 4 women featured. A profile by his sister is also included in this tale of lust, friendship, and family ties. Kagan does a remarkable job of showing the same person as 4 different personalities as seen through the eyes of these friends who each mourn his death in his own way. After the reader finally decides that he has a clear picture of who this man was and why he his dead, Ms. Kagan suprises us further

I really tried to get into this book, but infortunately, it never reached the point of "flowing" for me.

I thought the plot was well conceived. In "The Girls," we get to know four women, who have been friends for decades, through the death of one man, Pete Chickery. One of "The Girls" was married to Pete, but all of them had a relationship of one type or another with him. After he is killed, the story of who Pete was, what he meant to each of them, and their relationships with one another come into focus. While this core group intrigued me, the peripheral characters - children, parents, housekeepers, etc., really gummed up the works for me. The story was simple, but the more characters that I was intoduced to, the more my interest waned.

I also didn't particularly care for the structure of the first three "chapters," when each character was speaking directly to another person to whom we had not been introduced. Yet, when we finally meet that person, she is simply a part of the story, and not the omniscient presence that I was prepared to meet. Perhaps the reason that the story failed to "flow" for me, was due to that fact that once I became accustomed to one voice, it changed dramatically into another, then another. It never had the rythym that it needed to keep me turning pages.

What can I say, this book was surely one of the best and most thrilling, I've ever read. During the first few pages I hadn't got a clou what the hell all this was about, but once I had the point, I couldn't stop readin. I wanted to know all about the girls, about the different characters, their lives, fears and their relation with Michael. You should go to the next bookshop and get it. Thrilling, funny and excellently written. If there were mor than 5 stars, I'd give more

I have read and participated in the AWC staff rides of the battlefields and from that light these book can be instructive at they relate to events and field conditions. They are not for the casual reader or tourist. It is essential that the reader be versed in both the theory and tactics of the time before visiting the site and that you are to read these books while standing on the actual grounds.

These books supplement case studies at the AWC in tactical and strategic thinking. Observe the battleground as a military officer would and try to put yourself in the mind of the writer. What you will be reading are the after action reports written by the officers assigned to write them, of their viewings of events on the field. Beware sometimes these reports can be self serving so take that in mind.

Reading the reports and standing on location will help to give you an incite into field situations and problems that the military officer must see, recognize and solve. One key point to remember is that of communication is not what it is today. The field of battle only existed as far as the individual officer could see. He generally knew nothing of events occuring several hundred yards away let alone a mile or so away in real time. All he knew what what was right in front of him. He never sees the big picture that today's communications can provide or seek instant clarification of orders.

With this in mind and a knowledge of the methods of Civil War fighting these books are very instructive.

I generally agree with the other reviewers that this guide book is informative and useful. I have had it in had twice when I visited Gettysburg. A solid resource with some very interesting historical exerpts from after action reports etc.

I would also encourge people considering this book to take a look at Gettysburg: A Battlefield Guide by Mark Grimsley. (ISBN 0803270771) In my opinion the Grimsley book is a bit clearer on some of the more confusing parts of the battle - the fighting in the Wheatfield for example.

All things considered both books are quite good.

This is one of the entries in a series of battlefield books/guides by the U. S. Army War College (AWC). AWC is an important institution in the American military. One effort undertaken since its founding in Carlisle PA has been assisting in (Page iv) ". . .in the historical research and then benefited from the results by taking extensive staff rides over the old battlefields, discussing leadership, decision making, tactics and strategy."

The organizational structure of the book is straightforward. Primary sources are used to illustrate from commanders reports from the field, day by day for the three days' carnage on the battlefield at Gettysburg. Then, some reflections from the authors on infantry, artillery, and cavalry. The final two sections? The "order of battle," in which the units involved and brigade commanders and above (up to the commanding generals--George Meade and Robert E. Lee) are listed. Last, casualty estimates (Page 231).

Officers' reports can often be misleading, but they do provide a sense from those on the ground as to what happened. As such, this volume represents officers' views of what was happening, day by day.

