Europe Books

This is an amazing book, by a wonderful author. I would highly recommend reading it.

What a find! I'm amazed Dervla Murphy is not much better known. She has such an appealing vigor and zeal for adventure, combined with an acute eye for cultural observation and a rich capacity for description. Dervla takes one of the most audacious trips I've ever heard of, and undergoes some of the most harrowing and arduous of trials with non-showoff-y courage, such as when three heavy objects that turn out to be wolves fling themselves at her on a dark deserted road in the Balkans, or she is awakened in the middle of the night to find a "scantily dressed Kurd" standing over her bed. (In both instances her pocket pistol dispatched the dilemma without further ado.) Not only are these accounts riproaring, but she so warmly and affectionately describes the so-called "undeveloped" cultures she grows to know as she passes through remote stretches of Afganistan and Pakistan, that she quite awakens a First World reader to the narrowness of our outlook.

It was by accident I discovered this book, but how fortunate it was! Murphy did not just ride a bicycle from Ireland to India, impressive in itself, but she lived and laughed and played with the Prince's and Peasants she met through out her journey. Her descriptions of the people she meets and the ancient lands she cross are simple and magical.

Some of her experiences seem to belong to fairy tales, other's remind's one of Arabian Nights, and at other times, it seemed Murphy was whisked into Tolkien's land of Middle Earth with fierce and gallant warriors on horseback.

I will quote a couple of passages which highlight her sense of humor and observation.

"...But it was worth it all to rise gradually from that fertile, warm valley to the still, cold splendour of the snow-line, where the highest peaks of the Hindu Kush crowd the horizon in every direction and one begins to understand why some people believe that gods live on mountain tops."

"...when suddenly I came on the most unexpected sight-a playing field complete with twenty-two youths and a soccer ball. I know very little about soccer, but enough to know this is how it is not played. No one ever moved about trotting speed, no one ever tried to tackle anyone else, the referee never used his whistle, the ball was never headed and the two goalies sat crosslegged between the posts most of the time, looking abstracted. The real excitement from a spectator's point of view was caused by the fact that one side of the field had a sheer drop of 200 feet, so that the main object of all the players was to keep the ball from going into the ravine rather than to kick it between the posts."

I first read this book in the sixties in grade school. I bought the reissued edition, rediscovering it by coincidence. Ms. Murphy's journey in the early sixties is, if anything, more fascinating to read today in light of the changes in the Middle East since she travelled there. Her independence and cheerful acceptance of different cultures is refreshing. This book was written prior to the 'me' decade, and while intensely personal, lacks the self-preoccupation that more recent writers practice.

Additionally, unlike so many bicycle travelogues, this book doesn't focus on the author's bicycle! The focus remains on the journey, which renders it excellent reading for all, not just bicyclists.

This is a timeless read and one that can be revisited with pleasure.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Murphy's humor, tenacity and bravery are awe inspiring. She's attacked by wolves (or possibly wild dogs), wakes up in a tent after going to sleep out in the open, fends off an attempted rapist and has many other thrilling adventures. In one instance, when there are nefarious characters about, she is advised to booby trap her inn bedroom's doorway with empty bottles. In her journal, she calmly notes that emptying bottles is the one thing she's really good at.

I couldn't help feeling sad while reading this book. In 1965, when this book was published, most people were probably unfamiliar places like Kabul and Jalalabad. Now, of course, in the wake of the post-9/11 bombing of Afghanistan, Kabul is a household word. Turns out, that city was once breathtakingly beautiful, as well as the country around it. Murphy's trek takes her through Afghanistan at a time when the USSR and the US were vying for control of this country. The Russians were busy providing electricity and importing goods, while the Americans seemed to approach this ancient country with the intent to raze the traditional culture to the ground and replace it with a modern one. One wonders if, if both countries had never meddled with Afghanistan, there might never have been the Taliban? In any event, this book takes the reader back to a truly relevant experience of the not-so distant past.

Last summer my family and I traveled in Germany, Austria, and several other European countries, and I wish that we had had a guide such as the German Survival Guide with us then. I would find the material inside the front and back covers very useful. It is quick to locate, and the information given includes the terms and phrases that people need most often. For additional words, the German-English and English-German dictionaries are available at the end of the book. The specific chapter we would have used the most would be Ch. 3 on Restaurants and Food since we frequently ate at restaurants without English on the menu. The other parts that are especially helpful are the cultural notes that are interspersed throughout the book. If we travel in Germany again, we definitely will take this book with us!

I have never been to germany although one day I really hope to go. My husband is german and his mother does not speak a lick of English. This desperate daughter-in-law was saved many embarrassing and fustrating moments by this book. It is a handy size to keep in the car or in a good size purse. I had to live with my MIL for a couple months and weeks at a time and this book has helped me communicate with her on many levels about many necessary topics, especially when my husband wasnt always around to translate or got tired of it.
Granted it doesnt have every single thing about germans in it but it sure has made my life easier.

I am very impressed by the information in the German Survival Guide. I took German in college several years ago and had forgotten most of what I had learned, so the guide is a great refresher. The pronunciation guide is excellent and very easy to read. Even if I had not had German, I would be able to pronounce the words in an appropriate manner in order ask for the things I would need.

In addition to the pronuncation guide, the cultural notes are great. I think that when traveling this is a very important aspect, as I certainly do not want to do something or say something to upset the native speakers.

