Churchill Books

I recently purchased this text at the recommendation of my instructor for a 5 Element course for physician acupuncturists. I have found it to be invaluable to introduce and reinforce the ideas presented in the course. In short--it's excellent. Buy it.

The Hicks, Hicks and Mole book is nothing but a caricature of the beautiful system of medicine practiced over 50 years by Dr. Worsley. I purchased this book with alot of enthusiasm but was soon disappointed, even horrified by some of what I read. As a practitioner, it offered nothing to increase my knowledge of Classical Five Element Acupuncture, and in fact, would sorely mislead anyone wishing to study and practice this medicine. I would hope that students of acupuncture would go directly to the Master's books for information regarding Classical Five Element Acupuncture: Traditional Acupuncture, Volumes 1 and 2, and Volume 3, The Five Elements and the Officials, by J.R. Worsley. All of his books are available through Amazon, are filled with Dr. Worsley's words and the true spirit of his work, and will enrich your practice and life.

Diane McCormick, M.D.

This is a thorough and comprehensive reference volume, describing in detail the theory and practice of Five Element Constitutional Acupuncture. This is a style of acupuncture that is taught and practised by the authors at the College of Integrated Medicine, in Reading, Berkshire, UK, which they jointly run. Angela Hicks, John Hicks and Peter Mole were originally trained by Professor J.R. Worsley at the College of Traditional Acupuncture in Leamington Spa, UK, and went on to study Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), including Chinese Herbal Medicine, and integrate these two different styles (Five Element and TCM) in their teaching and practice.

This book makes a number of references to the teachings of Professor J.R. Worsley, and states that it was he who first developed Five Element Constitutional Acupuncture. This is quite misleading as it does not make clear that Classical Five-Element Acupuncture, as taught by Professor Worsley, does not include the use of TCM theory or practice, and nor does it focus on the behaviour or character traits of patients as described by the authors of this book. There is a world of difference between the "constitutional imbalance" or "Constitutional Factor" as discussed by Hicks, Hicks and Mole and the Causative Factor of disease as taught by J.R. Worsley, and this ought to have been acknowledged.

Max Alexander LicAc MBAcC

I think "arguments" occur because people think one way is "right" or "pure." Most 5e practitioners I have experience with and who studied with JR Worsley or Judy Worsley do not feel their style is superior to others. In fact, JR and Judy both have said that their style isn't superior, but different, and they wanted to keep what they learned taught in its original form since its the style they know best and the style that they practice. I have taken some 5e classes myself from Worsely-based schools and found that the approach is not critical of TCM or other styles, but rather they acknowledge the benefits all different styles of acupuncture may have. Of course they are partial to the type they learned and practiced the most and saw succeses with! And 5e does work well! The schools I've studies at also acknowledge its limitations.

The folks who critique Hicks' book for deviating from Worsley's style are being in my opinion, well, anal. The authors do acknowledge that they deviate from Worsley's teachings and explain most of the areas in which they do and why. I believe they also give due respect to Worsely as an influential teacher and promoter of 5e style, and in no way try to say that everything in the book is what he (Worsley) taught.

Anyway, the whole argument against blending styles is silly since Worsely himself studied with so many teachers and took away what was most beneficial. There is no PURE teaching. Everything changes and grows with time and place, and anyone who denies this is in for extinction. Most 5e or Worsely practitioners do not hold this absolute purist attitude, even if they choose to practice "pure" CF-EA themselves. I feel CF-EA practitioners are poorly represented by the vocal loyalists who can't go with the flow...like the Dao recommends. I just don't see anything in life that doesn't change or adapt...that survives. I think wanting to keep JRs teachings pure is great, but others should be allowed to use them and integrate them in a way that works for THEM, as this is how all medicine has evolved. People have always studied under many different teachers (Worsley included), and practice what they have seen works.

Good medicine stands the tests of time.

I do think the book should have mentioned Worsley's books as well (Vol. I-III) as they are great reference books, and have been around a long time. I see this book as a place to get information about a different kind of 5e practice, and I don't think the authors try in any way to mislead readers into thinking its pure Worsley CF-EA style.

Please note that Professor JR Worsley was indeed exposed to many teachers in the 1950's. He chose to follow his two teachers who eventually became his masters. They taught only ancient classical five-element acupuncture. He did not embellish or change terms taught to him. His Masters bestowed upon him the title "Master", which carries the honoring duty to teach and present this ancient system to the world.
My concern with the Hicks Mole book, which is very well organized and the product of much hard and admirable work, is that it is likely to confuse anyone who is not familiar with this tradition that JR's masters entrusted him to teach.
JR taught exactly what his teachers taught him: That diagnosis of "Causative Factor" ("CF") elaborates a very precise process of achieving a conscious state. Choosing to do what it takes to work in this state of being means one can be an instrument of nature. Nature and not humans heal.
The confusion that is likely to arise with the Hicks'/Mole new definition of "CF" is that those not around during the time that the Hick's and Mole trained, early in their careers, would not have witnessed that what Hicks and Mole learned from JR was that "CF" means Causative Factor (according to the lineage definition) and never the term or concept "constitutional factor" - coined much later by the Hicks's and Mole.
Many years later, soon after JR died and after many years out of contact with JR, the Hicks Mole book presents the term "CF" with their new definition. For anyone not trained and familiar with the history it would be easy, if not inevitable, that the reader would confuse this new Hicks Mole definition for "CF" as what JR taught and it is not. Without prejudicing or critiquing the Hicks Mole new definition the problem is that it confuses. The process involved in working with their term constitutional factor significantly contradicts the process that JR was taught and passed to us.
A modern reading of the word 'cause' may lead one not familiar with the ancient definition as taught by JR to construe a modern and western definition of 'cause'. The word 'cause' as used in this ancient medicine precisely and elegantly focuses on the place in the intricate balance that a person's whole destiny - to be whole, perfect, at one and at peace within - has become out of balance. Once that happens the whole web of relationships imbalances and "dis-ease" arises. To diagnose the source (cause) of the imbalance one's physical, mental and spiritual presence leads one to detect the cause. Spirit does not categorize.
Without condemning analysis of "pattern"' of anything it is merely my wish to clarify that this approach is not what JR was taught by his masters, trusted to teach to his students and apprentices nor what he practiced.
Another concern is that the Foreward and Introduction to the Hicks Mole book presents "opinions" that JR would have them speak for him. JR did not authorize them to speak for him.
JR pledged, as do I as the inheritor of the title "Master", to do whatever we can to present this teaching as we received it. Again - without prejudice - a modern new definition may or may not be an improvement. We leave that to each individual to decide for his/herself.
My duty and love for this beautiful system of healing compels me to write and state what I promised JR I would do: to speak what I was taught. I trust the decades of experience I had witnessing JR time and again practicing this awesome and ancient system of medicine.
I say what JR would say if he were alive to speak. He explicitly asked me and entrusted me to speak for him and so I do with his authority.
Thank you for reading this review. It is my hope that it helps to put into perspective and clarify a possibly confusing presentation. If the reader wishes to have further information about JR's teachings please do visit the Worsley Institute web site:
www.worsleyinstitute.org
With best wishes to one and all,
JB Worsley