Some of the entries are well stated. One of my favorite quotations is from Brigadier General John Buford (who called Rock Island, IL, near my home town, as his residence for a time), as he wrote (Page 5): "I had gained positive information of the enemy's position and movement, and my arrangements were made for entertaining him until General Reynolds could reach the scene."

Other quoted from Day One at Gettysburg: Henry Heth, commanding a division in A. P. Hill's corps that began the attack on Buford's forces; James Hall, leader of the Second Maine Battery, ordered to use his artillery to slow the Confederate advance; Rufus Dawes, Colonel of the 6th Wisconsin regiment, as he sprung a trap at the unfinished rail cut--at heavy expense to his force; Robert Rodes, one of Ewell's division commanders, on the beginning efforts at flanking the Union position. . . .
And so on.

On Day Two, it is interesting to look at the various views of participants, such as McLaws' report on a disagreement between James Longstreet (commander of the First Corps) and Lee himself. And on the events at Little Round Top, including Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain's rendition.

And then the third day. . . .

All in all, a useful volume. Maps and suggested movement by readers on the battlefield itself make this a useful work if one is visiting the battlefield. It can be part of an interactive and educational effort. I wish that I had had this with me when I visited the battlefield this summer. It would have added to the experience.

So, if you are interested in primary sources, a sense of the battlefield itself, and some reflection on strategy and tactics, this could prove a useful little volume for the reader.

The Gettysburg battlefield guide is the first of many Civil War guidebooks and set the standard for the other books. The book covers the largest battle of the American Civil War and our most visited Battlefield Park. This is one of a multitude of guidebooks on the battle and can be an option to employing a guide or purchasing a park driving tour.
The series format is directions to a point on the field, orientation, a general lesson on what happened in your view, followed by first person accounts of the action. These guides are designed using the general staff training concept of a Staff Ride. This is when a class is taken to a historic location, discuss what happened and see how the terrain influences the event. Staff Rides are designed to be intensive "on the ground" training couple with physical observation in the hopes students will gain experience for later use.
I am not saying this to frighten you away from this guide but to tell you this is not a walk about and look at the monuments type of guide. This guide will have several pages devoted to the action at this point. It may contain a critique of the local commander's actions with possible alternates.
My experience is that reading the book prior to my visit works best. This allows me more time observing the field and less time reading the book. Of the tour options, a professional guide is usually the best but most expensive choice. The park driving tour is the best choice for a quick trip through the field to get the kids passport stamp. This book is the best choice for a serious student of the battle looking for a detailed explanation.

I just returned from my first Antietam visit after reading many books about the battle. The Staff Ride Guide gave me a thoroughly detailed, comprehensive, fascinating look at the battle. I brought along my father, not a Civil War buff, and he got a lot out of it as well. Good clear driving directions, great choices of accounts from both the O.R. and individual letters and diaries. Superb. I can't wait to use the other battlefield guides.

One of the best books I've read. The unforgetable protagoinst is a loving father, an ethical, kind, hard-working man who's making the best of his limited options. Meanwhile he struggles with a vast internal conflict between his morals and his need to protect his son. The kind of man I'd love to meet in real life. All the characters are distinct and interesting individuals, their lives cleverly interwoven. Sometimes suspenseful, sometimes funny, sometimes profound.

Best of all, the book is written in the most incredible, startling, beautiful language I've ever read, language that transports you, mesmerizes you, and forces you to stick around while it hands you big nuggets of the hero's simple wisdom.

I really enjoyed reading this book! It was easy to get captured into the storyline, by the end of the book I felt like I was a close friend of the main character and his son.I look forward to reading many more books by Dionna Day!

This book drew me in. The wonderful use of dialog swept me into the story. I only put it down when forced to, for mundane purposes like going to work. Even then, the story continued to influence my thoughts, as I wondered what might happen to the characters next. The ending was perfect and full of hope for the future. An ultimately uplifting book. I am recommending it to family and friends.

I don't come from the Midwest but felt like a got to know some of it's people throught this book. Dionna's use of dialog is captivating. I enjoyed the way the main character has demention as I came to understand him and like him, despite the fact he's planning a murder! As he interacts more with other characters in the story (especially his son) you really get a feel for this guy, where he's come from and where his heart is. This is a good first effort!