I have traveled to many different countries and if I would have had a guide such as this, I would have been better prepared and less apprehensive about the language and the customs of the country.

The ultimate compliment you can pay a travel guide? "Works as advertised". I'd argue the same goes for this survival guide of Germany and to a less extent, Austria.

I acquired a handful, really just a small amount of German as a result of this book, but I used it all for twelve days, and it made a world of difference. The cultural notes, however, were of even greater value: *when* to use phrases is integral to knowing *how*.

My only two concerns, a half-star I withhold for each: the two-cassette method of delivery and a too-small glossary/ vocabulary/ dictionary. Pack a CD with the book and it's a five-star value; pack another forty pages of German-English word translations and it's official.

However, if you're serious about German, get the FSI course; if you need a German-English dictionary, pick up a Collins Pocket Gem. Tschüs!

Ideal for anyone contemplating a precarious excursion to Germany.

What we have here is a collection of historical material that was originally published in three separate volumes. Robert Lacey introduces it with some especially interesting comments: "There may be such a thing as pure, true - what actually, begin italics] definitely [end italics] happened in the past - but it is unknowable. We can only hope to get somewhere close. The history that we have to make do with is the story that historians chose to tell us, pieced together and filtered through every handler's value system." With that acknowledgment, Lacey then reassures his reader that the tales he shares are true, based on "the best available contemporary sources and eyewitness accounts" rather than on revisionist versions decades and even centuries later. his approach to this book was not cynical: "it is written, and recounted for you now by an eternal optimist - albeit one who views the evidence with skeptical eye...the things we do not know about history far outnumbers those that we do. But the fragments that survive are precious and bright. They offer us glimpses of drama, humour, incompetence, bravery, apathy, sorrow, and lust - the stuff of life. There are still a few good tales to tell..."

Each of the hundreds of tales Lacey shares averages 3-5 pages in length and covers a period that begins with "Cheddar Man" (c. 7150) and concludes with "Decoding the Secret of Life " (1953), indeed offering "a treasury of true stories about extraordinary people - knights and knaves, rebels and heroes, queens and commoners - who made Britain Great." Before reading this book for the first time, as I always do, I checked out the table of contents and then began to cherry pick entries that immediately caught my eye, such as "The Legend of Lady Godiva," "Murder in the Cathedral," "Geoffrey Chaucer and the Mother Tongue," "Thomas More and His Wonderful `No Place,'" "Elizabeth Queen of Hearts," "Sir Francis Drake and the Spanish Armada," "Isaac Newton and the Principles of the Universe," "Thomas Paine and the Rights of Man," "Rain, Steam, and Speed - the Shimmering Vision of J.M.W. Turner," The Greatest History Book Ever," and "The Battle of Britain - the Few and the Many." Reading those took less than an hour so the next time I took up the book, reading other accounts that dated from "The Legend of Lady Godiva," c. AD 1043. Then I eventually returned to re-read "Cheddar Man" (c. 7150) and the accounts that followed. In the future, I will probably re-read all of the accounts (nor more than two or three at a time), with the selection depending on my mood of the moment and what interests me then.

Here in Dallas, we have a "Farmers Market" area near downtown at which merchants graciously offer slices of fresh fruit as samples. In the same spirit, I now offer a few "slices" of Lacey's wit and style, provided in chronological order.

"...in the village of Berkeley, tales were told of hideous screams ringing out from the castle on the night of 21 September and some years later one John Trevisa, who had been a boy at the time, revealed what had actually happened. Trevisa had grown up to take holy orders and become chaplain and confessor to the King's jailer, Thomas Lord Berkeley, so he was well placed to solve the mystery. There were no marks of illness or violence to the King's body, he wrote, because Edward was killed `with a hoote brooche [meat-roasting spit] put into the secret place posterialle.'"(Piers Gaveston and Edward II, 1308)

"Many of Caxton's spelling decisions and those of the printers who came after him were quite arbitrary. As they attached letters to sounds they followed no particular rules and we live with the consequences to this day. So if you have ever wondered why a bandage is `wound' around a `wound', why `cough' rhymes with `off', while `bough' rhymes with `cow', and why you might shed a `tear' after seeing a `tear' in your best dress or skirt, you have William Caxton to thank." (William Caxton, 1474)

"Imagine that you have been devoting your principal energies for nearly twenty years to a Very Big Idea - a concept so revolutionary that it will transform the way the human race looks at itself. And then one morning, you open a letter from someone you scarcely know (someone, to be honest, you never took seriously) to discover that he has come up with exactly the same idea - and has picked you as the person to help him announce it to the world." (Charles Darwin and the Survival of the Fittest, 1858)

"Winston Churchill wrote all his own speeches. He would spend as many as six or eight hours polishing and rehearsing his words to get the right impact - and it was worth the effort...He cracked jokes: `When I warned them [the French government] that Britain would fight on alone whatever they did,' he related at the end of December 1941, `their generals told their Prime Minister and his divided Cabinet, In three weeks England will have her neck wrung like a chicken. `Some chicken! [Pause] Some neck!'" (Voice of the People, 1945)

I envy anyone who shares my interest in English history who has not as yet begun to explore the material that Robert Lacey has so carefully assembled and then presented in this volume.

A very good first approach to English history. Summarizes its milestones and adds some notes of colour. The shortness of the stories doesn't allow for in-depth analysis, but the book provides an excellent overview and lots of references for further reading.

