University of Missouri Books

I have always been interested in the Second World War and especially the little known battles and actions of that war.
Lately; I have delved into the Italian part in this conflict and the tragic consequences to their brave soldiers.
"Few Returned", gives you a first hand glimpse of what it was like for man, pack animals and equipment, fighting and struggling to survive on the Eastern Front.
You will wonder how anyone returned from that winter retreat.
The author Eugenio Corti also gives the reader a good feel for the national differences between the Italians, Germans and Russians.
Combat is sporadic throughout the retreat, but again Corti gives you a good feel of how it was for all sides.

Corti who was a twenty-one year old artillery officer on the Stalingrad front, was part of the Eighth Italian Army that was cut off when Zhukov sent in the pincers that surrounded the Sixth German Army. His group was in a pocket northeast of Stalingrad that was made up of Italian and German soldiers.

Out of the 30 thousand Italians who held the front at the Don north of Stalingrad, less than four thousand made it out of the pocket and up to one thousand of those died from their wounds and exposure. Corti doesn't pull any punches as to what happened in the pocket or who was to blame.

Many of the Italians had just come to the front over the last two weeks. They were totally unprepared for what was going to become a retreat over one hundred kilometers while constantly under Russian fire. They had to walk most of the way in inadequate uniforms and boots while the Germans requestioned horse and mules and sleds for their own use.

Corti speaks of how the Germans were much better organized and kept their military lines-or-command intact, whereas the Italians in many cases became a mob without any reason or understanding of the situation. At times no one was in charge of taking care of the wounded or giving out provisions. While the German Luftwaffe dropped food and ammunition by parachute, the Italian Air Force was conspicuous by their absence.

The story is straight forward and brutal. Corti does not try to make excuses for anyone (including himself) in the treatment of fellow soldiers or of civilians. It was survive at any cost.

Zeb Kantrowitz

Above all, this book is a record of one man's experience as an Italian soldier fighting on the Eastern Front during World War II against Russia. More specifically, it is about a few horrible weeks of fighting and retreating. It is *not* a story or novel, really, but almost like an after action report. The book contains the author's feelings and some of what he saw, but you get the distinct sense while reading this book that he wrote it as a record of what he saw and did, and as an homage to his friends who never made it out of Russia, but not as an attempt to write a story. The author never really tries tying the events into a broader context or explaining the full experiences he had on the Eastern front; it is just a snap shot of a limited time frame, and only limited snapshots even within that time frame.

This book is not a blow by blow recitation of combat. While the author is clearly involved in a number of intense fights, both before and during the period covered in the book, we never really hear about it. It's almost as if he is trying NOT to make this a book about combat. If there is an engagement we hear of the troops forming up for it, a sentence or two about the fight, and then more pages about the aftermath - the wounds, the dead.

The most insightful and remarkable aspects of this book to me are: 1) the ability of the author to show us the horrors of war; 2) the brutality on both sides; and 3) how horrible the Nazis were even to their allies. I take each in turn.

1) This book makes very clear how much human suffering war brings with it. Through its dry, almost camera-like recitation of horror after horror (friends freezing to death in front of him, morter shells cutting people in two) we can almost imagine what it must be like to be walking through a combat zone strewn with bodies and wounded men and animals. We also see how war turns honorable, good men into self-interested beings centered only on survival. The author, for example, is clearly a brave, honorable, educated man and officer. We watch as his pride in being an officer and an Italian soldier slowly gives way to self-survival. We also watch as this man with deep loyalty to his unit and his friends gives way (as we all would, I'm sure) to self-interest. Fascinating.

2) Suffice it to say that the book makes clear how brutal all sides were in this war: Soviets and Nazis alike commit brutal, heartless acts.

3) The savagery and callousness of the Nazis towards their allies is stunning. While paying homage to the combat skills of the Nazis, the author shows clearly how the Nazies treated the Italians serving and dying in their cause only slightly better than their hated enemy the Soviets. For example, we read of a time when, during the retreat, the Nazis held up thousands of Italians, subjecting them to withering small arms and artillery fire from the Russians for hours, in order to clear mud off of German trucks. We see how Nazis failed to share food, information or shelter with their "allies." We see Germans shooting at wounded Italians (their allies, remember!) who dared to try and get a ride on a German vehicle.

This book is somewhat dry, somewhat repetititious, but worth a read for those wanting a sense of what the winter retreat was like for an Italian soldier serving in WW2's horribly grueling East Front.

This book is different from others in that it does not glorify War,it does not tend to over exaggerate what happened in battle, it does'nt even try to blow up the truth with nonsensical war heroics recounted ( like many german or British books, dare I say).
Its a straight forward recount in diary form of how onw Italian officer and his brave troops dared all to fight back the Russians, the bitter cold and the odds of making it back on foot without decent rations , heavyweapons or transportation which were rendered useless in battle or just plainly nevr had their ammo resupplied by the faster retreating better equiped self serving Nazis.
It si common for the uneducated armchair historian or plainly ignorant war hobbyist to brand the Italians as cowards, however when one delves deeper into the actualities of WW2 and gets to the events as they really happened unaltered by propaganda and rascist reporting then we really see that the Italians which were up against it from the start, put in as brave a performance as any fighting man could and beyond that in many a case.

I recommend this book to all for the honesty and open portrayal of the horrors of War and the true nature of men when faced with the harshness and desperation of survival.
Its not a novel as anyone who's half literate can plainly see, but a diary of man brave man and his troops that fought their way thru the russians, the elements and evn the Nazis cruelty to survive!
Enjoy the read! A must have for the war historian at heart.

.. I think that one of the "soldier view" of the whole Eastern Front history from axis side is "The Sergeant In The Snow" by Mario Rigoni Stern.

I hated the author's neverending whining through out this book. I only finished reading this book because I had already started it. He incessant selfishness makes me question why she was given the blessing of a precious baby girl from China. This book is not really about adoption but how the writer has been wronged through out her life. I really don't know why she titled the book "Meeting Sophie" because the book is not about her daughter but about listening to her about her misfortunes in life. I don't reccomend this book because you will just be irritated by her whining about her life.

I think that Nancy McCabe's memoir is so good that I order it for my students at the college where I teach as part of the required reading material in my literature class on cultural identity. I first picked it up a few years ago when I was reading everything I could get my hands on about Chinese adoptions before my husband and I adopted our daughter from China. However, I was pleasantly surprised to find that this is a memoir about much more than international adoption. McCabe is writing about identity within the family, the myths that parents and other members of a family often create about one another, and the struggle of finding one's identity especially as a girl in America. I think that in many ways the book shows how much all women--in America, China, etc.--have in common when it comes to the dilemma of needing to be an individual yet wanting to be accepted. I think that the subtitle of this book (A Memoir of Adoption) needs to be omitted or changed and that the book needs to be marketed as a memoir about cultural identity, parenting, and self-discovery--as well as adoption.

I would recommend this book to any single person considering overseas adoption. It was easy to read and enjoyable but I found the author had some strange views. It was almost like she was very unprepared for motherhood and had some family issues of her own to deal with already.
It wasn't my favourite adoption book but I did enjoy it. To be honest, it made me feel a whole lot better about my own situation!