This is another of the "short" Churchill books that have become popular over the last several years and are less than full blown biographies but more than just private musings of the author. This author has an engaging style and if you've read any of his previous books on this subject it should come as no surprise that this book is for the most part a positive portrayal. The book covers the several themes stated in the title with a varying degree, (in this reader's opinion), of success. The high points include insight into Churchill's role, (and motivation), as an historian, his role with Stalin and the division of post WWII Europe and the evolution of Churchill's relationship with Eisenhower, (maybe the best chapter in the book). Considering all that has been written on Churchill this reader found some "new" perspectives and food for thought in the above. On the downside, several of the other chapters - the rehashing of Gallipoli, Churchill's "wilderness" years do not provide much detail or insight and the last chapter - a journal entry written contemporaneously describing Churchill's funeral - was little more than filler to this reader. This disparity in the writing is unfortunately one of the salient points I took away from the book. That being said, (written), this book would not be the place to start with Churchill but it is a more than an adequate supplement.

I read this book here in Brazil, last year.It's cheap, concise and easy to understand.There's failures in this book?Yes.
At first, this book is biased.John Lukacs is a Churchill's fan.
To exemple, Mr. Churchill was a deeply eugenist.This book never talks about this.Another exemple is that in 1899, Winston Churchill spoke against Islam something like this:"How dreadfull are the curses which mohammedanism slays on its votaries...No stronger retrograde force exists in the world..."
The core of this book is to show Churchill after 1930.Even this, it fails sometimes.In chapter 4, Lukacs claims that Eisenhower was wrong about than USSR, and Churchill was right.In fact both were right.The american politics for Cold War, was basically the same, for every american president, since Truman,in 1945, to George Bush in 1991.
Churchill also was among the men who created Iraq.Churchill also put the last Iran's Xah in power.All of these Churchill's mistakes aren't in this book.
This is a fan's book, not an unbiased book.

This was my first book by Lukacs and I am not a historical scholar. I picked it up to learn more about Churchill, and where this admirable leader was coming from. If you are looking for a primer or a thorough biography of W.S., this is not the book for you. However, if you are already familiar with his background, ancestry, and accomplishments in detail, this book serves as a kind of postmortem love letter.

It is certainly well-written--Lukacs is a talented writer who knows how to turn a phrase, as he exhibits in his diary entries describing Churchill's funeral. However, for all of W.S.'s greatness, Lukacs seems a doggedly loyal to the man and utterly resistant to any criticism. There is also noticeable resentment toward Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and other American officials, as the author apotheosizes Churchill above any and all other leaders during the most critical time in 20th century history. Regardless of the veracity of his position, I would recommend reading up on other perspectives to temper Lukacs' ode to Churchill's infallibility.

Overall, this is a brief and awe-inspiring read: a worthy eulogy for a worthy man that sometimes sparkles in prose, sometimes fizzles in excessive reverence.

What we have is a series of essays written about Churchill by a man who is both a highly regarded historian and a fan.

The last essay, I found quite moving where he discusses his time at Churchill funeral.

Yet the quality of these essays is not brilliant. In some ways they are repetitive with the same facts repeated again in another essay. Also the writer is also prone to exaggeration eg that the Germans could in June or July 1940 successfully invaded Britain.

I have read much on Churchill and found this book disappointing maybe as from a historian of the quality of John Lukacs, I expected more.

John Lukas clearly states at the beginning of his short book that his collection of essays is neither a biography nor a scholarly study of Winston Spencer Churchill (pg. xiii). Therefore, potential readers of Lukas' book who do not know anything about the key milestones in the life and career of Churchill should not start here. These readers can read books such as "Churchill a Life", "Churchill a Study in Greatness", "Clementine Churchill The Biography of a Marriage", "Winston and Clementine The Personal Letters of the Churchills" or "The Wit & Wisdom of Winston Churchill" to fill in the most glaring gaps in their knowledge of Churchill for that purpose.

Lukas writes to the attention of an audience who has an unquenchable thirst to know more and more about an individual who remains a source of inspiration to many men and women who stand in the way of barbarity and illiberalism around the world.