The main character is so good hearted, and his life is so hard. I was touched by the wonderful job he did raising his son. I won't give it away, but the ending is perfect!! The writing style is great too. I'm from the Midwest originally, and the accent and all the delightful similes made me grin and miss home.

As a former longtime employee of CIA, I can attest that this book conveys a true picture of the goings on within the agency. The story focuses on the life of Win Scott, who rose to become station chief in Mexico City for many years. Meticulously researched and documented, the book relates how the "company" evolved from wartime OSS in London. We learn about some key operations in postwar Europe and in Central America, and about how counter-intelligence works.
Building his story by telling exactly who did what and when, this author has achieved an authentic history of the period through the assassination of President Kennedy and afterward. The CIA's contacts with Oswald in the weeks before the shooting in Dallas,
and the subsequent stonewalling, withholding and even destruction of information are all spelled out so the reader is aware of what pieces of history are still hidden.

A critical question makes the Kennedy Assassination perhaps more relevant to today than ever:to what extent is the nominal leader, the President, really in control of the permanent military, political, and communications bureacracies that shape his options? In 1961, when Kennedy became president, key components of this permannent bureacracy were thirteen years old. As a parent with a teenager there were moments of tension when one can wonder who or what called the shots. This was uniquely the case in 1960, as for eight years-- the truly formative ones in the developement of the entire post-war US society-- the CIA had been given extreme lattitude. Kennedy's relations with the permanet political and military bureacracy can serve as basis of comparison for how matters of war and peace are decided today, when blame-game controversies sometimes seem mere PR strategies for plausible denial 10.0

Jefferson Morleys book leaves little doubt that no matter what our betters tell us, the CIA was to a very significant degree doing its own things in 1963. The reason this emerges far more clearly than in other books, is that Morley's never allows the ocean of detail to alter his camera agle. It is not a totalizing focus like some other books that mistake thickness for ambition. Rather, it sticks to the Mexico City CIA station, its chief Winston Scott, and his close World War Two friend and possibly his own privatest Idohaon-- the only one weirder than fellow poet and contemporary Ezra Pound-- James Jesus Angleton.

Morley is carefull. When your asking about unauthorized actions of the CIA people who normally talk freely in the New Yorker have a way of clamming up. It is hard to find sources in the middle ground, for example on the question of who knew what when about the Bay of Pigs. Far easier to treat this grey area as the blacktop of the Langley 500, the way Tim Weiner does in his childishly simplified and baldly propagandistic narration of Kennedy relations with the CIA.

How does he get insiders to talk for a book that is lethal to the government sanctioned version of the assassination? By not oversating things. By mentioning enough right wing cubans without so many as to lose sense of thier handlers. By clearly delineating who was in charge of what CIA operation, and who didn't know about them as well. We can see the critical wires cross, and are not confused in a whirl of unessential relations. We can see the extra piece-- George Joannides-- being added like one too many bones in an ankle and the clarity with which one could mistake treason for the logical coorination of a counterintelligence
operation. Individuals are not blamed here, but the flow chart that teaches how the Cubans were "turned" is clear for the first time. At least for me, but I'm gradual.

Also Morley tells the story from the persepctive of Win Scotts family. This "works" in many ways. It might just be the footwear necessary for treading accross one the most contested and and important middle grounds -- between president and permanent bureacracy-- in twentieth and 21st Century history.

This work stands in welcome contrast to recent books that mistake the shere number of mafia people who were involved with anti-castro opperations between 1959-63 with actual causal importance in the assassination of JFK. So often books like Ultimate Sacrifice emphasize the Mafia unconvincingly, because their CIA contacts merely seem outnumbered on the page. Morley goes to the quixotic center of the maypole: one has little doubt of this as he reads about Angletons very different, and very compartmetalized relations with Winston Scott and his secret sharer within the US embassy in Mexico City, David Atlee Phillips.