Although I completed reading this book from the first page to the last, I only did so because I thought for sure the author was going to have some big time, life changing, realization at the end of her story. Her tone throughout the book is negative. She talks often about her own childhood issues, employment issues, and doubts about the adoption (which we all have, but hers seemed unfair to her future daughter). I found myself thinking, "We all have problems in our life, suck it up" and "how is her daughter going to feel when she reads this as an adult?" I don't think this is an appropriate book to read if you are looking for information about the process of adoption (I don't think the author meant this book to be about the process anyway) or if you are looking for inspiring adoption stories. If you are, however, looking for the story of a single mother who feels mistreated by everyone (her family, her coworkers, society, other adoptive parents) then this book might be for you. I found that even the writing of this book made me wonder what her editor was thinking. She uses one or two metaphors a couple times throughout. At least, enough for me to realize that I had read that same line earlier in the book.

I can relate to McCabe on a number of levels. Far from expecting a dry "here's the adoption process" sort of missive, I was quite glad to hear McCabe's emotional thoughts as she pursued bringing her daughter home from China.

Ms. McCabe happens to be a single woman with a Ph.D. and a job in academia. I've begun my own doctoral studies this fall, and my husband and I are also considering adopting from China. If the adoption goes through, I'll be close to the end of my program before we travel to China. I don't think there will be a conflict, as I want to keep my hours minimal and flexible (and plan to coordinate with my advisors well in advance of any interruption of my studies), but I wonder what others will think about my priorities.

Nancy McCabe had this problem; she was denied tenure during her adoption pursuit. She found a job at another university, but sure had a stressful time of it for a while. I remember that while I pursued my Master's as a single mother, I was always telling my advisors that my family came first, and always telling my family that I needed some time to study. Neither group seemed entirely satisfied (particularly my advisors, although I made it through just fine).

I appreciate that McCabe's book addresses the issues surrounding becoming a mother (which apply to *anyone*, not just adoptive mothers), particularly mothers working in the academic world.

I could also relate to McCabe's experiences with well-meaning, well-loved parents who couldn't quite interact in ways that were completely supportive to her goals and feelings (they try, and the love is absolutely there, but they somehow manage to miss the mark). I understood the feeling of loss, both before and after her father died. I appreciated that she shared this aspect of her life, as well, as it makes the journey that much more real (life doesn't stop or become any more simple just because you're adopting a child).

Ultimately, I was very encouraged by McCabe's book, and came away thinking, "Well, if she can make it, I bet I can, too!" Thanks, Nancy.

This is a very good book about a legend of the game. It is a very good read and provides a lot of insight on how Sisler was perceived by many of his peers. My only problem with the book is the author mistakenly saying that Roberto Clemente was from the Dominican Republic. A glaring mistake like this makes me wonder what other facts might be wrong.

George Sisler, the subject of Rick Huhn's book, "The Sizzler," is yet another of the classic ballplayers of the early 20th century, admired during his career, acknowledged for his achievements during and after his career, slowly forgotten over the years and without a biography until recently. Huhn has stepped in to correct that oversight in Sisler's case, and it is a welcome addition to the baseball greats section of the library.

George Sisler, as Huhn stressed, was not a colorful player: he kept a low profile and let his playing do the talking. There were few incidents in his life where he made waves: signing a professional contract while underage, and the resulting fight for his services helping to lead to the end of the National Commission; his tenure as manager of the St. Louis Browns, his transfer to the Senators in the late 1920s; his sinus infection and the resulting difficulties with Browns management in 1923; but most importantly, his hitting and fielding with the Browns during his greatest years. His record for hits in a season was untouched for 84 years, and his two years with averages over .400 are impressive, even for the time in which he played. He finished second to Ruth in home runs one year, and his Runs Created between 1915 and 1922 surpassed Ruth by over 100. That he was not exactly the same player after sitting out 1923 is a disappointment, but he was certainly honored in his time, named by Ty Cobb in his all-time team as first baseman.

Huhn has provided us with a fine biography of a deserving player, a stand-out performer in his time, and all time.

One other thing: It has been noted that Bill James, author and Society of American Baseball Research member, wrote in his 2001 Historical Baseball Abstract that Sisler is "perhaps the most over-rated player in baseball history." (p. 441) Mr. James is entitled to his opinion; it's his book and he can interpret the statistics in any way he cares to. I've been a SABR member for over 25 years and am familiar with Mr. James' work, and it is quite safe to say that I do not agree with him a good half the time, this being one of those times. If you look back at his 1985 Historical Baseball Abstract, you'll find that he said "George Sisler is probably the only player other than Gehrig who can reasonably be considered the greatest first baseman ever in terms of peak value . . . Sisler was a different type of player, he didn't have the home run pop, but he hit for a higher average, was faster and a better defensive player than Gehrig, and the comparison between the two is not easy." (p. 346)

So what happened? Sisler's statistics didn't change in the 16 years between books; the 1920s didn't change, either. Most of the guys who seemingly leap-frogged over him in performance were done playing before 1985. Mr. James explains on page of the 2001 book that in rereading the 1985 book there are a lot of things that he didn't like. As I said, it's his book and he writes what he wants, but that doesn't mean I'm buying what he's pushing on me. In terms of perspective of the times, Sisler was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1939, in the year of the inauguration of the Hall of Fame, as was Gehrig. A number of guys who jumped ahead of him on the list of top first basemen won't get in the Hall except with a ticket. If this makes Mr. James an over-rated writer, well, I won't say that he is or isn't. But you can make up your mind whether the old Bill James is also the new Bill James, and which one you want to believe.

This last moron to post a review bashed Sisler saying that he is overrated, mostly noted because he hardly hit home runs. I didn't think one had to hit home runs in order to be a Hall of Famer. It's obvious he wasn't a slugger - but just look at this: Twice he was second in the AL in long balls and five times he was in the top 10; on six occasions he was in the top 5 in slugging percentage. Seven times he was top 10 in RBI, four times the steals champ. Let's throw in an MVP for good measure. The list goes on reflecting Sisler's above-average speed and outstanding hitting ability (over 200 hits in 6 different seasons, very easily could have been 8).

Don't allow the lack of Sisler power numbers deter you from reading this book.

I hope Huhn did not spend much time on this project.

George Sisler had a .340 career batting average, and that sounds impressive to the few baseball fans who still think batting average is a major statistic. But for the rest of us, Sisler is either--as the preeminent living baseball historian, Bill James, calls him--the most overrated player in baseball history, or, as I call him, the second most overrated player in baseball history, behind Roberto Clemente.

The two men had the same problem. They racked up very high batting averages for their eras, and thus superficially appeared to be great hitters, but they almost never walked. Thus, their career ON-BASE PERCENTAGES, of which "batting average" is but a portion, were mediocre. And neither one of them hit home runs, though Sisler was especially egregious in this respect.

He played in one of baseball's greatest launching pads ever, Sportsman's Park, where it was: 310 down the right field line, 322 to straightaway right, and 351 to deepest right center. And he played there with the super-live ball of the 1920's, before they put the screen up in that part of the park. He also got to play as a visitor in Cleveland's League Park and NY's Yankee Stadium, when they were generous to left-handed hitters, as well as nearly three full seasons as a visitor in the outrageous Baker Bowl in Philly, the century's greatest launching pad.

