Dobbs does his usual masterful job with the subject at hand. It's wonderfully informative and well worth the read.

It is a compelling assessment of both Kennedy and Khrushchev, and makes clear just how close we came to a nuclear conflict. As a result of the Bay of Pigs disaster Khrushchev determined that Kennedy was a man of mush and decided that the USSR could field missiles in Cuba. Fortunately it became a grown-up moment for JFK. His original miscalculation could not be compounded by yet another which was orders of magnitude more hazardous than trying to overthrow Castro.

He chronicles the minutes, hours and days of the confrontation. Too minutely, I think, since he eliminated only the potty breaks (though, on consideration, there must have been quite a few!). Virtually everything which happened over the frightful days is discussed, from the discovery of missile installation, thru the naval blockade, to the removal of the offending warheads from Cuba--at very little cost. The missiles in Turkey, dismantled in exchange for those in Cuba, were about to be removed in any event (though unbeknownst to the Turks.) Thru back channels he had promised Khrushchev they'd be removed 6 months later, and they were. As for the promise not to invade Cuba, another attempt is doubtful after the first fiasco.

When the counterrevolutionaries took over Hungary the USSR stood down for several days, waiting for Eisenhower to act. He did not--Eisenhower's mistake in my estimation--so Russia crushed the revolution. Khrushchev felt that the missiles would make Cuba invulnerable to American attack and equalize the balance of power. He understood that the missile placement represented something the U.S. could not permit, but he tried, hoping that Kennedy would back down as had Eisenhower. He couldn't, and didn't!

JFK calculated that whether blown up by a missile from Russia or from Cuba was ultimately not the issue. The decision was political. To do nothing was to submit to blackmail. He drew the proverbial "line in the sand" and stood by it, whatever the cost. And there very nearly was! So many variables, so many players and so much at risk. Castro wanted to "go for broke," prepared to risk being annihilated to make the point. Fortunately he was not in charge. Even Khrushchev was appalled by Castro's attitude. Khrushchev had seen much destruction in his time, and was reluctant to risk more. In the end his humanity is exposed. I, for one, have a more kindly view of the man after this book. He was a bully, but a brilliant politician-shoe banging and all. Here he is a sensate human.

"Despite their personal and ideological differences the two men had reached similar conclusions about the nature of nuclear war. They both understood that such a war would be far more terrible than anything mankind had known. Having witnessed war themselves, they also understood that a commander in chief was not always in control. They were awed, frightened, and sobered by their power to raze the world. The risks of modern war were unacceptably high, and it was necessary to intercede in whatever way possible.

"The history of the Cuban missile crisis is replete with accidental figures whose role in history is often overlooked: pilots and submariners, spies and missileers, bureaucrats and propagandists, radio operators and saboteurs," Dobbs observes. No longer. Every detail is included in this presentation.

It is the definitive volume on the crises, one never before carefully explored (and likely never again.)

Not incidentally he also discusses Kennedy's myriad and very serious illnesses, long kept secret from the public. He also lays the groundwork for Viet Nam, exposing the foibles and weaknesses of Kennedy's brain trust--especially McNamara. It is clear that if ever there was "the best and the brightest," or "the dream team," it was the brain trust created by Ronald Reagan. He assembled the best cabinet in 20th century history, one comparable to Lincoln's during the Civil War. Even now not many will acknowledge that fact, but some of the best Washington minds of the era have certified it, including more than a handful powerful Democrats!

The search for a means of determining longitude is a millennial quest which reached its culmination in 1759. This is a tour-de-force account of that quest and its solution. She suggests it is arguable that the British Empire owes its existence to the find. Without longitude, "dead reckoning" was the only possibility, and disastrous results awaited most miscalculations. Travel was done within pre-determined latitudes. "Aim here, stay on course and you'll run into something from whence you can determine which way you want to turn to arrive where you intended. This facilitated piracy and bounty hunting. One example offered was a captured Portuguese ship returning from the Americas with a cargo worth half of the net value of the entire English Exchequer at the time (that was millions upon millions of today's dollars.)