A great read! All the interesting bits of British history that were left out of the history books.

I am a history buff and a teacher and this book is ideal if you're both or either!
Great story-telling and SO readable.
These tales very from one page to about eight pages at most. In other words, they are easy to tackle before bed or use with a class to discover British history and famous Britons.
Lacey knows his stuff and knows how to entertain - a wonderful combination.

This is a most interesting and amusing book. Since each episode is only a few pages long, one can read a short time or long time, without losing the thread of the story. I have given it as a gift, and the recipient shares my high opinion of the book.

Bruce Thornton has written a wonderful book cataloging the many intellectual achievements of classical Greece in the realms of reason, science, ethics, political freedoms, law, historical documentation and art. The author also does an excellent job refuting two common charges against this monumental civilization: 1.) that the Greeks were whim-worshipping hedonists who would never pass up an opportunity to indulge in short-term sexual pleasure and 2.) that the distinguishing characteristic of Greek civilization is that they were all slave-owning misogynists.

The chapters refuting these claims are worth the price of the book alone. To address these claims, the author encourages the reader to reflect upon the content of classical Greek law and classical Greek art. The author argues that there were in fact many laws prohibiting sexual relations with minors and there were popularized Greek myths where the moral was the dangers of hedonism (e.g., the immolation of Heracles.) Moreover, the author identifies how women were often portrayed as cunning, witty and capable of using their minds to achieve noble political ends in both Greek myths and Greek theater (e.g., Aristophanes' Lysistrata.)

Needless to say, the author does not attempt to claim that the Greeks were flawless and nor should he. However, the author does exhibit that he understands that the Greeks have made numerous monumental intellectual contributions to Western Civilization. Moreover, the author seems to understand that while certainly flawed by many of today's standards with respect to the rights of women and slave ownership, the Greeks should be judged in the context of their time and in that frame of reference were overwhelmingly good.

For these reasons, I whole-heartedly recommend this well-written and delightful book!

How could one not love the civilization that has contributed the foundations of the West and so much to the world we live in? Bruce Thornton analyses the achievements of the glorious Greeks, from their earliest history to their attitudes toward homoerotic love. This book is a must for all classics, history, anthropology, art history, philosophy, and political science students......or for anyone who wants to be enlightened. There is something Greek in all of us!

The controversy about whether Greek civilisation was the main source of western civilisation's ideas about freedom, rationality etc... doesn't rage as much here as in the US, where a number of writers have, unconvincingly in my view, sought to argue that the Greeks borrowed much of their ideas on rationality, logic, freedom etc.. from other civilisations and in particular from Egypt.

So when I wanted read more about Greek influence on Western civilisation I dreaded a book which was merely a defense against these and other politically correct theories. Instead, although the author makes reference to this controversy, the book stands on its own in describing Greek civilisation and its enormous influence on today's world. The author does not pretend that the Greeks formed a cultural monolith, where everybody was convinced of the power of reason. But his very wide range of sources is persuasive enough that many of the ideas that were necessary building blocks for the rise of Western civilisation, such as that there should be a rational explanation for natural phenomena, originated with Greek thinkers. The fact that some of these paid for their ideas with their life (like Socrates) does not diminish the fact that the Greeks were there first.

What did I miss in this book ? I would have liked more about the transmission of Greek ideas to the West, i.e. how we lost much of this philosophical heritage only to regain it at the time of the renaissance. Secondly, although the author on a number of occasions asserts that other contemporary civilisations had not reached such and such a level, I would have liked to see more detail on this. I also thought that it was odd to devote the first 2 chapters (almost a sixth of the book) on sexual relations in ancient Greece, an area where I think Greeks did not influence the West much. I also think that the long section on the Greek's treatment of slaves has to be seen more in the US context (anything to do with slavery is highly sensitive and pays to be seen to have been good with slaves) than as an influence on Western culture.

Although J Roberts' Triumph of the West sets out a more eloquent case for the rational influence of ancient Greece, this book makes argues for a much wider influence, i.e. not just Rational Man, but also Political Man, freedom of expression, etc... For this it deserves to be read. It is far from perfect, but it is also fairly concise

The author is a relly good writer. I read this book a couple of years ago and it really awoke my interest in the classics. This book should be required reading for college students.

I was truly enlightened while reading this book. Not only did it give me new information, but it also got me interested in reading other books about the Greeks.

I recently returned from a vacation over in Ireland/Scotland/Wales where for 4 weeks I and 2 of my friends researched and visited stone circles throughout the Isles. Aubrey Burl definitely has written an essential resource you should pick up if you have the intentions of going to see them. He touches on a great number of "out of the way" stone circles not widely known in areas and gives precise directions on how to get to them. It is almost like a treasure hunt, you never knwo what is around the corner in Aubrey's book! A definite must get for the stone circle enthusiast. Don't even think about putting this book down. Get a map, get this book, and go hunting for these great spiritual centers.

My husband and I are very interested in ancient cultures and especially stone circles; this book told us where they were, what to expect to see, and how to get there (which wasn't always very easy!) We were able to pick an area of England with a heavy concentration of good quality circles based on his descriptions and pictures, and with book in hand, see many of the ones we chose. Mr. Burl is kind enough to mention when the going is tough, and he was always right. The only thing that could make this book any more invaluable as a field guide would be inclusion of Surveyor's Maps of the areas...but those can be purchased easily in the countries in question. (Color photos would've been nice, too!) Highly recommended for real trip-planning, or just for inspiration!