Do you know how many HR's the guy hit in his career? Try 102.

So this guy is not "baseball's forgotten great." This guy is deservedly forgotten, because sophisticated baseball fans have come to realize he wasn't great. All those years in Sportsman's Park, and he never once hit 20 HR's. All those gaudy batting averages, and his career on-base percentage was lower than those of Fred McGriff, Alvin Davis, Gene Tenace, Elmer Valo, Jack Clark and many scores of other guys who hit nowhere near .300, let alone .340.

Finally, I'm aware of Sisler's mid-career injury, and the huge decline in his stats which flowed from it. He was a vastly better player before that than afterward, and without it, he may have been truly great. But so what? Anyone remember Don Mattingly? I remember thinking he was going to replace Lou Gehrig as the greatest 1B of all time. And I wasn't alone. His back injury ruined him, and if he still makes the Hall, it will be only because he was a Yankee. These things happen, and they don't make Sisler something he was not. (And Sisler was just as terrible about taking walks before the injury as after.)

Next time, Mr. Huhn, write about a "forgotten great" who truly was great. This book was a waste of your time, and is a waste of any reader's time.

Jim F.

In response to "J.F. Baseball history nut, music fan", I think the point of Sisler's talent has been missed. I won't go so far as to call Mr. J.F, etc. a moron, but he has certainly missed the boat on some things.

J.F, et. al. tosses around some players who were "better" than Sisler. Let's pick one and compare their stats. How about Jack Clark? True, Sisler didn't walk very much, but he also didn't strike out very much. How many times did he strike out? Try 327 times, in approximately 8200 AB. How many times did Jack Clark strike out? Try 1441 in approximately 6800 AB. ('Nuf said.) Interestingly, Clark and Sisler have an identical OBP, of .379, and Clark has a slightly higher slugging number -- about 10 points higher. Looking at those two stats, they appear somewhat equal, but look at the hit totals: Sisler, 2812; Clark 1826. You see, Sisler wasn't "taking" walks because he was too busy actually getting hits! So, Clark has a thousand fewer hits, and struck out about a thousand more times. Even taking into consideration the ~800 more walks Clark had, I would still rather have Sisler on my team.

PLUS, Sisler scored about 100 more runs than Clark -- on fewer walks, home runs, and in fewer seasons played. This could be because Sisler also stole about 300 more bases than Clark did, or maybe that he hit about 100 more doubles than Clark. Or, maybe, that Clark was a big, dopey power hitter who could do little more than swat the ball a pretty fair distance when he was lucky enough to hit it at all. In essence, this means that while Clark had bigger power numbers, and leads Sisler in the sexy stats of modern baseball analysis, he really wasn't a better player. Not even close. To understand statistics you have to analyze things for yourself and deduce what they really mean -- don't rely on the percentage stats at the end of the row.

This is such a silly comparison, I don't even know why I'm continuing to waste my time on it. I'm not even mentioning Sisler's fielding prowess, and all the ancedotal evidence for his greatness. (Do you think the most "overrated player ever" would have been the first firstbaseman elected to the Hall of Fame? Think about it.)

I could go on, but I think I'm done.

Finally, read the book. It may not be the best piece of baseball writing ever, but don't let J.F.&Company's ridiculous critique hold you back.

Comparisions are inevitable. But that doesn't diminish the excellence of this whole-life biography by Robert Farrell. He does take a different tack. It is not quite as personal or intimate as McCollough. I might even venture that it is a bit more scholarly. David McCollough write for the masses & is the best writer/historian we have.
Farrell digresses, sometimes at length. He discusses animal husbandry & crop rotation during Truman's farm years, the economic & banking system during Harry's haberdashery years & the blizzard of agencies & crooked cronies that populated them during his second term as president.
I must confess I did read McCollough's but listened to the unabridged audio version of Farrell's book, which admittedly is easier. Still, I found McCollough's marginally more entertaining. Obviously both men liked & respected Truman. Farrell might be a little more critical. Two faults stood out to me. Truman was thin-skinned & touchy on some subjects. His bitter relationship with Eisenhower was a a good example. They both acted very immaturely for men of such stature. Farrell did not tell the story of Truman's threat to punch a reviewer in the nose for a bad review of his daughter's recital, except in passing. He had a habit of writing scathing letters to someone who displeased him, even his wife. Then he would not mail it. Some of these letters survived in his papers. He didn't have much use for Churchill until much later when both men were out of office. The other shortcomming could have been a virtue & that is loyalty which he carried to ridiculous extremes. He developed a blind spot for anyone that was ever a friend, a member of his army unit, (he was the captain), a mason (he was a past master), or was affiliated with the Pendergast machine. They all got a lifetime pass. This came back to bite him in several minor scandals & charges of cronyism in his second term. None of these dust-ups touched him, with one exception. While in the Senate he had his wife Bess on the payroll, until it was discovered. They needed the extra income. He was extremely bright & a quick study, an honest politician, with integrity & character. He revered & honored the office of the President. He separated the office from the person who happened to occupy it. Mr. Farrell brings this all up very well. He has written other books on aspects of Truman's life as well as "The Dying President, FDR" which I will check out. This work is not a second rate biography merely a close second place.

In "Harry S Truman", Robert Ferrell gives the reader an introduction to this ordinary Missourian who lived such an extraordinary life. The reader is treated to an overview of this extraordinary life from childhood through the farm, the army, courtship and marriage, fatherhood, politics and retirement. Ferrell has managed to keep the book moving apace while providing sufficient detail to satisfy the readers curiosity.

An obvious fan of Truman, Ferrell does not hide his hero's faults or short falls while discussing his accomplishments. Truman's days as County Judge and his relationship with Boss Pendergast show a man who maintained his principles while taking advantage of a few opportunities, both political and financial, which may have been a bit on the shady side. I would think that a story centered in Jackson County politics could get boring really fast, but in this book even that stays interesting. He depicts of the marriage of Bess and Harry as a true love match which overcame interference from Bess' mother and periods of separation when Harry was in Washington. His election to and service in the Senate make for an interesting prelude to the Presidency.

The White House years, naturally, get the heaviest attention. Truman's relationships with and opinions of FDR, George Marshall, Dean Atcheson, Eisenhower and MacArthur, Churchill, Nixon and others too many to mention give the book a greater breadth than is found in many biographies. The leading issues of those years, including the Atomic bomb, the end of World War II, relations with the Soviet Union, labor unrest, the economy, the Berlin Airlift, the Korean War and Sen. McCarthy are all shown from the White House perspective. The reader is given an insight into Truman's loves, likes, beliefs and hatreds. The narration of the 1948 election, both the nomination and election segments, are fascinating reading. Truman was left with plenty of scores to even, baggage which could have impaired his performance, had he allowed it.

Questions I have long entertained include "Why Truman?", "Was he better than people said?" and "How Well Did He Perform?" This book provided some answers but some questions remain unanswered. Why out of 300 Democratic governors and members of Congress did the Democratic Party select Truman for vice-president to an obviously dying FDR? That one remains a mystery. I now believe that he did a very good job for someone with his limitations, but that he was limited by his time and world view. Maybe as he said, there were a million Americans who were better qualified to be president than he was, but he had the job and did the best he could. That is the conclusion with which this book left me. Read, think about it yourself, and enjoy!