Although Lukas is generally sympathetic to Churchill, he is not blind to his major shortcomings: impetuosity, impatience, stubbornness and fancifulness (pg. 4, 154). Furthermore, Lukas reminds his audience in his essay "His Failures. His Critics" that Churchill had accumulated errors and mistakes that Churchill critics and detractors were attributing to his flawed character (pg. 129). For example, Churchill's futile fight against granting Dominion status to India from 1929 to 1935 was perhaps compatible with his imperialist credentials but certainly a clear blemish on his record. As a very experienced politician and knowledgeable historian at that time, Churchill should have known much better (pg. 14-15, 24, 135-136). Therefore, Lukas' collection of essays should not be construed as a shameful hagiography.

Furthermore, Lukas reminds his audience in "Churchill's historianship" and "Churchill the visionary" that Churchill was generally cognizant of the lessons that he could draw from past events to articulate his often-visionary policies while reflecting on and shaping history on his turn (pg. 1-18, 47). Churchill was not only a spectator, but also a key actor and play writer of human comedy (pg. 102).

Lukas also explores the ups and downs that Churchill had in his relationships with other history shapers such as Charles De Gaulle, Dwight Eisenhower, Adolf Hitler, Franklin Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin (pg. 19-20). Lukas convincingly explains that Churchill was facing an unpalatable choice between a Europe entirely ruled by Nazi Germany or half of Europe dominated by the Communists in case of allied victory (pg. 11, 27-28, 35). Churchill rightly first gave top priority to successfully fighting Hitler to death before trying in vain to stop Stalin in 1944-1945. Unlike some unimaginative people, Churchill understood right at the birth of the Soviet Union that the Bolsheviks should be stopped immediately before they grew into a gathering threat to the world. War-weary, the victors of WWI, unfortunately, gave only half-hearty support to the White Russians in their desperate fight against the Soviets (pg. 23). Once again, long-term pains were the reward for short-term gains.

Some (American) readers will not be very pleased while reading Lukas' unflattering portrait of Eisenhower and the men around him in "Churchill and Eisenhower." As mentioned above, Churchill was definitely right to try to thwart in 1944-1945 the apparently irresistible advance of the Soviets in Central and Eastern Europe. Churchill clearly understood that geography and territory mattered, not ideology (pg. 42). For that reason, the British army met the Russians east of the entry to the Danish peninsula at the request of Churchill in 1945 (pg. 45). Unfortunately, the American leadership did not want to hear anything about it at that time (pg. 35-40, 46). Some European regions such as former East Germany and the Czech Republic should have been eventually spared the murderous and inefficient rule of the former Soviet Union (pg. 43). The Greeks should continue to be very thankful to Churchill for saving them from a communist tyranny (pg. 41, 48).

In his famous, visionary Iron Curtain speech in 1946, Churchill expressed his concern with the murderous, inefficient embrace of Communism in the European regions under Stalin's control. American reception of this historic speech was at best lukewarm (pg. 47). Churchill knew better and was predicting at the end of 1952 that time was not on the side of Communism (pg. 48, 79).

After the death of Stalin in 1953, Churchill, Prime Minister again, could not convince his friend Eisenhower, who in the meantime became President of the U.S.A., of finding some kind of accommodation with the new Soviet leadership (pg. 70, 73-74). Subsequent events proved that Eisenhower was right when he saw no difference after Stalin was gone (pg. 71, 77). Contrary to what Lukas thinks, Eisenhower should not be described as a leader without any vision under the nefarious influence of men such as John Foster Dulles (pg. 79-80). Many western leaders shared Eisenhower's views on this subject (pg. 81-82). The former Soviet Union was not yet in sufficient decline in the early 1950s to negotiate in a position of force with it as world leaders such as President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher understood very well in the 1980s.

The Great Republic is essentially Churchill's historical overview of America contained within his History of the English-Speaking Peoples. Normally acknowledged as one of the great political statesman of his, perhaps any, age, Churchill was also quite the historian. His complete works span over 50 volumes of material. These excerpts of his larger work provide us with a unique perspective on American history from an alternative vantage point, although not entirely foreign. Churchill was, in fact, intimately connected with Amercia. As the introduction provided by his grandson (appropriately named) Winston S. Churchill reveals, three of Churchill's ancestors were actually passengers on the Mayflower. He had even more recent connections through his mother who was an American. Churchill was a great admirer of what he affectionately called 'the Great Republic' (thus, the title), and so his endearment of our country is also the result of embracing his own heritage.

Only half of this edition is taken from Churchill's original history. Obviously, the work has a Euro-centrist perspective of America and its events. But this is part of its unique charm, added with the fact of the man who had written it is highly regarded world-wide. The span of history covered begins with the Europlean effort to find alternative routes to the East Indies, resulting in America's discovery. It ends at the beginning of the twentieth century having little to say of these times. Because American history was not the focus of the original work, much history must be expected by the reader to be left out. The themes discussed are almost entirely political, as one would expect. The central focus of our history it turns out is our Civil War. It seems that it is not only historians in America who have such a fascination with this epic. More emphasis is given this historic confrontation than that of our Revolutionary War (after all, what Englishman would glory in that story). Nevertheless, the greatness of Churchill as an historian is fully evident here.

The latter half is a collection of Churchill's writings and speeches regarding America covering a span of over 50 years. Here we find how America was viewed by the prominent politian. He is certainly credible enough to have formed an opinion of our American customs and habits considering his background and his numerous trips to the New World. The topics vary covering our eating habits and social customs to our landscapes to our common language and heritage to opinoins on Prohibition and War. These, or course, act as a history of America in the first half of this last century. On the whole, The Great Republic is an exceptional and brief read in American history.