Sobel reviews the dilemma in general, and then explores the specifics. Latitude had been reasonably well mastered from before the time of the Phoenicians, but not longitude. Only two reasonable tracks could be pursued: the painfully slow endeavor of comprehensive mapping of the heavens in both hemispheres, and likewise the tracks of the moon (over its 18 year cycle), with complicated coordination of this data into useful equations which could be published in a source book--rather like logarithms in geometry; the other was the creation of a clock which would be accurate within few seconds per day over many months--a feat considered impossible.

The former method was eventually rendered possible on land, with considerable accuracy, but not at sea. On land it had to be determined only once, on a clear night, and recorded as a datum, while at sea there were days, even weeks, when visibility was limited or non-existent, and times when the seas were too rough to accomplish such metrics. Clocks, on the other hand, were then dependent upon pendulums, which for a variety of reasons were non-starters at sea.

From the outset it appears (to me, at least) that the chronograph, as the clock was to be called, was the best solution, but the astronomers were in charge, and did their very best to stay on top. The British Crown had declared a reward of 20,000 pounds--12 million dollars today--to the genius who figured it out. Hundreds of people sought the answer, most of them crackpots.

John Harrison, an autodidact and carpenter by trade, undertook the challenge by first developing a clock with a pendulum which didn't change its length with changes of temperature (which influenced its accuracy.) No mean trick, but it still had a pendulum. He then built a clock which required neither a pendulum nor lubrication, which eliminated the problems, including the viscosity changes of the lubricant, but it was made of wood and all but impossible to protect from humidity. Finally he created a metal clock of various metals whose temperature related characteristics offset each other, thus eliminating error, but it was huge--4x4 feet and weighed over 80 lbs. These efforts took him decades, and involved 3 separate clocks: H-1, H-2 and H-3. Two and three were smaller if not lighter, and the last met the requirements of the crown for accuracy, but Harrison was not satisfied.

Having commissioned the creation of a pocket watch for himself, designed by him, it occurred to him that such a device could be the answer, and using all of the now known facts might be more affordable and easier to manage, and would certainly be smaller. Eureka! Several years later he had a wonderfully accurate chronograph which was nonetheless still expensive. But it worked, and he was on his way to the prize worth millions. Unfortunately his hated adversary was the Royal Astronomer, and sabotaged both the clock and the endeavor, holding out for an astronomical answer which he and his predecessors had been working on for decades. Harrison stood alone against the vested interests of both scientists and admirals, and finally prevailed in 1759: the H-4 was a 3 pound mechanism only 5 inches in diameter and sealed completely from humidity, and it performed as well as the H-3 which had demonstrated an accuracy of but 3 seconds lost on an 81 day cruise to the Caribbean!

While it is clear that Ms. Sobel could have described, at length, the processes of both competing endeavors, she briefly reviews--bless her heart--the information while keeping the book short and interesting. In addition she is a gifted writer, reminding me of the now long gone section in the Readers Digest which was titled "toward more picturesque speech." A delightful read if you are interested in the quest for latitude; brief, but complete.

"Democracies, I think--if the cause, if the commanding general, if the conditions of time and space take on their proper meaning--for a season can produce the most murderous armies from the most unlikely of men, and do so in the pursuit of something spiritual rather than the mere material. This book, devoted to infantry, not airpower, tries to learn why all that is so." Thus begins the discussion and exploration of The Soul of Battle, by Victor Davis Hanson, delving into, analyzing and expounding upon three of the most exemplary such battles of all time:

1. The battle surrounding the defeat of the hubristic and hated Spartans. At the time, Laconia, home territory of the Spartans, had not been attacked for nearly 600 years. An army of 70,000 Hoplites, commanded by Epaminondas, marched 180 miles from Thebes in the winter of 370-369 B.C. These Greek Yeoman--simple dirt farmers, voting citizens and volunteers all--over-ran Laconia and destroyed it, freeing its slaves, then moved on to neighboring Messenia, freeing forever Spartan Helots (serfs). They established several free, fortified Greek city-states governed by these freedmen. There were few casualties suffered by the invaders, and though the Spartans were slaughtered like cattle on the first day, subsequent losses were few, since they avoided further meetings with the Thebans on the field of battle. Instead, they left their women to pathetically plead for mercy. Epaminondas ("Iron Gut") and his democratic army accomplished in 60 days what imperial Athens had been unable to do in 27 years of the Peloponnesian War. Less than six months later his army returned home in time for spring planting, never to be assembled again. The Spartans, while still a nuisance for a time, were never again the Sparta of myth, legend, or prior reality as their army had been demonstrated to be a hollow and heartless shell.