Although the early chapters of this book give a detailed if an overly glamorized version of early CIA clandestine successes and even a glancing view of a few of its many failures, when it does finally get down to where the rubber meets the road; i.e., to the role Winston Scott, David Atlee Phillips, Richard Helms, E. Howard Hunt, and James Jesus Angleton, among others, played in the Mexico City events that presaged JFK's assassination, no one should be the least bit surprised that, as has happened elsewhere, this author ducked rather than face this pivotal issue straight-on. His clumsy and disingenuous attempt to finesse it finally robs the book of what little integrity it had a chance of claiming.

Offered up as Michael's (one of Winston Scott's sons), recollections, from his father's confiscated manuscript, the book sets forth the improbable and already thoroughly discredited theory that Oswald was a Communist agent "sent" by Castro to kill JFK. However, as even the evidence from Mexico City presented in this book attests, that "dog won't hunt." There is just too much contrary evidence that the CIA along with rightwing elements from the "Cowboy political sphere" were knee deep in the JFK assassination. (It is also what the Kennedys themselves believed.)

It is a much too fine-grained view of U.S.-Cuban episode from the Mexico City end of the telescope and thus is altogether an exceedingly weak apologia for the CIA's half-century of historical swashbuckling capers, including its involvement in the JFK assassination.

For most of its history, the guys here were a "band of brothers out to conquer the world and most of all protect it from Communism. But they were arrogant, smart, and untutored powers unto themselves, who played by their own rules and were unaccountable for their failures.

One will be hard-pressed to find even a single piece of independently confirmable evidence that Oswald was ever in Mexico City during the period the CIA claims he was there (between September 27-October 1, 1963). Compare that with the wealth of evidence produced by reading between the lines: that whoever was there was indeed impersonating Oswald, and was very likely under the full control of CIA handlers, most likely David Atlee Phillips and/or James Jesus Angleton -- and this version of events turns out to be much less than the sum of its parts. Even the author's summary passage on page 279 confirms this contrary point of view:

"The story of Oswald's encounters with Phillips' AMSPELL network; the missing LIERODE photos of his visit to the Cuban consulate; the misleading October 10 cable from HQT; the illegal HTLINGUAL monitoring of Oswald's correspondence, not to mention Karamessines' panicky efforts the day after JFK was killed to "preserve U.S. freedom of action on the whole question of Cuban responsibility" and Phillips promotion of Alvarado's provocative story, all tended to confirm what Fidel alleged, what Win Knew, and what supporters of the Warren Commission would heatedly deny: that "a person of great interest" to the CIA had killed the commander in Chief."

There is simply no one left in the known universe to believe the weakly concocted, transparent and well-worn "cover story" that Oswald's movements in the "fake" FPCC during his time in New Orleans and his "supposed" Mexico City visit went unmonitored, un-photographed and un-reported by the eagle-eyed "Sir" Winston Scott, or the equally intrepid CI master spy James Angleton. The incredulity required to believe that these two could have allowed Oswald to move freely from New Orleans to Mexico City, and then on to Dallas to murder a President they all hated, is so staggering as to leave a logical hole large enough to drive a Mac truck through.

To wit: Even though Scott and Angleton were nothing if not meticulous and exacting in their surveillance and data collection activities, the author wants us to believe the cockamamie story that there are no pictures of Oswald's "supposed" several visits to both the Cuban and Russian Embassies while in Mexico City on September 27, 1963. The one surviving photo (exposed by J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI) shows a portly man (depicted in the plates following page 246) whose voice was not that of Oswald entering and leaving those Embassies. The FBI data leaves open the distinct possibility that Oswald was never in Mexico City, or if there, never visited either Embassy.

Whatever is the truth, it is clear that Win Scott was among only a handful of insiders who knew what it was, but he went to his grave without telling us. In many ways this book is "The Ultimate Sacrifice" redux with a few new bells and whistles, a new twist in the plot here and there, but with the same ending: The JFK assassination was just an unfortunate case of the Kennedy brothers getting their own tails caught up in their own duplicity, while the CIA stood by watching them do so?