This book looked promising but I'm sorry to say that I have not gone past the first few pages.

Churchill's writing style is very dry (no matter what they say) and his sentences about historical events are full of summaries and platitudes. I'm not sure where he gets his facts from. If one doesn't have the facts, one could at least have an opinion and be funny about it. Churchill is neither.

I bought it thinking it would be a good introduction to American history written by a great man (I am still a fan of his speeches), but this is not the right book. I don't know why it even got published - its edited form should already have given me a clue that the whole unabridged work was unreadable.

I couldn't bear to listen to this audio book for more than 15 minutes before I put it away for good. Winston Churchill's grandson appears to be unable to read complex sentences out loud. He ends sentences where commas occur, only to continue in suprise that there is more to read. His introduction is also incredibly pompus.

This excerpted work is a light summary of American History from the perspective of a good friend and ally. It is not, however, a book that would have been taken seriously had it not been written by Churchill. To students of U.S. history, it will seem too superficial in most places (eg. Industrialization), too romantic in others (eg. the Civil War), and downright misleading in still others (imagine anyone describing Jefferson as 'frugal'!!). Having said all that, I enjoyed it precisely because it is our cousin's celebration of his own American roots.

As histories of the U.S. goes, these selected excerpts from the mind-boggling works of the great, the heroic Winston Churchill, is rather skimming and selective (try Paul Johnson's masterpiece "A History of the American People".) What's good fun, however, is that it makes me remember afresh that history has always and will forever be interpretative!! I sometimes forget that fact as American media and academics so often shove "flavor of the month" history, in all its changist glory, down our throats. This early account of American history and current events as written in the early 1900s can be splendidly candid and even startling in its un-PCness. Discover how much and yet how little the American psyche has changed over the decades and exactly what people thought of America and Americans way back then.

VERY INTERESTING BOOK. I HAVE LEARNED A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THE ART OF TANNING HIDES.

This book is extremely useful to anyone entering the field of home tanning. It has a proven method for tanning any skin that is likely to be available to the home tanner, from alligators to antelope.

I was very disappointed with this book. He talks about the generalized steps to do tanning, but he lacks good step by step information for beginners. Its a good first book to read, then find another book with more detail as to how to actually do the procedures. He only has two plans for crafting with leather, and I think he should have added more. I wouldn't advise you purchase this book unless its your first and you want to understand the general procedure of tanning, then find a better book with more details.

Churchill covers the tanning of many different types of animals, using many different methods. This is the good and the bad of this book. No other tanning book I know of contains so much varied information, and for this reason its a good one to have. However, the techniques are not covered in much detail so it is challenging for the beginning tanner to be successful using these instructions alone.

In reference to the previous reviews written here. I agree with the first two (look like they are written by the same guy?), in that if you are wanting to tan buckskin, this isn't the best book. However if you are wanting to do furs, the books mentioned below don't cover them (I'm the author of one of them)...and this is your best bet.

I started using this book back in the late 80's when I first started tanning. Almost everything I know about tanning, I learned from this book. I've tanned elk hides, deer hides, antelope, squirrel, rabbit, snake, coyote, fox, raccoon, skunk, beaver, muskrat, and many more. I've had some failures, but with this book as a guide, I've taken very few false steps. I've used a wide variety of techniques and found that they worked like Mr. Churchill said. I do recommend this book, and have often lent my copy to friends.

Ward Churchill's bad research is evident in the fact that he can't even spell names correctly. More serious is the fact that Churchill is NOT an American Indian. His tribal membership was honorary and his diatribes have angered the very people for whom he claims to speak. Avoid at all costs and seek real facts from real historians or AIM.

Ward Churchill's "scholarship" would be laughed out of publishing houses if he did not have the "excuse" of supposedly being Indian--that ugly bit of reverse racism that presumes that Indians can't do first-rate academic or intellectual work and ignores the achievements of real American Indian scholars like Joseph Marshall, D'Arcy McNickle, Kate Shanley, Vine and Ella Deloria, and Donald Fixico. Like Jamake Highwater, Churchill's intellectual career has been built on a foundation of patronizing racist assumptions.

In a single note while discussing his extensive study of Westerns, he manages to misspell the names of Lash Larue and Johnny Mack Brown. That's a random selection; pick your own on any page. The Devil is in the details, and an honorary Indian needs to do his homework. If you screw up the little stuff, how can we trust the big stuff? Easy answer? Don't.

Churchill's "deconstruction" of the American Western is no more accurate than the depictions of Indians he derides. Replacing one ignorant prejudice with another, however appealling, is not progress. And taking the poor research and invective of a "honorary Indian" for the views of Indian people is a mistake. With friends like this, who needs the Dawes Act?

Great book that goes deeper in the analysis of popular books on native american cultures and "testimonials" written by pro-natives and anglo-saxons alike.

Great food-for-thought book.

Would also recommend Taos Pueblo and the battle for the blue lake, very sad yet great book.

Ward Churchill has hit upon a very important and eye opening subject for those that believe everything their history teachers and the media dishes out to them about the American Indian. Mainstream America is still in the dark about the reality of the first peoples of this country. I was moved by many portions of this book and would love to see it made into a PBS series for public consumption. The only sad part is most of the people that need to be informed wouldn't think of reading this book or watching anything on PBS. It is a consise and important work.

I would say this is worth 4 stars, but seeing how one reviewer is bent on giving it the worst possible to make a statement rather than a review, I decided to attempt to neutralize his rating.

Churchill's review on cultural myths and cinema tragecomedies that rewrite history to their liking are somewhat striking. One would expect that there is some bias, but to see it put under the microscope as churchill does is more than an eye-opener.