Just what it says on the box - an excellent reference, whether planning your trip or on the road. Complete with location maps and National Grid references.

I am not accustomed to purchasing so expensive and specialized a book, but in the early autumn of 1979, I had the privilege of working on a Scottish dig run by Dr. Burl, and I have long admired his scholarship and dedication---and this revision is, simply put, GREAT! The depth of information is astounding, and I found the the presentation engrossing, the subject fascinating, and the style quite readable---certainly NOT only for students or devotees of archaeology. I can't recommend this one highly enough---it may seem like something of an indulgence for your personal library, but it's worth every penny. Alas, the book is far to heavy to carry about in one's luggage, but I've already marked at least two dozen sites that I want to visit the next time I cross the Atlantic. In the meantime, settle back in a comfortable chair and get ready to cast your mind back a couple of millenia...

Aubrey Burl's previous works were showing a wee bit of dating. As carbon dating become more accurate, you are seeing these ancient rings grow older in age instead of younger as they anticipated. While Burl's previous works were amazing, this long awaited "update" of this information, as well as addition information on more recent excavations make this is must. Yes, it expensive. But it's worth every penny. There are new insight in the the purpose of the rings of stone, a new interpretation of Calanais (sorry, as a Scot I refuse to call it Callanish!) and Stonehenge

The beautiful book is loaded with hundreds of photos, explores the ancestry, methods of construction and why they were abandoned after thousands of years of use.

Marvelous work made even better by bringing the information up to date.

Thanks Barack Obama!
I was really impressed by the analytic capacity of the author and as I am usually not reading books about economic affairs and also not about politics I am even more astounded to find it fascinating and suspense driven. Honestly, if it was not for Barack Obama to get me interested in politics I probably had never read a book like this.

The author managed to prove President Sarkozy wrong in every single aspect of his agenda, so far. In an astounding collection of facts Niemeyer demonstrates why the French economy is suffering so terribly under this Hollywood-President.

"History repeats itself" is a famous phrase and although it may not be 100% true there is yet something to it as the author pointed out citing similar developments in the 1920ies and today. Like 80 years ago there are `analysts' working for investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch speaking of "market irritations" while a depression is lingering around the next corner. And, it seems that what we call today `Globalisation' should rather be called `Imperialism', and I am glad that the author uses the accurate terms rather than any of the more fashionable expressions the Anti-Globalisation groups fancy. It is quite right to speak of Capitalism making majorities poorer in order to make rich ever richer as exactly this is happening as we all can feel when we see our standard of living constantly decline amid "economic good times" as media never gets tired to hammer into our heads. Why create a new term for that only because the phrase may sound old fashioned when, indeed, the strategies employed by the ruling class apparently are also old fashioned but still seem to work quite well for them?!

Fascism, Stalinism, Euro-Maniacism

It is really worthwhile not only to know the political and military history of the 20th century but also it's financial history. Especially the latter provides for explanations of the inexplicable, the World Wars, the rise of Fascism, Stalinism and now Euro-Maniacsim. Ralph T. Niemeyer must be a genius to be able to combine mathematical, statistical and political facts and make the read of normally dry matters exciting! Congratulations on a superb and unbeatable analysis. I wished our political leaders knew about it.

Ralph T. Niemeyer said: "Where only profit maximization reigns there is no room for Democracy" and he is damned right with that. The "survival - of - the - fittest - credo" of the economically more powerful is the opposite of Freedom and Equality. I admire his sober way of analyzing our system's flaws and I appreciate it a lot that he doesn't become indulgent about Marx or Communism which most people who have the same insight he has would probably would be in danger of as looking for the gene for a `brave new world' can lead into a trap as we have seen in Stalinism. Socialism has tried to break it's opponent's pride. Capitalism strips people off their pride.

Still and by far the best source for an introduction of Ancient Rome. Price is high but worth it!!!!

This is the best Roman History book out there. Its great for JCL -- it took me to a tie for 1st on the Histroy test at NJCL! The index in the book truly stands out - it lists everything. A good companion to it is the OCD. If you're interested in Roman History get this book.

I have the 2nd Edition of this 1935 book. Having read and re-read this and Gibbon and Mommsen, it suddenly struck me that Cary offers a more succinct and incisive interpretation of the MEANING of each epoch in Roman history. He also disagrees markedly from others on the value/meaning of 'controversial' emperors (Nero, Domitian, Diocletian) which is very refreshing and well-stated. Frankly, if you want to get a good sense of the meaning of the History of Rome, read Cary first; then Mommsen, then Gibbon. Then, back to Cary. I wish this book were still in print. Don't let it go unread, if you are a Romanophile...

This extremely dense text is still head and shoulders above other contenders as the standard history of the rise and history of the roman empire. The authors thesis, that Rome never truly fell but evolved into the catholic church/feudal state is well defended with ample evidence.

What makes this book so extraordinary is the depth and breath of the subject matter covered. Military history, politics, technology, art, science, social development, trade, are all given ample coverage. While it can be quite dry, the reader is free to skip around reading only the subjects of interest. For the scholar or the curious, this is a must own text that will serve as a crucial guide and reference.