An equally plausible theory is that advanced by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison: that Oswald was a patsy set up by or controlled by David Atlee Phillips who was seen with Oswald in Dallas in the weeks between his supposed returned from Mexico, City and JFK's assassination. The man who testified to the House Committee on Assassinations of this version of events, Antonio Veciana, was shot in the head but survived. He of course changed his story afterwards. Can there be an innocent explanation for Phillips and Oswald being in each others company in Dallas a few weeks before JFK's assassination?

Regarding who actually killed JFK, James Angleton's enigmatic words about says it all:

"A mansion has many rooms and there are many things going on... I am not privy to who struck John." (page 290).

Three Stars

...peeling off layer after layer, we (well, those who still care, but I understand there are quite numerous around the world...) can now forty five years after the facts have a much better, much clearer understanding of what took place in Dallas.

The review above says it all. The book is on one level, the personnal history of the search of a son (adopted, it turns out..) for his mysterious, elusive father.

The fact that the father in question happenned to be Win Scot, head of the CIA Mexico station in the Sixties (the biggest CIA operation targeted at Soviet and Cuban interest outside the US) when Oswald, according to the official story, popped up there and started making himself noticed just a few weeks before Dallas, transforms what would be a mere personnal quest into something of historical importance.

Author Morley is known, appropriately, for his groundbreaking work bringing to light most notably the very strange story of George Joannides' s dealing with the DRE. Morley's work definitely showed how the CIA, deceptively, put Joannides in charge of contacts with the HSCA regarding Cuban matters, without ever mentioning his previous responsabilities as Focal Officer for the DRE during the latter part of November 63...

Students of JFK's assassination may remember that the DRE was very heavily involved in the early attempts to paint Oswald as a Communist Pro-Castro assassin, participating in a conspiracy.

Joannides's field reports on the DRE activities for the relevant period are still missing, and are the subject of a FOIA lawsuit by Morley....

A few pieces are still missing, and we still have a few open questions, but the picture is now getting clearer and clearer:

*the official story of the assassination is a fairy tale

*the events in Mexico City (most notably how the station and HQ handled the visits of a known "intelligence risk" to ennemy embassies..)are crucial in understanding what took place

*the inner workings of the CIA (need-to-know, etc..), and most notably the total autonomy and secrecy of Angleton's group (CI)made feasible any type of obscure intelligence operation whithout the slightest possibility of outside control or supervision.


Great, great book.

I would recommand as a companion Peter Dale Scott "Oswald in Mexico", which is the ultimate post-mortem on Mexico.

If you never thought reading administrative cables could make for a riveting read, or draw the outline of the most-wanted "smoking gun", brace yourself...

This very well-documented book tells you in precise and unnerving detail how C.I.A.operatives work and what they knew about Oswald in Mexico before the Kennedy assassination -- a lot more than you knew befoe. It is particularly convincing because it's personal, the real story of a man who lived his life inside that system of power, accountable to no one. It's a page-turner with unrecognized spies (everyone?), double agents, stolen loves, a son wants to know his father, a loyal secretary, a dangerous wedding, enough destroyed documents to make you weep and an ending that sets up for a sequel we hope can come from further investigation by this diligent author. Highly recommended for everyone, not just specialists, but there is plenty here for them as well.

Two controversial leaders who surprised their party by their strong wills. A must read for U.S. history buffs. Very well written.

This book reads more like a novel than the Polk book in this series (which I found to be very informative). This book is well documented. There is a sense that the author is generally sympathetic to and sometimes apologetic for Tyler and Webster - However I am not informed enough to know if this is a bias or a valid conclusion on the part of the author. With Tyler becoming the first VP to 'inherit' the presidency after the death of Harrison, our country was still navigating in the dark waters of our constitution and a world of threats (Mexico and England). Major players such as Clay, Webster, and Calhoon dominate the scene. Tyler's presidency would make a fine fiction drama. Misplaced trust, overwhelming ambition, and the drumbeat of sectionalism. I very much enjoyed this book.