It's not another "white man steals again" books, but rather an intellectually secure book that makes claims outside the public spectrum of politics. And do I dare say, sometimes radical politics are right! Indigenous americans have been slandered. John Wayne has only secured the subtlely racist notions of indigenous savagery and such.

The truth will set you free

Now regarding the book....If you are a white person who wants to feel that they have learned something about Native oppression and want to get all angry at the mistreatment of Natives, then this is the book for you. If you are looking for an intellectual stab that falls along the lines of bell hooks, Cornell West then I suggest you read something else. Ward's facts about Native portrayals in mascots, movies and general exploitation are dead on, but his commentary regarding those facts is hard to stomach. His recycled prose is tiresome. He comes off as a whiner and of course defensive. When you read one of his books, you have read them all.

Finally! A book that tells the truth of how it was like to a Native American in a racist and bigoted Amerika. This book tells us about what Native Americans went through, how they lived, and how they were dealt with by a country that didn't want them. This is a tell-all book that pulls no punches. It is not for the faint of heart or flag-waving fools that never question Amerika's history. A real eye-opener. Highly Recommended.

...

Now regarding the book....If you are a white person who wants to feel that they have learned something about Native oppression and want to get all angry at the mistreatment of Natives, then this is the book for you. If you are looking for an intellectual stab that falls along the lines of bell hooks, Cornell West then I suggest you read something else. Ward's facts about Native portrayals in mascots, movies and general exploitation are dead on, but his commentary regarding those facts is hard to stomach. His recycled prose is tiresome. He comes off as a whiner and of course defensive. When you read one of his books, you have read them all.

Every white person needs to read this book. A real eye opener for us white people raised in the USA and educated in the public system where they blatantly disregard and brush over topics about Native Americans. We owe it to ourselves and the indigenous nations to attempt to understand these perspectives.

This book was my first Native American Political book. I first purchased it in 1997 in Boston. I am full blood, but was not raised in the light of my ansestors. I knew nothing of any traditions exept what Kevin Coster told me in Dances With Wolves. The fact of the matter is, when you can't beat em, join em. I decided in order to beat the white man at his own game, I must educate myself. This book offers information no one knows about. It is a good basis of information to come to an understanding of my people, and I feel it can help educate anyone who is ignorant to the fact. We need more books like this. We need them in our schools and need to have them readily available for the taking. Ward Churchill represents the facts that oppress today's Native Americans. I suggest it to anyone who wants an understanding of todays underlining issues for Native Americans and even the people of old.

I regard Churchill as one of the alltime overrated figures in history, and certainly enjoy seeing him cut down to size. Charmley provides a veritable all-you-can-eat buffet for Churchill haters, as he recounts in excrutiating detail the extraordinarily flawed personality of Churchill.

After setting the stage by illustrating Churchill's early years as a relentless opportunist and self-promoter, Charmley begins to build his case that Churchill was not the great wartime leader that posterity would have us believe, and in fact did not even have a sound grasp of military operational strategy. The most glaring example is, of course, the Gallipoli Campaign, which was an unmitigated disaster and effectively ended Churchill's political career for more than two decades. Churchill had gotten his shot at the big time (by becoming First Lord of the Admiralty) and had blown it. When he got his second chance, he showed that he had learned effectively nothing in the intervening period about military operations. Throughout World War II, he would attempt to undertake various zany military campaigns, most of which were politely ignored by the Allied commanders.

While demonstrating Churchill's ineptitude in this area, Charmley (clearly a Neville Chamberlain apologist) builds a reasonably convincing case for Chamberlain, arguing that Chamberlain was using appeasement more as a tool for buying time than anything else. Far from being the naive optimist, Chamberlain was quite sure, argues Charmley, that Hitler was not to be trusted in any agreement. While giving Hitler what he wanted, Chamberlain was quietly building up Britain's military strength for the war he was sure to come. Because one cannot create a potent fighting force overnight, Chamberlain knew he had to buy time by whatever means necessary. Churchill, by contrast, was ready to rush into war with Germany in 1937-38, when Britain was in no way prepared to fight a continental war.

Up to this point, Charmley's treatment of Churchill is reasonable from a scholarly standpoint. He can make coherent arguments and back them up with citations and evidence. However, Charmley's main beef with Churchill has never been that he was reckless & impetuous, or that he wasn't the great military mastermind. Charmley's problem with Churchill is that he lost the British Empire. At this point, Charmley's book begins to fall apart.

Charmley is writing from the perspective of someone who thinks the British Empire was a pretty neat thing, and wishes that Britain still had its empire, just like the good old days. In subsequent writings, Charmley has taken his argument even further, casting FDR as an anti-imperial villain who had, as one of his wartime goals, the deliberate destruction of the old colonial empires. In Charmley's opinion, the primary goal of the British High Command during World War II should have been the preservation of the British Empire. The defeat of the Nazis and containment of the Soviet Union? Sure, the British could have tried to do that also, but the preservation of the Empire was the important thing.

In fact, the British High Command was trying to do exactly that, and was continually butting heads with General George Marshall over priorities in strategy. The US wanted as its goal the invasion of Europe proper, and had hoped to launch the Normandy campaign in 1943, a full year before D-Day. The British, by contrast, favored a peripheral approach, sending valuable resources to reclaim portions of British territory that had been seized by Germany & Japan. The British also wanted opportunities for their commanders (such as Montgomery) to win glory on the field. The concessions the US made to Britain, it can be argued, prolonged the war in Europe by up to a year.