Furthermore ...

-Fails to take stock of the moral implications of gladiatorial contests for the Romans.

-Contains a crushing weight of detail regarding municipal organisation for the reader to skip.

-Contains very little on the end of the Empire and what followed it.

-Cary and Scullard are Empire apologists, claiming the Romans stumbled into possession of an empire they never wanted, while still being good enough to say they consistently laid down provocatively -- indeed unacceptably -- harsh pre-conflict terms of peace.

-Virtually ignores the beginnings of Christianity entirely (which may or may not be of passing interest even to a secular spiritualist, depending on whether or not you know).

This is a nice little volume. A small book with a lot of information. I consider myself well read on this subject and ended up learning a lot from this book. It was so easy to read I finished it in a little over a week. Wistrich has some great endnotes too. He has documented everything and I got some great suggestions for further reading from the notes. The cover and the type font make this a very attractive volume as well. As stated in previous reviews this is a very good volume for the learned person. Wistrich will bring you up to date and refresh your memory of past details. However, I disagree with it being for the absolute beginner. You still need to be familiar with the non-fiction format and have some subject knowledge in order to get the most out of this book. It also looks great on a bookshelf.

Wistrich does a wonderful job of condensing information about a huge topic into a very useful small volume. It doesn't go into a huge amount of detail about every aspect of the Holocaust or the anti-semitism leading up to it, but it is a great book for beginners, particularly high school or college undergraduates looking for an introduction to this horrible subject.
As the previous reviewer said, Wistrich does do a wonderful job of documenting his sources and I too got a lot of further reading and research ideas from this book.

This interesting book by Robert Wistrich is an attempt to concentrate on the question as to why the Nazis placed so much emphasis on the extermination of the European Jews, often when doing so meant endangering the other goals they were surging toward during the conduct of the war. The author, of course, understands that the whole of the national Socialist movement sprang from the discontent and absurd racism of the Volkist history of the Reich, much of it dating back centuries. From the time Germany was forged out of the crucible of Prussia and its environs, the collection of Germanic peoples looked for those unifying themes that would untie them as distinct people and extend to them the greatness that had so eluded them and their culture. Given their history of cultural insecurity, it seems as no surprise that an entity like the Jews had to found and scapegoated to justify their grandiloquent dreams.

As the author points out (and as others such as Lucy Dawidowicz so famously in "The War Against The Jews'), this scapegoating effort was no only an expediency arising from the discontent and chaos of the Weimar years after World War One, but also a deep-seated cultural tradition extending back hundreds if not thousands of years. Indeed, questions regarding Jewish claims to citizenship had been hotly debated both officially and unofficially every place from the many legislative forums to the floors of the local pubs as long as anyone could recall. There was nothing new or novel about German prejudice against and antipathy for the Jews. And as he adds so succinctly, this was (and indeed is) a problem extending far beyond German borders. After all, we do well to remember that most European countries turned their backs on the problems of the Jewish émigrés attempting by the thousands to flee the coming horror in Nazi Germany. Indeed, many such as the Swiss and the French cooperated in handing over indigenous Jews to the German authorities during the war.

Moreover, the climate of blind indifference extended to the pulpits of the clergy, as well, and persistent rumors claim that the Pope himself was cognizant of the plight of the German and other European Jews and did little if anything to intercede. In fat, this book provides a yeoman's service by articulating and discussing a number of salient and competing interpretations, ranging from Daniel Goldhagen's controversial thesis enunciated in "Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust" to Christopher Browning's thesis as expounded in several recent books (see my reviews of both authors' works). Wistrich also recapitulates the differences between the so-called "intentionalist' and "functionalist' theories of the Holocaust, and as I have written elsewhere, I believe that while the evidence indicates a functional approach, I also believe that the same evidence is consistent with the idea that Hitler and the Nazis always intended to exterminate the Jews (along with all of the indigenous populations of the conquered territories to the east). All the functional argument really proves, as far as I can see, is that existential circumstances played into the execution of a standing policy which was a virtual cornerstone of Nazi social policy.

As someone professionally educated as a sociologist, I was fascinated by the author's discussion of the meaning of the Holocaust in terms of history, and the question as to whether or not it represented the "antithesis of Western Civilization" or its realization. This treads very close to a searing indictment made by sociologist Max Weber of the eventual drift of rationalism as practiced in western societies toward a kind of non-thinking and non-substantive form of the rational impulse, a shadow which contented itself with the forms and practices of rationalism but none of its intent and rigor. To the extent he was correct that such a society would become an "iron cage" imprisoning man and endangering everything good that he stood for, perhaps Mr. Wistrich is onto something here. Enjoy!

Although some might say this is good for introduction to Holocaust study, I'm not convinced it succeeds on that level as it should. First, the title was a bit misleading. I expected it to focus on Hitler's involvement in the Holocaust, yet there is little discussion of Hitler compared to what other angles the book delves into. I also thought that jumping to different issues, it is not focused enough to be effective as a whole as compared to other books that might be longer in reading but you come away with much more understanding. Too much is just touched upon, but not conveyed. I found "Auschwitz" by Deborah Dwork and Robert Van Pelt to give a much clearer perspective than what I read here, and it's not that much longer than this.

And I think, contrary to the author, that the entire extermination of the slavic population was practical for the Nazi's and it did serve a major ideological agenda. From reading Hitler's "table talk," it seemed to me like that was the future plan.