Harry did not want to be President and was not tied to corrupt political influences as President. This book misses the essence of Harry Truman badly. I suggest reading Harry's own books to understand Harry, at least this author knew Harry intimately.

This was required reading for a graduate course in American history. In this engaging biography, Robert H. Ferrell, who has authored and edited eight previous books on Truman, does an admirable job of presenting the life and presidency of Harry S. Truman. Although one can detect Ferrell's admiration for Truman, one senses from the extensive notes, bibliography, and research conducted at the Truman Library as well as his willingness to criticize Truman for his mistakes, that Ferrell has written a very balanced biography of Truman. Ferrell's book is a good introductory biography of Truman's whole life; the first eight chapters are devoted to his life prior to his ascendancy to the presidency in 1945 after the death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. One gets the sense that Truman was the last president of an earlier and simpler time in America. He was the last president who was not a college graduate nor was he well--off financially. Ferrell's biography captures the essence of what type of a man Truman was and what history and his fellow citizens perceived him as.
"A plain-speaking, straight-talking, ordinary fellow (people thought) who did what he saw as his duty without turning his obligation into opportunity for personal gain" (179). Ferrell also exposed Truman's flaws such as being overprotective and too loyal to friends that had done wrong. Often he took it as a personal affront when anyone differed with him.
Ferrell presents a few experiences from Truman's early years that formed his character. From farming, Truman gained a work ethic that served him well throughout his life. His experience as an artillery captain and battery commander during WWI was instrumental in proving to himself and others that he was a very capable and caring leader of men. This experience was instrumental in putting him on the path of a political life. His experience as a failed haberdasher and bank speculator in the 1920's caused Truman to be a fiscal conservative the rest of his life and a good steward of the government's money. In addition, he learned about and came to understand and respect ethnic minorities, such as Catholics and Jews, from his Army and haberdashery experiences. Thus, Ferrell astutely proved that understanding Truman's early life experiences are instrumental if one wants to properly analyze Truman's decision-making process in the domestic and foreign policy arena.
"The Buck Stops Here" placard on Truman's desk has become legendary in presidential history. One of his secretaries of state, Dean Acheson, admired Truman for capably understanding the complexities of a situation and his willingness to make a hard decision without vacillating. Truman was adept at gathering all of the facts in a timely manner, listening to people's opinions and turning the options over in his mind, and then when he arrived at what he thought was the correct decision, he made it and stuck to his guns. Truman wound up making many important decisions that have affected America to this day such as, using nuclear weapons against Japan to end WWII, integrating the military in 1948, recognizing the state of Israel, creating the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and involving American military forces in the Korean war.
One of the first, most momentous, and most often debated decisions that Truman had to make as President was whether to use two atomic bombs against Japan to hasten the end of WWII. Ferrell and other historians have made a very convincing argument to support Truman's decision-making process to use nuclear weapons to end the war. The Japanese military, who effectively controlled their government, were fanatics in their prosecution of the war. The Japanese people had suffered through numerous fire bombings of their cities in the months leading up to the end of the war, in which hundreds of thousands of their citizens were killed. In addition, the military had lost many battles and virtually all of its island holdings in the Pacific, and yet the government was strengthening its homeland forces and preparing for invasion instead of seriously considering surrender. Ferrell, relying on information gathered by Edward J. Drea, who wrote about the American military intelligence estimate gathered in July of 1945 mainly through the deciphering of Japanese radio traffic, showed that up to 600,000 Japanese were being prepared to fight in the event of an American invasion. Even this estimate turned out to be too low, since after the war American intelligence learned that the Japanese actually had some 900,000 prepared to fight against the invasion. American military estimates of the cost of life in the event of an invasion of the Japanese home islands were at best sketchy, and many historians who have written against the use of atomic weapons have used the unreliability of the estimates as one of their examples why Truman was wrong to use the nuclear option. However, Thomas B. Allen and Norman Polmar in their book, Codename Downfall, which detailed the plan to invade Japan, wrote that Truman was presented with an estimate that showed that there could be 238,000 American casualties and possibly the same number of Japanese casualties. This information coupled with the very real evidence of how tenaciously the Japanese people had fought was no myth, and convinced Truman that dropping the bombs on Japan to end the war was the right decision. One only had to look at the horrific casualty figures for American battles on Iwo Jima and Okinawa to name a few in order to understand just how fiercely the Japanese were capable of fighting. Ferrell aptly showed that Truman's decision has come under criticism throughout the years partly because of how he had stridently defended it and was so dismissive of the critics of his decision. "The president's critics, one suspects, were ready to accuse him because they did not admire other things he did or approved. They were critical because of his well-known decisiveness, which sometimes seemed offhanded" (214).
Truman, almost by necessity and circumstance, was forced to alter America's foreign policy of isolationism to one of internationalism. Truman realized the Korean War left him in a predicament. If he did not defend South Korea in the wake of North Korea's attack, he then would acquiescence to the Communist North Koreans, and ultimately the Russians. By not defending South Korea, American prestige in Asia and the world would undoubtedly would be tarnished. Yet, if he did attack, he risked a world war with the Chinese and the Russians, and ultimately a nuclear war. In light of the Truman doctrine, and America's stance on communism, Truman decided to defend South Korea. It was a widely unpopular war, which ended in a stalemate. Yet, Ferrell entertains a notion that America did not become the world superpower after WW II, but rather during the Korean War because America intervened to defend a non-communist nation, in essence, America became the police and protection force for weaker non-communist countries in the face of communist aggression. Many historians would agree that the year 1945 and the history after irreversibly changed the world. The cold war, America's role in world affairs, and the question of nuclear weapons all contributed.
Truman initially set about reorganizing the bureaucracy, conducting a complete overhaul of cabinet and staff. In addition to creating the Budget Bureau and the National Security Council, he created the Council of Economic Advisers, which he staffed it with both conservatives and liberals and regarded it as an advisory committee. Ferrell positively describes Truman's intellect, honesty, and integrity throughout the book but one of the places where it shines most brightly is in his civil rights efforts, which is rarely given the credit it deserves in historical accounts. Ferrell examines possible reasons behind Truman's change of heart on civil rights and concludes that much of his perspective came from his principled sense of fairness and his belief that the duty of the office of the President was to represent all Americans. The Truman-appointed Civil Rights Commission presented a frank report, entitled To Secure These Rights, with a ten-point agenda of civil rights reforms. Lacking congressional support, he turned to the power of executive orders to start the desegregation of the armed forces.
His second administration was marred by scandals, including the Hoey Investigation, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, and the Bureau of Internal Revenue illegal activity, for which the president was criticized for failing to take appropriate action. Another one of Truman's domestic challenges, which cost him politically, was labor strikes. To avoid a steelworker strike, Truman invoked what he believed to be the inherent powers of the president to seize control of the mills and was rebuffed by the Supreme Court. As the 1952 election loomed, Truman bristled that the emerging Democratic candidate, Adlai Stevenson, was distancing himself from Truman's administration. Although they reconciled and Truman even assisted with campaign speeches, it was to little avail. Eisenhower won 55 percent of the popular vote and Truman finished out his lame duck presidency.
In his post-presidency years, Truman returned to Independence and his quiet life. He solicited donations to build a presidential library, which he donated to the federal government, a convention which later presidents have followed. Likewise, he refused endorsements and placement in corporate payrolls because he believed that accepting financial opportunities would diminish the integrity of the office of President. As a result, Harry and Bess Truman lived out the remainder of their lives without the safety of financial savings. He established a precise daily routine at his library, which included writing copious amount of letters and receiving many visitors. Ever the politician, he remained connected with Washington life and accepted invitations to the White House in both the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations. In his final years, bothered with health problems, he took refuge in music and books. He died the day after Christmas, 1972 and was buried at his presidential library in Independence, with all the pomp and circumstance fitting a former President.