So Charmley's argument that Churchill did not do enough militarily to preserve the Empire is not particularly valid. Charmley probably understands this, because he also comes as close he can to stating (without actually doing it) that maybe, just maybe, Churchill might have been well-advised to cut a deal with the Nazis, keep the Empire intact, and focus on the real enemy, which was (in Charmley's conservative viewpoint) the Soviet Union. Charmley does not explicitly say this, because he would then run the risk of being lumped into the same category as the likes of David Irving. However, he makes this argument repeatedly, in as an oblique a fashion as he can muster.

The whole problem is that Charmley bases his argument on the premise that the British Empire could in fact have been saved, and this is where the biggest flaws in this book creep in. Charmley would like to ignore the fact that the British Empire had been slowly coming apart at the seams since the Boer War. Even during Victoria's reign, Britain had been struggling to provide the resources necessary to maintain Imperial control. The attrition of World War I was effectively the final nail in the Imperial coffin; it was only a matter of time before the inevitable occurred. One only has to look at post-war France, which tried to restore its colonial empire by force, to see how things probably would have turned out for Britain.

One can also ask the question, is Charmley's belief that the Empire deserved to be preserved valid? This is definitely a matter of perspective. Did the British Empire ultimately do more harm than good? Conservatives like Charmley and Thomas Sowell may think that the British Empire overall was a good thing, but I do not agree with that at all. When you get right down to it, the Empire was simply the subjugation by Britain of other peoples & cultures by naked military force. I don't recall too many subject people voluntarily entering the British Empire. If FDR wasn't bent on destroying the British Empire, he should have been.

While Charmley does provide some valid criticism of Churchill in this book, overall his most important criticisms are based on some seriously flawed premises. In the end, this calls into question the ultimate scholarly value of the book. While it has certainly been controversial enough, does this book truly contribute much to the scholarly debate over Churchill and the history of the 20th century? I don't believe so.

John Charmley did not do his homework. There are so many things about Churchill he missed. He greatly understates his case that Churchill, by fighting World War II, lost Britain's empire. Far from being a vigorous and foresighted leader, Churchill was incredibly lazy and inept, and Charmley misses this. Churchill failed to prevent the spread of television, failed to stop the invention of the transistor and the integrated circuit, was completely asleep at the switch during the invention of the jet engine and the intercontinental jet airliner. And these are only a few of the things that Churchill didn't stop! Of course, it was these, combined with the continued outward spread of the Enlightenment from Europe, that lost Britain its empire. So, if the lost empire is the "fruit" of Churchill's leadership, at least let's be complete in our condemnation of the man. Otherwise, he might be seen as a leader of bottomless courage, able to inspire an entire nation to rise above itself and distinguish itself for all time, while in the bargain saving Western Civilization. Churchill knew evil when he saw it. Given how difficult it was to launch the D-Day invasion, the mind boggles at what would have happened had Britain gone down.

Charmley, and some his reviewers, have got things wrong. Sure Churchill was an empire man, that is why he got so unpopular between the wars, when he resisted efforts to give India even the most limited self-government.

But Churchill had no war aims, save victory. OK, victory was important, but we would not have had victory on Churchill's watch.

He was terrified of D-Day, believing a re-run of the Battle of the Somme was in the offing.

All his life, he was a side-show man. When troops were needed in Normandy, he pleaded for them to stay in Italy.

In 1939-40 he even floated a notion - you could not call it a plan - to attack Germany via the Caucusus! The small matter of crossing Russia didn't seem to daunt him.

Then there was his little known adventure in the Eastern Mediterranean in 1943: this was an attempt to drag Turkey into the war. It was a dismal and humiliating failure.

Unlike the other two leaders, Churchill lacked post-war aims.

Stalin was quite clear: he wanted to take Communism westwards. He got his way.

Roosevelt had clear war aims: one of which was to break down the system of trade on which the British Empire was based. He got his way, though he did not live to see it. (Globalisation started here.)

Churchill? He basked in glory, a romantic to the end. Was he good for Britain, though?

He got it wrong, very wrong on Europe: one of the biggest lost opportunities in British history was waved away by a nation that ended the war under the killer illusion that it was still a great power.

While Churchill's status as an icon is entirely too uncritical of a brilliant but erratic and flawed statesman, this is hardly a good faith effort to due Churchill justice. Charmley's constant apologies, evasions and outright deception regarding Neville Chamberlain's failed and ongoing efforts at appeasement after Munich & Churchill's opposing efforts clearly stems from an agenda more to rehabilitate Chamberlain's reputation than to do justice to Churchill's actions. Charmley's deception in this area is extreme. His reference more to Chamberlain & Halifax's diaries & letters than to Churchill's for the 3 chapters leading up to Churchill's ascent to Prime Minister doesn't do him much credit nor does his uncritical and adoring acceptance of Chamberlain's evaluations of virtually everything and everyone, including Hitler of all people. To give an example, Charmley, disregards 3 separate accounts of Churchill not rising to applaud Chamberlin's speech in the House of Commons upon his return from Munich as not being either recorded at the time or of being suspect due to malice toward Chamberlain. This same `critical' eye paints Chamberlain as being relentlessly opposed to Hitler after Hitler's entry into Prague in May 1939 in spite of Chamberlin's constant well documented efforts to continue appeasement after that time. He even neglects to mention Chamberlin's efforts to continue appeasement negotiations that continued even after Poland's invasion, not even mentioning something as significant as the Cabinet's revolt and ultimatum to Chamberlain that he must put a deadline on negotiations to Hitler & withdrawal from Poland on the 2nd day after Poland's invasion. All in all this book has some valid debunking of Churchill's myth and questions about the long term costs of Churchill's decisions but it is at times blatantly deceptive and far, far too uncritical of Churchill's rivals, none of whom except Eden are subject to much criticism.