Also, the author says that "When Himmler instructed Rudolf Hoss to establish the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp, the reason given was expressly ideological; the need to extirpate the biological roots of Jewry." In something as serious as this, I think it's important that every fact is presented where there can be no confusion- otherwise, if they learn otherwise, it can cause problems. This would lead me to believe that Auschwitz was erected at the time of this talk with Himmler, when actually, the talk with Himmler happened in 1941, and Hoss had been camp commandant since 1940- and that Auschwitz was first established as a labor camp and turned INTO a death camp for the purpose of extirpating the biological roots of Jewry." that might be nitpicking on my part and it could be said that the Birkenau addition implies the time, but since the Nazi's crime is so terrible, every word is important, every sentence is a voice from the Holocaust crying out, so you have to make sure everything is clearly said. That's what I think, anyway.

This is a good book, but something like "Never Again" by Martin Gilbert might be a better introduction than this,

As the previous reviewers have already noted, this is a great book defining how the Holocaust happened in one of the most civilized nations in Europe. Wistrich notes the rise of anti Semitism in Germany and the rest of Europe during the ninetenth and twentieth centuries. Even though thousands of German Jews gave their lives in the trench warfare on the Western Front during World War II, the Nazis blamed the Jews for the stab in the back.
In this book, Hitler's main aim was to rid Eurpe of all its Jews. His goal continued despite setbacks on the fighting fronts. Hungarian Jews were murdered up to the closing months of the war, even though Germany was in the process of being defeated. Germany's loss was also blamed on the Jews.
Wistrich gives us a scholarly analysis of why the Jews were selected, how the lack of solidarity in the Jewish population helped the Nazis kill their victims, and why the Western Allies did little to stop the killing. As Wistich states, other genocides in later years just shows how little has changed in the history of genocide. A minority group is selected for the blame of something, and revenge is exacted.
This is a great scholarly read for why the Holocaust happened. It places Hitler front and center in one of the greatest crimes of all time.

This book is one of the spate of recent works "proving" the guilt of the Germans in general instead of just Hitler and the Nazis, but is far better written than most and actually offers a point for discussion. I recommend a purchase and a close read.

There is little new information (if any) here, but the author's description of the functioning of the General Staff, the OKH and OKW from pages 17 to 101 is particularly easy to understand, and I say this as someone who first read Goerlitz's "History of The German General Staff" at the age of fifteen in 1954. It is this part that makes the book worth the price of admission.

Chapters 10, 11 and 12, offer nothing new except for one-sided cherry-picked references tending to support the author's far-reaching conclusions. Nonetheless, such support is weak at best. From time to time the author seems to understand this, but then he goes ahead and states his questionable conclusions anyway. For example, even though the author is quick to point out (& accurately) that memoirs are often self-aggrandizing, he uses a sole, questionable source (Lossberg) to describe Jodl's attitudes at the end of 1941 and his agreement that Manstein, at the time a newly-baked army commander, and someone who had never been responsible for more than one panzer division in his earlier corps and now 11th Army, was the leading general to assume overall command of the eastern front. Very doubtful, and something that cannot be verified!

The author correctly points out that many higher-ranking officers like Beck believed that Germany's only hope lay in winning a short, decisive military conflict rather than an economic or diplomatic course of action. Yep! Like a bridge player who carefully studies his cards and sees that there is only one course of action that might win the contract, he takes the sole option open to him. When it doesn't succeed, one should not criticism the player for not having used another strategy UNLESS IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT THE STRATEGY COULD (not would) HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL. Unfortunately, this is exactly what the author does without showing any realistic basis for alternatives. The player can be criticized for making the contract in the first place, but that was never the function of either the OKW or the OKH. I was also amused to see that the author took a similar position to the German defeat in World War I -- the high command again attempted to apply an operational solution to a strategic problem. Once more for the West Coast, what would the author have recommended they do? That he doesn't state.

Yes, intelligence concerning the Soviets was almost nil, but military intelligence world-wide has been notorious for being poor except in combat conditions. The US was and is no exception to this rule, and Ultra (not mentioned by the author) was indispensable to the Allies (most notably in North Africa.) In a limited time frame like that for Barbarossa, one does the best one can. As far as logistics are concerned, the German economy was not put on a total war footing until Speer did it in 1944 with the resulting improvements in production. Of course, by then it was too late, and at any rate, that was not within the purview of either the OKW or OKH. And the US also used the term "supply" just like the Germans. With regards to personnel, the Germans only had one chance against the Soviet Union and that was denied them by Hitler's racial policies. The Germans needed to fight a "War of Liberation" against the Communists, setting up puppet governments in the non-Russian states and utilizing their manpower. In spite of everything, the number of Hiwis was enormous and Russian units like Cossacks and the Vaslov Army still opted to fight alongside the Germans. But again, this was not an option open to the OKW or OKH. So given the situation, what was the high command to do? The author is silent on this point, but condemns the General Staff anyway. One feels compelled to point out that Beck paid the ultimate price, Fritsch sought death before Warsaw, and Halder narrowly escaped execution before the war's end.

Yes, there was a culture in the General Staff that viewed the Versailles Diktat (it was not a negotiated treaty) as unbearable and to be torn up as soon as possible. Yes, they wanted to regain lost territories. That is hardly new or difficult to understand in the light of history. To the extent that Hitler's aims coincided with theirs, the German senior commanders supported him. To their regret, they found themselves riding on the back of the tiger. Even at the end, von Bock's last words were to Manstein, "Manstein, save Germany!"