Thus, Ferrell does a very convincing job of making one believe just how important and interesting it is to study Truman, especially since he was so very different from the presidents who had come before and after him.
Recommended reading for anyone interested in American history, foreign policy, Cold War history.

Poor Ferrell. Did anyone realize there was a second scholarly biography of Truman published in the 90s? Ferrell presents a different Harry Truman than David McCullough. His Truman is less romantic and less the accidental president. Where McCullough seems to put Truman on a pedestal, Ferrell presents a more realistic view. McCullough captures much of Truman's day-to-day thoughts and actions through his letters to Bess and Margaret, which obviously provides much greater insight into the President's personality, while Ferrell captured them through the comments and diaries of staff and contemporaries. While still portraying him as an honest and very capable (and underrated) president, he does not shy away from discussing his missteps and weaknesses.

I think a perfect example of the juxtaposition of the two authors is how each describes how the Marshall Plan got its name. McCullough says Truman wanted to give General Marshall credit for his ideas; Ferrell says Truman knew a bill called the "Truman Plan" would never make it past the Republicans in Congress. Both statements are probably true, but each author has a different emphasis.

Ferrell provides good analysis on world and national events happening around Truman with some interesting digressions and observations, such as with Stalin, Korea and its aftermath, McArthur, etc.. In fact, it becomes more of a history book than a biography of Truman. Because of this emphasis, the reader does not discover the real Truman, what drove him, his intimate thoughts and fears, etc. Bess, Margaret, and Mama Truman are bit players in this bio, although there were core to Truman.

Truman's 1948 election win was indeed result of a miraculous 11th hour great burst of energy by the incumbent president, but Ferrell does not shrink from showing Truman as the typical politician, slinging a little mud and showing partisanship against the 80th Congress, which he lambasted publicly and complemented privately (they passed the "Truman doctrine" and were as good with New Deal legislation as their predecessors and successors).

Despite his reserved countenance and mousy presentation, Truman was his own man. He stood up to Pendergast, FDR, labor, big business, domineering cabinet members, and McArthur. He was the true moderate ... while busting the miners and railroad union strikes, threatening to draft them to stop the strike, he also fought "Big Steel" and vetoed Taft-Hartley. Ferrell sets straight Truman's record on civil rights giving it the credit it never really received. Truman was the true vote-your-conscience legislator. Ferrell closes with the last couple of years of the second administration, which were ripe with scandal, although not the result of improprieties from Truman himself.

If one can only read one Truman bio (and has the time to digest), read McCullough's tome. That author obviously reveres Truman, but is still a balanced account, and is more comprehensive and personal. That recommendation does not, however, discredit Ferrell, especially if one is more interested in the United States under Harry Truman than Truman the man.

While Meyer has conducted many studies, this book remains unengaging and void of useful evaluation. Kovach and Resenstiel's "Elements of Journalism" offers more insight to emerging journalists about the state of the profession of journalism. Meyer's book has more to do with the theory of social science studies than journalism. Meyer took 250 pages to say what could have been said in one chapter or one magazine article.

Here's a book that should be must reading for any journalist who hopes to stay in the business beyond his or her next annual review.

The book is impelled by the shrinking news hole that besets newspapers and broadcast journalism alike, and by evidence that investors actually punish news media that pay for quality work. Seeking a remedy, Meyer tests the claim that quality journalism actually pays off on the bottom line.

He concedes that he hasn't found the proof he sought, but he does find hopeful indicators for all of us who believe in journalism as a bulwark of democracy. His final chapter is a call to individual and collective action by the entire journalistic community.

You should give this book to anyone considering a career in newspaper journalism. If the person still decides to go into journalism, you know he or she is dedicated and belongs in the business!

With both anecdotes and detailed numbers and charts, Meyer describes the 'harvesting' of media properties in the 80's, 90's and beyond. Just as a landowner can harvest trees that have grown over many years, a publisher can pull out greater profits by reducing the expenses that produced quality and reputation over many years (like reducing the number and quality of reporters and editors).

Thus, this book is the equivalent of a VH1 'behind the scenes' docudrama explaining in painful detail the travesties we all saw in 80's and 90's newspaper management. Just as the rock band members look like heck by the end of an episode, newspapers are showing the effects of abusing their bodies. A carefully explained survey and analysis show that as many as three out of five newspaper stories are inaccurate in one form or another (Meyer's descriptions of this whole subject are considerably nuanced and a joy for anyone who has tried to quantify newspaper accuracy).

Much of the talk about journalism, quality and respect has been very fuzzy. We used to say stories were 'good' or 'bad' based on whatever was the criteria of the biggest editor in the room. We had no idea where individual stories or overall patterns of story quality fit into the newspaper's future. Meyer has detailed chapters quantifying whatever can be established about the role of profit and accuracy, profit and and credibility, and profit and the role of the various kinds of editors. To give just one example of the helpful level of detail in the book, Meyer writes that trouble may ensue once copy editors manage more than 14 stories a shift. That and other statistics will be useful for anyone who wants to manage for quality and growth.

The good news is that there is at least some connection between quality and profit. As just one example, an analysis in the book shows that for every percentage point of gain of credibility in the community, newspapers seem to command 2.5 percent more in their asking price for advertising.

That sort of thing matters because newspapers compete with targeted advertising vehicles like Google and blogs and standalone classified advertising sites. For most people, the newspaper is more portable; but that's a temporary advantage. Long term, what will distinguish papers from other advertising vehicles is the public's belief that newspapers are a more useful place to spend attention. Meyer's thesis is that newspapers must embrace this thirst for credible information. Newspapers must manage for both credibility AND for profit.

But keeping newspapers afloat with any sort of quality will be difficult. When everyone seems to focus on quarterly earnings reports, it's not easy to manage with long-term quality AND profitability in mind. So that's why I suggest giving this book to someone contemplating a future in journalism. Perhaps this book will prove to be as true about the future as it is true about the past. If so, the young journalist can go into work with eyes open and brain brightly illuminated.

This book is a unique and excellent work attempting to statistically discover relationships between newspaper characteristics, newspaper circulations (and changes thereto), and communities. The newspaper industry was behind other U.S. companies that directly serve consumers for decades in conducting rigorous research. Now, with scholars like Phil Meyer and organizations such as the Newspaper Management Center at Northwestern U., the newspaper industry might finally find out what it needs to know to survive--as long as it is not already too late.
As for the other reviewer's charge that Phil wants papers to become more liberal, the reviewer has had to stretch to find what he found and then takes it out of context. The entire claim that newspapers are liberally biased is nonsense; in 23 out of 25 presidential elections in the 20th century, the majority of U.S. newspapers endorsed the Republican candidate for president. That is a fact. Check it yourself. Daily news coverage is heavily biased toward the status quo, whatever it might be, as reporters interview governors, senators, CEOs, etc.; they rarely interview union presidents and almost never interview true leftists, while constantly interviewing extreme right-wingers. The "liberal bias" charge is manufactured by the right-wing to try to make much of U.S. news media--which overwhelmingly is conventional, traditional, slowly changing--as reactionary and regressive as those making the charge.