I was sorely disappointed when finishing the book, not because of poor authorship, but, on the contrary, because Charmley's abrupt ending after a laborious examination of Churchill's political career did not seem at all adequate. He begins with a lurid examination of Churchill's early life and transformation into a political maverick, assaying his beginnings as a freshman MP in 1901 to his rise as one of the most powerful statesmen in the world. Among the most engrossing, although not necessarily new, criticisms are the Prime Minister's deference to the Roosevelt administration's foreign policy, which the author believes, with very much justification, was a catalyst that helped to bring about the Cold War and the eventual dismemberment of the British Empire. Charmley also draws parallels with Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler in 1938 with that of Churchill's handling of Stalin in 1945, and infers Churchill was hypocritical in his criticism of the Munich Pact, in part because of his later policies with regard to the Soviet Union. But after the chapter on the fall of the Churchill government in 1945, the book wraps itself up with a conclusion of little more than two pages; this is hardly befitting such a monumental undertaking. Charmley does not take interest in documenting Churchill's postwar exploits, and makes almost no reference to his Fulton speech or his return to power in 1951. For those already familiar with the standard "song and dance" given by most Churchill biographers, this work is definitely worth your time, but those expecting a more plenary reference on all of Churchill's political career, not just that until 1945, should look elsewhere.

I am currently using Ger for my clinical and developmental anatomy course as a first year med student. In addition to a good textbook and atlas, I would highly recommend this book; it provides excellent clinical scenarios and applications of anatomy. (I would not recommend using it as your only book, however.) It is a lighter, easier read than most anatomy texts, and the jokes are often very useful for helping you to remember specific clinical details for your anatomy exam! (I also had the pleasure of having Dr. Ger as a lecturer for the first unit of my anatomy course, and his enthusiasm for anatomy and medicine truly comes out in his writing.)

I am a second year medical student at The Queen's University of Belfast (UK), and would recommend this text to all fellow students requiring an understanding of Clinical Anatomy. The writing style is informative and often humorous(!), and the diagrams are excellent. This in conjunction with a quality atlas is all which is required for an in-depth pre-clinical anatomy course.

This book is excellent, maybe you can't get the jokes if your from Belfast but as a medical student in NY I found the jokes, as well as the clinical insights to be excellent. This is an excellent [supplementary] text for a first year medical student. Way more clinically relevant than Baby Moore's essential clinical anatomy, and way more fun to read.

As a final year medical student (at Queen's University Belfast) I would strongly recommend against the use of this text. The attempts at humour interfere with the already sketchy descriptions of human anatomy which the diagrams do little to help clarify. This text was universally slated by the students in my year. I cannot overemphasise how deeply I regret wasting my money on it.

I am a Final Year student at Queen's University Belfast and I'd just like to correct the horrific error my colleague has made.

This is a poorly written, hard to understand Anatomy text, which lacks sufficient detail to actually be understandable, and which contains attempts at "humour" which are, at best, weak. The book is an appalling waste of money, and provides no useful grounding in Anatomy. The diagrams are poor, the explanations vague and the whole book simply not useful for the purpose which it is meant to serve. Do not under any circumstances buy this travesty.

Like the other, I read the reveiws of the previous purchasers here and very positive to click buy right away. However, when I got the book and (excitedly) read it I didn't find any special content from another TCM diagnosis book I had. This book is just translated from the Chinese principle of diagnosis text and the language they use is very strange. The reason is that, as a TCM student, I think this book (the translator) uses different vocab from the other standard TCM Text and also there is less tongue diagnosis section which is the most important aspect of diagnosis in TCM. Even the cases they illusteate also not practical in clinic here.

The book is written narratively and has no tables or chart or any conclusion to help student or reader better understanding. Comparing with my other Chinese TCM books translated by some translaters without any praise or big name forward, they are easier to understand and have charts and necessary tables to sum up the content and help better understanding.

In a nut shell, I found this book is not worth my money eventhough I got excited when I see the foreword from a Harvard Medical school staff on the first page of this book. After I finish the book, I wonder if the one who forworded or those who wrote the 5-star review for this book probably never read any other good TCM Textbook at all.

I was hesitated to return or keep the book for few days...I decided to keep as a reference as we want to be a capable TCM practitioner, however I decided to return when I found few days later that the price dropped more than $65 when I bought. I paid more than $150 ... Just have to be careful before buying anything next time.

Okay, well, I am not alone in my assesment of this book. This book creeps along at an alarmingly slow pace, and the Chinese to English translation leaves me thinking that... well, something may have been lost in translation. They use some English words in a rather arcane way, and you have to stop, think, decode, and move on to the next sentence. Definitely not my first choice--I think this up there with my assesment of CAM.

When this book first came out, it filled a definite deficiency of English language texts about TCM diagnostics. While it is an excellent text, if one has to choose to buy only one text on diagnosis in TCM (Traditional Chinese Medicine), I would highly recommend Giovanni Maciocia's Diagnosis In Chinese Medicine. That text is much more comprehensive and immensely more practical. That aside, Tie-Tao Deng's book is still a valuable item in my TCM library.

As a practicing acupuncturist of 12 years and teacher of this artful medicine, I found this book invaluable for both practioners and students of TCM. The wealth of information on examination methods(i.e.: tongue,pulse,abdomen,almost every aspect of facial diagnosis), 10 questions, and more was impressive! The author gives more than enough information to discern what pattern(s)are present and how to differentiate your diagnosis as well as how to write a report(listing helpful examples for the student or beginning practioner.) It was written in a very readable format and very interesting. Thanks to the author for compiling such a helpful text. I'm recommending it to all my students!