For a much fuller treatment on the German officer mindset that the author only alludes to, see Robert Citino, "The German Way of War."

Military personnel are normally conservative (as the author points out), and the General Staff operated much like they did in 1870. Insofar as their opponents were incompetent like the Polish, French, and British, they won easily through aggressiveness and vastly superior training. The US Army adopted much if not all of the German leadership doctrine and training methods after World War II, recognizing that US performance in Europe was spotty at best. War gamers traditionally equate three American soldiers to two Germans, and Marshall's contention that over 40% of American infantrymen refused to fire their rifles in combat brings "the greatest generation" into question. Live-fire training has never been possible to any degree in the American Army, mostly due to objections by civilians for the casualties it causes. Of course, another reason the Germans fought so well is that they executed over 30,000 of their own military personnel in the course of the war for a wide range of offenses.

That the Officer Corps was not prepared to conduct a modern war with the necessary personnel, logistics, intelligence, and economic basis is correct. But neither were the French, Polish, British, Japanese or Russians. The Axis were defeated through a combination of British and American code-breaking, Russian manpower, and American logistics and economic power. The US struggled to put 90 divisions on the ground in Europe, but changed the Red Army into a mechanized force while the Wehrmacht became increasingly dependent on horses. Yes, the German machines were good, but German engineers tinkered their way to oblivion and prevented mass production.

The author sums up with the following statement: "The myth persists of a supremely talented, if politically naive and ambitious, German officer corps being led unwillingly into war and defeat by a ruthless dictator, a megalomaniac with no understanding of the military art." If one removes the word "unwillingly" and tones down "supremely", that "myth" would seem to be true. Nor do I know any serious scholar that believes in the myth as stated. Maybe some portion of the readership does, but only if they are not well-read on the subject. The author then states an untruth: "They (the officer corps) made strategic decisions, independently and in support of Hitler's, that started a war...." I know of no strategic decisions made independently by the German officer corps or high command that started World War II. Maybe the author can enlighten me. They didn't even make strategic decisions in support of Hitler that started the war unless you count their support of Hitler himself during the crises of 1933 and 1934. For that focus on Hammerstein-Equord, Blomberg, and those that refused to back Fritsch.

The author also castigates the Officer Corps for continuing the war after its futility should have been obvious. Gee, that was why Halder resigned. One is also tempted to castigate Robert E. Lee and Confederate commanders for continuing the Civil War after the fall of Atlanta. But like German officers, (& the German opposition had already been told in no uncertain terms that the Allies would not help them), they could not rise in rebellion -- they could only play their cards as they were dealt and hope for the best. Maybe a miracle would take place -- it has before. Only in hindsight is everything so clear.

Like I said -- this book is an excellent starting point for discussion. But I deplore the current trend by the author, Wolfram Wette, and others -- they represent the pendulum swinging too far in the opposite direction from the memoir literature of the 50s and earlier studies.

And lastly, I must register my objection to the author's dissertation advisor writing the Foreword and even being referenced on the title page. It should have been enough for the author to acknowledge Murray in his Preface. Moreover, Murray clearly shills for the author, using adjectives like "outstanding" and "extraordinary." Obviously the standards of objectivity and propriety in the academic world (or Ohio State at least) have changed, and not for the better.

Dr. Megargee overturns decades of conventional wisdom about the responsibility for Germany's loss in the Second World War. Although unsparing in his criticism of Hitler, on any number of subjects, he goes further than any author that I am aware of in portraying the lack of strategic vision on major issues of national political and economic goals, the short-sighted and self-serving carving-out of personal empires in the byzantine structure of the German High Command, inter-office and inter-service rivalry, and the the emphasis on the spiritual over the material that manifested itself most dangerously in the long-standing institutional disregard for intelligence work and logistics that made Germany's loss nearly a foregone conclusion upon the launch of Operation Barbarossa in 1941.

Extensively researched and thoroughly documented, as well as clearly and engagingly written, this book is a significant addition to the scholarly literature on the German armed forces in WWII, as well as a refreshing antidote to the tiresome rehashing of the Führer's blunders and the self-exculpatory memoirs of numerous German officers that appeared in the wake of Germany's defeat. Strongly recommended for those interested in the subject, and another fine work of military history from the University Press of Kansas.

This is a great work of modern military history, by a top notch historian. Most good monographs rate 4 stars, but this is a case of using the Showalter formula even better than Showalter! Thorough, provocative, and very well written.

This is an excellent study of the highest levels of the German Army during WWII. But I think the main lesson is that there was no high command, at least in the sense the British and the Americans had one. Hitler and the generals around him spent their time micromanaging the Eastern Front with occasional interference in African and European battles. Hitler acted as if he were the counterpart of Eisenhower, not Marshall or Brooke. It is as if Rosevelt were to have sent Eisenhower daily detailed instructions on where to attack and what to defend.

The problem was only partially Hitler's. The Germans never really created a staff to manage a global conflict. Hadler resented Hitler's inferference, but because it was usually stupid, not because Hitler should have been managing the war, not the battles. The Germans were superb at what they considered the "operational" level of command--the control of armies on a single battlefield. But they never looked at the "big picture."