Mr. Meyer's bok includes much valuable information and statistics concerning the newspaper industry. However, having spent most of his life in the industry and in academia teaching about the industry, he may be too immersed in the culture to realize what is the industry's major problem, i.e., liberal bias.

On page 71 Meyer lets the cat out of the bag. According to the editor of the Grand Folks Herald, his newspaper's credibility amongst its readers dropped after the paper had endorsed a proposal to drop "Fighting Sioux" as the nickname of the University of North Dakota. Meyer concludes, "It was a classic example of a newspaper's being a bit ahead of its community."

Meyer also writes, "In Wichita, the Eagle had been a step ahead of its highly conservative community in the 1990s with its aggressive reporting of controversial issues inclusing the death penalty and abortion. That cost it some credibility, but it was only a temporary cost."

Note that Meyer equates a newspaper's liberalism with being ahead of its community. Mr. Meyer may have missed this, but conservatives won control of Congress in 1994 and we elected a conservative president in 2000 and 2004. A Democrat won the presidency in 1992 and 1996 after convincing enough voters that he actually was a "New Democrat" (i.e., not a liberal one).

In my opinion, newspapers' household penetration rates are dramatically falling because thet are behind the times--they simply haven't accepted the fact that reporting with a liberal bias turns off many of their readers. The same phenomenom has occurred with cable television, where the overhwhelming liberal CNN and MSNBC have ratings far below Fox News, which offers a much more balanced presentation of the news.

In Lawrence, Kan., we have a daily newspaper that has won national praise. However, its editorial page is dominated by liberal columnists and cartoonists. Lawrence is the county seat of Douglas County, which voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, and the Journal-World may be trying to cater to that population. However, it seems to ignore the fact that the number of voters in Douglas County who voted for Bush in 2004 surpasses the Journal-World's total circulation by about 2,000. The Journal-World's look has improved considerably since 1980. However, its household penetration rate in the market has dropped from 63 percent to 33 percent during the past 25 years. I have to think that many conservatives have simply decided to get their news elsewhere.

Mr. Meyer has done an excellent job of identifying the problems with daily newspapers. However, I think its going to take someone like a Robert Ailes (who referenced "The Vanishing Newspaper" in a recent speech) to offer a prescription that will get people back to the newspaper-reading habit.

I love a book that can pull you into it. This ones certainly does. It's been several years since I toured the battlefield at Wilson's Creek, but Piston and Hatcher do an excellent job in bringing out map details and troop movements that it felt like I was on the battlefield again but this time feeling the intense battle struggle between the two sides. The details on each regiment that fought at Wilson's Creek, North and South, was excellent.

i found this book to be a struggle to read.It is painfully obvious that the authors have attempted to build a minor engagement into something just short of Bull Run and/orGettysburg. They try hard but in my opinion they do noy carry it off.

Piston and Hatcher have produced an excellently detailed overview of the events and participants in the battle and over the surrounding region during the summer of 1861. By beginning with unit histories of the various units engaged, the reader gains a sense of identity with the men who fought and died there. The method itself is excellent, but would be difficult to apply to later engagements in the war. The central argument, that Civil War soldiers were motivated by strong allegiances to their home communities, is well substantiated, but may also be useful only for engagements at the outset of the war. Other authors have successfully shown that this motivation waned, and that national ideology and identity with the adopted community, the unit, sustained men later in the war. The book's major fault is an unbalanced interpretation of events, especially when the leaders of both forces are concerned. Lyon is labeled a madman and Sigel is portrayed as grossly incompetent, while southern commanders are lionized and noticeably escape criticism. The author's assertion that the Missouri State Guard somehow represents a lawful military force evaporates when that same force, guaranteed under the Constitution, raises arms against federal authorities charged with protection of that same Constitution. Overall, the work is excellently researched, especially from local sources, and improved my comprehension of the tragic confrontation.

I can honestly say that i was suprised at the quality of this book. It is the most well written & accurate account of the events leading up to and including the battle of Wilsons Creek that i have ever read.

The preface notes "....Wilson's Creek, occurring twenty days after the fighting at Manassas, was the second battle of the Civil War." Nevertheless, as the text observes "Wilson's Creek remains perhaps the least studied major battle of the war."

At the beginning of the Civil War, Missouri was a divided state with a largely pro-Union population; however, there was a significant minority favoring secession also the Governor was pro-secession. The first third of the text covers how both Northern and Southern factions in Missouri and neighboring states recruited and built military units. While Northerners and Southerners had differing motivations for going to war, they were remarkably similar in their commitments as "community pride ran high" and the army volunteer's reputations would become the home folks reputations as well. The volunteers made an unwritten social contract with their communities. These military units had strong community identification so that in their home-towns companies were known by their local designations, for example as Pelican Rifles, in preference to regimental designations such as 3rd Louisiana Company C.

A well researched text covers the efforts of the Northerners and Southerners in Missouri and adjacent states to recruit, equip and train volunteer armies after Fort Sumter was fired on. When Union Captain Nathaniel Lyon was transferred to St. Louis, he began a crusade to rid the state of secessionists thereby further polarizing the state. When Lyon was promoted to brigadier general in sole control of Federal fortunes in Missouri, he began organizing a Federal, but unauthorized, volunteer army. Lyon's attitude and prior experiences directly shaped his conduct in St. Louis, setting in motion a train of events that led to Wilson's Creek. Encouraged by the Governor, the secessionists redoubled their efforts to raise resisting units. The book gives considerable information on the composition of these military units, both Northern and Southern, with brief biographical notes on several of their officers and men.

When Southern General Ben McCulloch learned that Union General Lyon had essentially declared war on Missouri, he immediately began shifting as many troops as possible to southwest Missouri. General Lyon moved to secure northern and central Missouri for the Union and then moved to confront the secessionist armies moving into southwest Missouri. "By mid-July the forces that would fight the second battle of the Civil War were largely in place." The Southern army under McCulloch planned to attack Springfield on August 10, 1861 but rain delayed their departure from the Wilson Creek area. Early on August 10, before McCulloch attacked Springfield, Union General Lyon launched an attack, the final phase of Lyon's "punitive crusade," against Confederate General McCulloch. Lyon thought of himself as anointed to punish the secessionists. Rather than attacking down the road leading to the Southern army, he accepted Union General Sigel proposal that the army be divided with Sigel attacking the Southerners from the rear while Lyon attacked their left flank.