In my opinion, this is the single best book currently available on Chinese medical diagnostics. I think it is far better than Giovanni Maciocia's book on the same subject. Deng Tie-tao is an incontrovertible master of the art, and this book is considered a standard in the PRC. This is the real deal.

Having written about the history of Thoroughbred racing all my life, I looked forward to this book. What a disappointment and an embarrassment. My criticisms and errata would take weeks to write, but I'll keep it simple.

1) The writing is pedestrian. I kept looking to see if this book was written for children, or the authors had previously written childrens' books. Why do people who don't know the English language think they can write, and why do publishers publish them?

2) The authors were lazy, often resorting to simply using initials for the first names of people. In newspapers and magazines in the 1800's and early 1900's, it was often style to simply use an initial rather than a person's full first name. Believe me, it takes a lot of research to find the first names of some trainers and jockeys, but it makes the material more accurate and informative.

3) If you're using this book for historical research, be really careful. Double check everything with another source. This book is loaded with factual errors, some of them as simple as "Judge Himes won by a nose." (Page 99). The chart on the facing page (Page 98) clearly shows that Judge Himes won by 3/4 length. If you know anything about racing, there is a huge difference between a nose and a 3/4 length. Such simple errors abound in this book.

Simply unbelievable.

If you love the ponies, and if you get caught up in the all day pagentry of the Derby, then this book is a must have. It's history, traditions, human/equine stories and really just a labor of love on the part of the authors for one of the greatest horse races ever. It's a great read, and if you have been watching the Derby for years it will bring back some memories of the people and the horses.

This book has everything you would need to know about Horse Racing. It has all the charts of the Horses Family tree, all the charts of the horse that won the Derby. Plus Great Story's of each horse. Its a Wonderful book for who loves horse racing. You can learn on how to bet on a horse, by checking out there family tree. *Note* you can check out Barbaro's Parents family tree a long line of winners.

This Book is a 10 Star.

Chrispy

I'll give this two stars for the concrete information it presents, with racing charts, horse statistics and photographs of every winner, even in the early days. But this is one of the most poorly-written books I have ever read; there are times when it seems more like a grade school English assignment than a published reference book.

Sentence structure is frequently awkward, confusing, or hard to follow; comments that the authors seem to find cute are ridiculously infantile (do they really need to describe a poor field as running the "Palookaville Memorial"?); black stablehands are Stepinfetchit cartoon characters; and well-known racing facts are disregarded, replaced with incorrect assumptions.

The individual race recaps are sometimes neat and concise, but more often than not, they ramble into silliness (there's a comment that famous horse thief Pancho Villa, visiting the Derby, never finds out where the winner retired two years later, as if we expected he'd track him down), or miss key information that readers would be more likely to find of interest. Why not mention also-rans that later gained fame, or a horse's effect on the sport, for example? Go to 1930, and you'd never know Gallant Fox won the Triple Crown; go to 1964, and there's no mention of Northern Dancer's breeding legacy. And if you start a drinking game for every time you read the phrases "as it were" or "as they say", you'll be drunk long before you get to Swaps and Nashua - and that famous rivalry isn't even mentioned.

This could have been a triumph of historical data, brought to life with a deft hand; instead, it reads as if two people, with almost no knowledge of the rich history of horse racing, sat down with racing charts and newspaper articles, and tried to make a story of them. Beautifully bound and illustrated, this volume is ultimately a horrible disappointment.

Pamela K. Brodowsky, author of "Poker with the Girls: How to Deal the Perfect Poker Party" and Tom Philbin, author of "How to Hire a Home Improvement Contractor without Getting Chiseled" have banded together to write "Two Minutes to Glory" which purports to be `The Official History of the Kentucky Derby,' in cooperation with Churchill Downs, Inc.

The reason I say `purports to be' is that this book is filled with mistakes. I finally started marking them with green sticky notes about three-quarters of the way through, and by the time I was finished, "Two Minutes to Glory" bristled like a pea-green porcupine.

Just to name a few:

* Ruffian was never elected `Horse of the Year' (even though she should have been). Nor did she die on the track. I still remember listening to the radio late into the night after her match race with Foolish Pleasure to see if she survived her surgery.

* Seattle Slew's jockey was named Jean Cruguet not `Jan Cruguet.'

* When Spectacular Bid went to post in the 1979 Derby, he had not won all ten of his previous races. He was unplaced in the Tyro (08/02/78) and second in the Dover (08/20/78).

* Arthur Hancock III owns Stone Farm, not Stoner Farm

* Mrs. Frances Genter didn't die `before the next Derby' after Unbridled won for her in 1990. She died in November, 1992. Nor did she sit `in a wheelchair near the railing' when trainer Carl Nafzger announced the race for her. She was standing next to him in the grandstand.

* When speaking of Smarty Jones, the authors state that "he is related to Triple Crown winners Funny Cide, Afleet Alex, Fusaichi Pegasus, Foolish Pleasure, Secretariat, Count Fleet, Northern Dancer, and Man `o War..." Evidently there have been 17 Triple Crown winners, not just 11.

The writing style is breezy, although sometimes my attention was caught by the weird English rather than the story. Why did the authors keep calling Mrs. Penny Chenery `the lady with the iron stomach'? What is a `ganglia of horses'?

"Two Minutes to Glory" was fun to read but Churchill Downs, Inc. should have edited its text before letting the authors call it "The Official History of the Kentucky Derby."

Jim Bolus's "Run for the Roses" is a more accurate history of America's greatest Thoroughbred race, although it was published back in 1974. Another good book on the subject is "The Most Glorious Crown" by Marvin Drager, which tells the stories of America's 11 (not 17!) Triple Crown winners (be sure to get the version with the DVD "Win, Place, Show").