THIS BOOK IS TYPICAL OF THE ENTIRE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS PRESS PRESIDENTIAL SERIES. GREAT INSITE OF THE GROWING UNITED STATES DURING OUR POLITCAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE UGLY SIDE OF PERSONAL POLITICS. INTRIGUE REACHED A FEVERED PITCH WITH LESSOR KNOWN INDIVIDUALS ELECTED AS PRESIDENT WHILE THE ICONS, CLAY, BENTON, WEBSTER AND CALHOUN HELD OUR COUNTRY IN THE SENATE.

To my knowledge, this is the most recent bio on John Tyler, our tenth president. Tyler's presidential contributions are debated by scholars. This book highlights past scholarship and is quite detailed on the political events and people surrounding Tyler's presidency. It does an adequate job of setting the stage by explaining what was happening in American culturally and economically at the time of Tyler's term. John Tyler was a president without a party. He was despised and harangued throughout his term, and despite the trememdous pressures, he did some very important things. These acts and their later role on our nation, is well presented in Peterson's book. I still came away with mixed feelings about Tyler. I think this is because the views of him are so contradictory. Another book to compliment this one is Seager's and Tyler Too. Seager's book details Tyler, the man, and his married life to Julia Gardiner. Without reading both books it is tough to get a full picture. Highly recommended for a detailed and comprehensive look at Tyler's presidency. Well researched, many primary sources (letters) and a full bibliography in the back.

This book fairly and vividly relates the "accidential" presidency of John Tyler. The author conveys the unique difficulties faced by Tyler as he assumes the presidency from W. H. Harrison. In fact, Tyler was most courageous in standing firm against Henry Clay and his Whig cohorts, who tried extremely hard to bully Tyler into submission. Norma Peterson, the author, provides credit where it is due, be it with Tyler or his equally courageous Secretary of State, Daniel Webster. The story in total flows extremely well, and maintains the interest of the reader throughout. The author's stance overall is pro-Tyler, and she bases this on clear reasoning and factual analysis. In total I agree with her position, that Tyler has received far less credit for his accomplishments and strength of presidential character than most historians have given him.

Forrest McDonald is one of the best academic historians of early American political, intellectual, and economic history. I've read several books by him and they've all been very good to excellent, and this book is right up there with them.

One thing to keep in mind: This is NOT a biography. One could even argue that Washington himself is -- in McDonald's narrative -- not really the "star" at all, and that in fact others (such as Madison, Hamilton, & Jefferson) are far more important to driving the events of the early Republic. However, this depiction seems appropriate given Washington's reserved leadership style as President. In McDonald's words, "George Washington was indispensable, but only for what he was [ie, a figurehead everyone respected], not for what he did."

What this book is, is a very good chronicle of the political history of our first presidential administration, covering all the important issues you would expect from the period. It is particularly strong at chronicling the emergence of the United States' first real national political parties.

Though I thought this book was quite good overall, I rated it four rather than five stars for the following reasons:
1. McDonald sometimes throws in a few too many extraneous details which can dilute his points.

2. As he himself admits, some of McDonald's narrative is based on conjecture -- particularly when he describes a trip Jefferson and Madison took together to Lake Champlain. On that trip, McDonald supposes, Madison had an epileptic seizure that Jefferson witnessed, and this revelation of Madison's hidden personal weakness cemented their friendship and alliance. McDonald also engages in psychological analysis of some people -- such as Jefferson -- that comes across as not much more than speculation and conjecture, too.

3. I thought McDonald was a little too biased towards the Hamiltonian/Federalist side of the emerging partisan divide. (Though, to be fair, most historians seem to go to the opposite extreme in praising Jefferson and his faction. Even so, McDonald seemed to always assume the best intentions on the part of the Federalists, and the worst intentions on the part of the Republicans.)

In sum: This is a good scholarly look at the period, but those in search of a general biography of Washington should look elsewhere.

Forrest McDonald is an excellent writer. He produced a wonderful full length bio of Alexander Hamilton that I recommend to anyone interested learning about our government's start and the role played by the man second only to Washington in ensuring that these United States succeeded in laying a firm foundation for self government.

This book is one of McDonald's two contributions to the Univ. of KA's "Presidency Series." It is splendid.