General Lyon attacked shortly after 05:00 A.M. on August 10 in an area later known as Bloody Hill while at 05:30 A.M. Sigel launched what "for its modest size, one of the most effective long range bombardments of the Civil War." The text provides a concise and interesting narrative of the fierce fighting on Bloody Hill and of Sigel's action south of the Southerners. After Sigel was routed, he returned to Springfield. General Lyon was killed during the fighting on Bloody Hill and became one of the war's first martyrs. Command of the Union Army then devolved upon the senior Regular army officer Captain Samuel D. Sturgis. With Union General Sigel routed, ammunition running low, heavy causalities, and the Southerners massing for yet another bloody assault the only logical recourse was to retreat. Therefore, Sturgis and his troops after seven hours of combat, retreated and returned to Springfield arriving around 05:00 P.M.

The book gives an interesting narrative about the level of medical care available to the combatants with graphic descriptions of the conditions in Springfield when the defeated army returned. The authors note "Compared to later Civil War battles, the number of men engaged at Wilson's Creek and the casualties suffered there were modest." However, "....both in total numbers and as a percentage of the force engaged, Lyon's losses were greater than those of any battle in the Mexican War."

As to be expected, early reports of the battle's results were misleading indicating a Northern victory; however, as later information was received a Southern victory was shown. For the combatants on both sides, it was clear that the men had fulfilled their social contract with their communities. Hometown newspapers were quick to proclaim that their community's honor had been upheld and the men were given a heroes welcome upon their return. The authors wrote "All of the men who fought at Wilson's Creek received accolades from their home communities...." In addition, "almost two dozen veterans of Wilson's Creek achieved the rank of general in either the Southern or Northern army."

The book ends noting "The surviving participants of the war shared a heritage of honor regardless of whether they had served in the Federal or Confederate armies." However, for those who had deserted "Having broken the social contract between the community and its soldiers, having disgraced their town, their sins could never be forgotten."

In part, the text does not flow smoothly and in places it is jumbled and run together. However, this book will be of interest to both the serious and occasional reader of Civil War history.

I have read this book several times over the years and am doing so again at the present time. I have always wondered if the author is Mormon or not. The treatment is balanced and factual as far as I know and I have never been able to detect a bais in the author either for or against Mormonism. I was priviledged to live in the Kansas City area for about 3 years in the 1990-93 time frame and used this book as my reference in visiting all of the sites that were involved in the war and are discussed in the book. It was very helpful to me in this study and I recommend it to others.

Lesueur gives a fair account of Mormon history in this text. He gives the "historian's" veiw on this subject; very fair and impartial. He is not Mormon or anti-Mormon, just an historian that gives facts supporting both sides of the equation. I am an ex-Mormon who's family has deep ties with the early days of The Latter Day Saints. Most of my family are still Mormons today who are happy in their beliefs. I do not seek to change their beliefs just my own.

I am an active member and priesthood holder in the LDS Church. I'm electing to remain anonymous on this review as I don't want the grief that oftimes comes with supporting unpopular historical perspectives.

The review written by Lindsay below is a significant distortion of LeSueur's book. The author does not portray the Missourians as peaceful and the Mormons as troublemakers, rather it gives a very balanced view that shows while the Missouri pioneers were easily stirred to violence, that the situation could have been much more peaceful if the Mormons had not engaged in several destabilizing activities.

The book is very well written and steps one through the events that led up to the Mormon expulsion from Missouri. Along the way we are exposed to the perspectives of believing Mormons who tried to head things off and impart some sanity to the situation. Members who later were used as scapegoats by Mormon authorities, in order to somehow justify how things could have gone so badly for inspired leaders.

The Mormons did suffer terribly and deserved far better protection from government officials. However the later histories written of these events were understandably tainted by the anger of those writting them. These histories have been perserved within the LDS Church to this day as being accurate.

If one is interested in knowing more about this period, then I recommend this book highly as the single best reference available. LeSueur, who once worked as a historian at Brigham Young University, uses both Mormon and non-Mormon sources, balancing them nicely. This book received several positive reviews from both Mormon and professional historical societies.

LeSueur's book is well written and provides much documentation, but LeSueur has an axe to grind. In this book, he suggests that the Missourians were fairly good-natured and that the Mormons were the ones most responsible for the escalation in mob violence against the Mormons and for the ensuing "Mormon War." This depiction is only possible by ignoring the history of the Saints in Missouri prior from 1831 to 1837, a period which receives about two paragraphs of treatment. But failure to understand prior persecution and expulsion from other counties in Missouri makes it impossible to properly understand the replaying of those events in Caldwell County in 1838. The Saints had already been through the cycle of persecution, appeal to apathetic state leaders, escalated violence by mobs, taking of arms in self defense, indignant cries of "insurrection," followed by government action against the Saints. LeSueur's case against the Saints loses much effect if earlier Missouri events are properly considered - and they are not.

LeSueur's desire to implicate Joseph Smith with the misdeeds of some other Mormons, especially Sampson Avard's band of "Danites," also leads him to neglect major sources of evidence and to not even acknowledge the arguments raised in major works on this topic. The most significant LDS treatment of the topic at the time of LeSueur's work was that of LeLand Gentry, who provided significant and credible evidence that directly undercuts LeSueur's position. LeSueur speaks of many hours of discussion with Gentry in the foreword and acknowledges Gentry's work as being extremely valuable in the bibliographic essay, but never addresses the issues raised by Gentry. Thus, the reader is not allowed to even know that Gentry makes a case for two groups that were called "Danites", one being the legitimate community of Saints organized to perform various community tasks and later organized for self-defense against mob attacks, and the other being the small, secretive band led by the corrupt Sampson Avard. The latter group, the subversives within a larger legitimate group, is all we think of now when "Danites" is mentioned. Much of LeSueur's case is built on the assumption that all references to "Danites" are to a corrupt and secretive group, which LeSueur weakly argues was actually led by Joseph Smith and not by Sampson Avard.

If Joseph were really behind the corrupt Danites, who supposedly swore to support Joseph and maintain secrecy or be killed, then we must wonder how Avard was able to save his own skin so easily by testifying boldly against Joseph Smith when Avard was captured by authorities after the violence in Daviess County. He told his captors exactly what they wanted to hear, testified to support every point of the state's case against Joseph, and was able to go free by putting all the blame for the misdeeds of some Mormons on Joseph Smith, blaming him as the leader of the Danites and the perpetrator of violence. Joseph went to jail for months because of Avard. If what Avard said were true, he would have been killed for breaking the Danite oath - but Joseph's only action against Avard was excommunication. LeSueur sees Avard's testimony as largely credible and sees the mock hearing in Richmond as reasonably fair, in spite of the spirit of injustice that prevailed.

Contrary to LeSueur's allegations, Joseph opposed secretive bands like the Danites and did speak out against such groups, not just against Sampson Avard. His letter of March 25, 1839 from Liberty Jail clearly refutes one of LeSueur's arguments against Joseph. And Avard's own statements show ongoing opposition from Joseph, not support.

This is the definitive book on the 1838 period of Mormon history. LeSueur is fair, and treats it as the historian that he is. As a strong Mormon, I view LeSueur as the most impartial of the many authors I have read on this period of Mormon history.

This is worth a read if you're interested in the whole Wimmin's Studies cult phenomenon. But there's much to puzzle about here too. Prof Mandle took the helm of the WS program at Colgate determined to drag it out of its sectarian isolation, impose scholarly standards, and build bridges to the secular branches of the humanities and even the sciences. At every turn the True Believers fought her and accused of her of straying from the path of ideological purity. In the end, there was a coup and she got dumped.
It makes for an interesting enough tale, but I was left scratching my head as to Mandle's motivations. Did she really expect to effect a lasting clean-up of that stable?