The book also proves that the German army high command, such as it was, had serious failings. They simply did not understand the logistics of a campaign as vast as the Eastern Front. Nor did they have the intelligence gathering capacity to estimate what they were getting into when they attacked the Soviet Union. Worse, they did not even realize their problems.

This book can teach a lot about why people frequently fail to understand and act upon hard facts. Learning this can help avoid future disasters of any sort.

This book is an attempt to re-write what has been the conventional view of the relation between Adolph Hilter and the German General Staff. After the war, Hitler was conveniently dead and that allowed the German Generals to put out a version of history that was accepted for some years but was at odds with the truth. The German Generals had towed the line that they were politically neutral prior to the 1930?s and that they had not been supporters of Nazi aims. Further that they opposed some aspects of Nazi war aims and acted in a professional way. Lastly they were highly competent and might have won the war if it had not had been for Hitler continually interfering with their operational plans.

Megargee argues convincingly that the German Generals had a political agenda similar to the Nazis. That is they supported the abrogation of the Treaty of Versailles, they wanted an end to democracy and they wanted Germany to rearm and to become a great power again. A large number of Generals such as Rommel, Guderian, Zeitzler and Reichenau were if not committed Nazis, enthusiastic barrackers yelling support from the sidelines.

One interesting point is Megaree?s estimation of the ability of the German Generals. After the war a large number wrote memoirs in which they modestly estimated themselves as pretty good. Megaree concedes that from an operational point of view the German army did well. However it was vulnerable in a number of respects. The key mistake made by Germany in the war was the attack on the Soviet Union. It would seem clear that the planning for operation Barbarossa was deeply flawed. For instance the Germans knew nothing of the actual strength of the forces against them. (The Soviets had 5 million men, 20,000 tanks and 20,000 aircraft to the German?s 3million 3,200 and 3000 respectively) In addition the Germans had no clear plan of defeating the Soviets. Barbarossa was based on the hope that the bulk of Soviet forces could be destroyed near the Polish border. It was then hoped that the Soviets might give in or the government would collapse. However if this did not eventuate the Germans had massive supply problems. They had limited fuel, and they could not use the Soviet railway system until they changed the gauge. In fact when the Soviets failed to collapse the Germans suffered massive supply problems, not being able to supply their troops with winter clothing and struggling to maintain ammunition levels and fuel and spares for their vehicles and planes.

Thus throughout the war the German Army acted as if intelligence was not really worth worrying about and that supply was a problem which could be overcome by an act of will. This deficiency was not a problem in initial war in the west, as the distances were so small and the French and British acted incompetently when faced by the German advance. However against the Soviets it was fatal.

Megargee summarises the weakness of the German generals as one of a strategic weakness. It was one that they shared with Hitler and in fact it is clear that they had little insight into the reason for their defeat even after the finish of the war.

Another issue dealt with by the book is the question of the role of Hitler?s leadership in bringing about the loss of the war for Germany. Megargee clearly shows that it was only in the later part of the war (1944) that tensions arose between Hitler and the Generals. By this time the war was lost. Over the big decisions there was not a lot of disagreement.

This book although expensive is short and easy to read. It is interesting not just for those interested in the war, but it illustrates how history can be distorted by over reliance on self serving material.

I am traveling to Ireland soon, and found myself in need of a Rough Guide-- because no one else does it better. So far its been instrumental in planning my trip: from arrival in the Southern port cities to a trip around the Ring of Kerry to our planned stay in Dublin, its the starting point in accounting for lodging, restaurants, and activities. No guide can encapsulate the entire country they're "guiding" you through, but the very best give you a great sense of where and how to begin engaging with the country or countries in question and the Rough Guide typically does this with aplomb. I'm also headed to Britain on this trip too, and trust-- I've got the Rough Guide for Britain, too. Laurence West

I used this book for a 10-day driving trip around Ireland with my mom. My mom had brought Frommer's and Fodor's guide books, and we kept coming back to the Rough Guide. I'd used my first Rough Guide in Ecuador and loved it. What I love is that they cover everything, not just the tourist traps that the "mainstream" guide books do. The book's recommendations are right on and they have information on even the most out-of-the-way places. The book's best suggestion was climbing Mount Errigal - quite a hike, but so worth it.

Even the maps in the book are excellent. We ended up using the Rough Guide maps combined with a tourist map we got at the aiport for a large-scale view of the country. The Michelin driving map we brought ended up being too complicated to use.

After several great experiences with them, Rough Guides are now my guide book of choice. You won't be disappointed with this one!

This is the first Rough Guide I've purchased, and I'll be looking for more in the series. I like the way the guide is structured, by county and town/smaller area, with attractions described in detail enough for a reader to decide whether or not to see them.

I was weaned on the Blue Guides when I first did international travel. I loved the detail about towns and historic sites in those guides along with the suggested tours. The Rough Guide lived up to this standard for me. It provided a good level of detail to enjoy our touring with an organzization of the information that made sense.

This was the 3rd "Rough Guide" I've used, and in my opinion they are the best resources for travel to new countries. They not only cover the "standard" areas and sites in detail - including a good range of lodging and dining options - but also take you off the beaten track, exposing nice gems not covered in other books.

If you like to really EXPLORE a country, rather than find the next good shopping area or find the most economical place to sleep, this book and ALL of the "Rough Guides" are for you!