McDonald concisely explores the challenges presenting themselves and issues demanding attention from our new and untested government. In just under two hundred pages, the author does an excellent job of boiling down the topics to their essentials and describing how the nascent government struggled to define its role, the meaning of it's constitutional structure, the balance of factions and America's relation to warring European giants.

His book accomplishes this with brevity, clear and concise writing and in an interesting manner. Along the way are fascinating tidbits. For example, neither Washington nor the Senate knew what "advise and consent" meant regarding treaties. About to send negotiators to several indian tribes, Washington walked down to the Senate to seek their advice on instructions for his agents. As the Senate sat dumbfounded, and then finally began to debate the seven points Washington sought advice on, it became clear how impractical legislative micro management of treaty making would be. Washington turned on his heels and left in disgust when it became obvious the Senate could not give him clear and definative advice. Thereafter, it was mutually agreed that the Senate's role would revolve mainly around "consent" and come when the President presented negotiatied treaties to that body for consideration and not before the treaty making in the form of advice. And thus has it been, evermore.

This is a very good book that will inform those interested in learning how our government got up and running and how important Washington and the players around him were in charting the course for our young government.

The general consensus is that the two greatest US presidents were George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. I firmly believe that and in my opinion, Washington was the greatest. Before he became president he did something very rare in the history of the human race. After the victory in the war of independence, his stature was such that he could have been "elected" king. However, his honor was such that he had to be persuaded to run for president and then re-persuaded to run for a second term. He then thoroughly rejected any thought of a third term.
The nation that he led was still very fragile and every action by Washington or congress that was not explicit in the constitution would establish a precedent. Furthermore, the world was still a dangerous place, with the French revolution and subsequent European war creating a dangerous environment for the new nation. His actions in building the new government and keeping it out of foreign entanglements fully justify the admiration that he receives.
This book kept my attention from the first page as the early years of the new government are described. For this is a book about the Washington administration rather than Washington the man. So many legends in the annals of history were there and setting the tone for over 200 years of continuous government. You also learn of the emergence of political parties, as Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson and Adams among others vie for power and influence. Alexander Hamilton is the most interesting of these giants, as he successfully creates the financial institutions that made the country fiscally sound.
The more I read about Washington and that period of history, the more I am impressed by him. I have no idea what would have happened if he had been different, but it is a sure bet that it would have been worse. It is unfortunate that we teach our children nonsensical myths like the one about the cherry tree. The truth is so much more inspiring, and he truly deserves the accolade of "the father of his country."

"The Presidency of George Washington" is exactly what its title implies. It is the story of the Washington Administration. It is not a biography of George Washington, nor is it even a book which revolves totally around George Washington. It is the story of the people, issues and events which made up the administration of George Washington.

The book starts out with an introduction into the United States of 1789. The regions and interests, as well as the political alignments, which supported and opposed the adoption of the Constitution are explained in some detail. The economy, trade, finance and the neighboring powers of Spain and England all laid the background for America's experiment with its new Constitution.

The first task facing Washington was the establishment of the National Government. While reading this book we come to understand just how little guidance he had from the Constitution. Many of the practices which we take for granted derive, not from the Constitution, but from precedents established by Washington and his successors. The title of address for the President and the role of the heads of the executive departments, which were to become the cabinet, were among the first issues to be addressed. The role of the Senate in granting "advice and consent" on foreign policy matters had to be defined. An early trial occurred when President Washington appeared in the Senate to present his proposals and ask for advise and consent. After this awkward exercise, the practice was established that the executive would formulate policies and negotiate treaties, which would then presented for advice and consent.

The power of removal of executive officers also had to be refined. It was presumed by some that any officer who required Senate confirmation for appointment, also required Senate consent for removal. It was the Washington Administration which established the principle that executive officers could be removed by the President without Congressional approval. This was an issue which was to be resurrected during the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.