Joan Mandle has done an excellent job at synthesizing for the reader what types of conflicts and miscommunications lie fundamental to the core of struggling women's studies programs. Her account of a case study (memoirs of a campus struggle) is important reading for anyone interested in truly examining and furthering the state of women's studies programs in today's liberal arts curriculum.

Mandle has written a memoir of her years running the Women's Studies Program at Colgate University. During that time, she struggled to make it a non-dogmatic, inclusive, academically rigorous program. She had many setbacks but also successes. It is depressing to read about the narrow-minded ideologues - usually people who thought of themselves as feminists - who resisted her admirable goals. Still, the larger message is one of hope. Feminism really can be an open, inclusive force for education and social change. Mandle avoids jargon and her writing is vivid and accessible. This book is a must for anyone interested in an alternative vision of feminism.

Joan Mandle has written a wonderful, bittersweet memoir about her years as the director of a women's studies program at a liberal arts college. Her passion for feminism is palpable, and her willingness to be openly critical of the intellectual, philosophical and emotional blunders she encounters along the way is as refreshing as it is courageous.

The narrative line of this slim volume moves along at a rapid clip. She tells scores of stories -- about herself, her students, her interns at the center, and her colleagues both on campus and across the country. The tales are both fascinating and instructive. What sets this memoir apart, though, is her unshakeable commitment to social change and her equally rock-solid belief that feminism is strengthened, not weakened, by a rigorous and often critical self-appraisal of both the academic discipline and the social movement.

In this cogent, thought-provoking and ultimately hopeful memoir, sociologist Joan D. Mandle chronicles the six years in the 1990s when she directed the women's studies program at Colgate University, an elite liberal arts college in upstate New York. Her main challenge was how to transform a program narrowly focused on identity politics, talk therapy and male bashing--the agenda favored by the program's former director--into an intellectually rigorous, ideologically open, campus-wide forum on women and gender issues. Mandle's efforts were only partly successful, but you'll be fascinated (and disturbed) by the obstacles she faced. Chief among them was self-censorship in the classroom and at faculty gatherings. People avoided frank discussion of certain issues for fear of being labeled a sexist or a traitor to the women's movement. Mandle also analyzes why certain groups rejected, or felt excluded from, the program in the past--male faculty and students, sorority sisters (hence the reference to "wearing pearls"), women athletes, African-American women, pro-life advocates and others. Notably, Mandle counts herself as a feminist. But her vision of women's studies as an ideologically neutral field, anchored in evidence not political dogma, is shared by all too few in the academia. If you've ever wondered why most Americans believe in equal rights for women but reject "feminism", this book is a good place to start.

I thought the first part of this book was fascinating. I thought it probably gave a pretty accurate picture of what the damage was likely to be, and how the damage would occur. I was looking forward to reading about the probable psychological responses to a catastrophe like this. Once I got there, I found myself nodding my head, remembering Katrina. What gave me pause was when the author cited several quotes by a Dennis Mileti. Mileti claims that looting is almost non-existent in catastrophes. "Sociologists, in fact, have tried to interview arrested looters after over one hundred disasters, according to Mileti, but they can never find any." I then looked at the date of publication of this book - 1989. Even so, to say that looting has almost never occurred during disasters is very hard to believe.

It's not my THINGS that I care about, it's the psychological unease of bands of criminals roaming the area. I felt that should have been researched and written about a little better.

Very well researched book on the New Madrid fault line. Chronicles many of the major earthquakes including the 1811-1812 quakes that rerouted the Missippi. Interesting graphs and charts. Nice comparision to other major earthquakes. Good information especially if you are teaching geology in the midwest.

From a person who lives in New Madrid, this book is very helpful. It lists all the things, you need to know. Strategies for your survival, stuff for an emergency case; food, water, toliet paper.

This book does an excellent job of describing the recent history of the New Madrid fault, and the impact of recorded earthquakes in that area.

The book also serves as an effective planning guide for government agencies, businesses, and indiviuals. Proper preparation is critical if this now highly developed region is to survive another earthquake or series of earthquakes such as those that occured in 1811-12.

The dangerous propensities of the midcontinental earthquake zone known by the name of the New Madrid fault system are part and parcel of life in the area where the Ohio River joins the Mississippi river system. In 1811 and 1812, a bone-shattering series of earthquakes took place here, three of which are estimated at over 8.3 on the Richter scale, devastating this region, creating new lakes, making the Mississippi run backwards for a time, raising hills, and changing river courses. If such a series of events took place today, the consequences would be almost unimaginable.

Atkinson's book explores these matters with a studied eye, an easily understoood writing style, and contains many excellent diagrams forecasting where future quake damage will occur, and in what amount. It also contains a shocking series of narratives about how little has been done to prepare for the next emergency. Make no mistake, the New Madrid earthquakes of the early nineteenth century are not the last seismic events in this region.

This book should be required reading for every local and state government official in this region and, especially for every civil defense person. While no one knows when the next giant eathquake will occur, and it may be some hundreds of years away, the magnitude of the potential disaster dictates readiness now. Examples would include strict rules regarding construction of building highways, bridges, pipelines, levees, sewage and water systems and the like. This book points out clearly what should be done.

I recommend the book highly.

This book moves along smoothly detailing the daily life as a prison guard in one of America's most notorious prisons. Written by a former U.S. Marine and experienced correctional officer George Gregory, he captures his life inside the prison from 1947 to 1962. After reading this book you'll definitely will feel what it would be like to work on the inside. Highly recommended!

I have read a lot of books on Alcatraz and been there many times. This book has to be the most dull. Sure it explains what a day is like for a prison guard, but a book describing the daily life of a public librarian would have been just as engaging. I didn't really learn anything new or important about the prison or those who lived on it. And I sure did not learn anything about Gregory. Check out Creepy Karpis's book, "On the Rock." It's probably 50% lies, but it's at least a good read.
One more thing, the pictures in this book are mostly reproductions of other officially released pictures. I already have all of them.

Alcatraz Screw is the memoir of George Gregory, a correctional officer at Alcatraz from 1947 to 1963. A former Marine wounded at Iwo Jima, Gregory had the self-confidence necessary to handle himself well with inmates and his superior officers. He treated inmates fairly but firmly and didn't put up with any nonsense. His writing style is lean and plain with a 1950s flavor. Even if you have no interest in penology, this is an interesting book to read because it's the story of an honest guy competently doing his job as prison guard. It includes about 20 pages of photographs and maps.

This is a great book for anyone interested in what life was like on Alcatraz from an insider's perspective. Mr. Gregory served as a prison guard on Alcatraz and explains in detail the daily routines of the prisoners and guards. He writes very directly about the various jobs he had while there and what life was like. He adds a very human aspect to the people in his book while writing very "matter of factly." I was engaged by the book and did not want to put it down at times. Having read other books on Alcatraz and having been there, this book told me an insider's perspective that I had never felt I'd had before. I recommend it highly to anyone who has even the slightest interest in what Alcatraz was really like.