Beyond organizational problems, the towering challenge facing the administration was that of finance. The debts of the Continental Congress and the states raised a myriad of issues. Should debts be paid? Should the debts be paid at par? Should payment be made to the bearer, who had often bought the bonds at a discount, or should some or all of the payment be made to the original lender? Should the national government assume the debts of the states? All of these issues had important consequences to the credit worthiness of the government. The assumption of state war debts had unequal impacts, depending on whether the individual state had serviced its debt or let it accumulate. Ultimately the Hamiltonian proposal to assume the war debt of the states and to pay the holders of the bonds was adopted, with the concession of the location of the national capitol in the South to win necessary support.

An issue which would remain controversial until the Administration of Andrew Jackson was the establishment of the Bank of the United States. One of the main reasons for the establishment of the bank was the dearth of banks in the country capable of handling federal deposits.

The domestic issues confronted by the administration introduced the spirit of party into the Administration. The differing views and personalties of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson brought contention into the administration. It was their personalties, particularly that of Hamilton, which came to be the heart of the Administration, even more than that of Washington himself.

The second term was to be dominated by foreign entanglements and a domestic insurrection. The advancement of the French Revolution and its wars with the powers of Europe brought European problems to America. The continuance or renunciation of America's treaty, made with Royalist France, was a hotly debated issue, as was the ratification of a later treaty with Britain. Acceptance of the Jay Treaty with Britain was, ultimately, decided in a reaction to alleged official corruption. In America's first encounter with Islamic Terrorism, raids against American shipping in the Mediterranean by Barbery Pirates, resulted in, again after heated debate, the establishment of the U.S. Navy.

1794 saw resistance to federal taxation on whiskey erupt into the Whiskey Rebellion. The assertion of Federal authority lead to the raising of the militia for the suppression of the rebellion. The declaration of the Rebellion and its suppression may have had more to do with Hamilton's desire to crush his political opponents and brand them as traitors than it did with any actual insurrection.

Washington's ultimate gift to the nation was his retirement and transfer of power to an elected successor at the conclusion of his second term.

This book is recommended to anyone desiring an understanding of the personalities who made up our first national administration, the challenges which confronted them, their responses to those challenges and their legacies to our country.

This book is well written and very informative. This is more of an academic history than a page-turner, such as the books by the likes of David McCullough, but then again few books are. This book will appeal to those interested in history, especially American history. It is about the first 8 years of the government of the United States. Because the constitution was not specific on many of the aspects of how the government was to be run, it was necessary for Washington, his Cabinet and the Congress to further define their roles. This book describes how the men involved and the challenges that they faced directed the evolution of the government of the United States. It describes, in detail, Hamilton's financial system, the internal challenges of Indian uprisings and the resistance to the power of the government (as shown by the Whisky Rebellion) and the relations with foreign powers (primarily with Britain, France and Spain). I especially liked the discussion of Hamilton's system of monetizing the debt incurred during the revolution and using this as the basis for a currency system. This is a very complex subject, one that few at the time (or later) understood. This book not only clearly explains his system but also shows that it was based on the British system, thereby making it less mysterious and not a completely original creation of Hamilton's. Much time is also spent on the attempts of the French and Republican politicians, such as Jefferson, to support the French Revolution, even at the risk of war with Britain. In opposition to this were the Federalists, such as Hamilton, who wanted to avoid war with Britain at all costs. A considerable amount of space is therefore spent on the Jay treaty with Britain, and the support and opposition to it. The book also shows how the challenges faced by the US and the rivalries between the men involved helped to lead to the evolution (much to Washington's dismay) of political parties.

While the title is accurate, it is also a bit misleading. This book is not primarily about Washington, in fact, in most of the book he is only in the background, ratifying or rejecting the acts of others. The author's view of Washington really only becomes clear in the last two pages, where he is depicted more of a symbolic presence than a dynamic leader. Nonetheless, the book makes it clear that Washington was more than just a figurehead. He created a stronger president than the weak one desired by Congress. He brought the heads of the departments of the government (State, War and Finance) clearly under the control of the President, reporting to him and not to Congress. He refused to hand over the papers associated with the development of the Jay treaty and refused to acknowledge the Senate's right to prevent him from firing someone they had previously approved. This book thus shows how the presidency of George Washington shaped the history of the Presidency and the US.