2. For nearly 150 years we have studied Sherman's March to the Sea (Nov. 16 to Dec. 21, 1864) in which William Tecumseh ("Uncle Billy") Sherman led an army of Midwestern troops 62,000 strong--also mostly simple dirt farmers, voting citizens and volunteers--into and through the heart of the Confederacy, a slave based society similar to Sparta. There the Army of the West razed the property and freed the slaves of the arrogant plantation owners who had driven the south into the Civil War. When Sherman's army turned north five weeks later the Confederacy, and its ability to make war, had been thoroughly destroyed. While there were 30,000 Confederate troops "in his way," they never entered the field of battle in their own defense. They hid, leaving their women to plead for leniency and safety. Their safety was never in doubt, but leniency was denied. The Rebels, like the Spartans, were shown to be a hollow force. Little known is the fact that Sherman's army killed virtually no one and experienced only a handful of casualties--virtually none of these in combat--and did no direct harm to the poor. After the surrender at Appomattox four months later, the army was disbanded and never heard from again--and the Confederate slave state was no more.

3. The lightening attacks of George Patton's Third Army contributed mightily to the defeat of Germany in WWII, sweeping rapidly across Europe and into the German homeland (Aug. 1 to May 8, 1944/45). Had he not been halted for two months to permit Montgomery to pursue his failed operations, Patton would have been in Germany months before, the war shortened by six months, and the outcome entirely different. Almost certainly there would have been no Russian occupation, no Berlin wall, and just maybe no cold war. Certainly there would have been 500,000 fewer deaths (though some estimates of deaths potentially prevented run well into the millions.) In seven months--plus the two when Patton was sidelined--the Third Army, composed of raw recruits who for the most part had never been in battle, so completely overwhelmed the Germans that they lived in constant dread of the army of "Old Blood and Guts." He experienced fewer casualties than any other general, while inflicting more. Alone amongst Allied generals, Patton was feared. He struck terror in the hearts and minds of the Nazis--the master race--who never knew what he would do, where he would go, when he would attack . . . or how. They knew, only that he was lethal. As with the prior armies, Patton's half a million men was disbanded within months, vanishing into the U.S. landscape never to be heard from again, except in history. And the Nazis entered history in the 9th year of their much touted 1,000 year Reich. A third evil slave state destroyed by a murderous democratic army of "spiritual warriors."

Such is the soul of battle. Hanson observes that, and why, "Iron Gut", "Uncle Billy" and "Blood and Guts" were all respected, admired and even worshipped by the men they commanded. Yet, each maintained a certain distance from, and a subtle contempt for, the very masses they led. All spent their time at the front, where they could command and be seen by their troops. All kept moving, always taking new ground, never settling into fixed positions, "paying for the same territory twice," as Patton remarked. All were feared by their adversaries, but each exhibited a certain softness and consideration for their enemies, once defeated. All were intellectuals, far better read and educated than their armies and their contemporary commanders, especially in the literature and philosophy of war. All honored the warrior culture they labored mightily to destroy, and all followed an arcane honor code poorly suited for times of peace. They were ruthless and gifted men of little subsequent use. Neither the three, nor their armies, started the wars which they did not wish to begin. All led armies which fought with a terrible vengeance, as Spartan helotage, African slavery, and Nazism perished in their fearsome onslaught. All were despised by their opponents--Sherman is still hated in the South--and worshipped by those they commanded and those whose salvation they wrought . . . millions upon millions of people.

This book demonstrates that these commanders instilled in their men a zealous ethic, making them understand and believe they were morally superior to their undemocratic, slave-holding adversaries. It is more nearly an essay on the ethical nature of democracies at war than a pure history of epic military marches for freedom. In it, Hanson demonstrates that "on rare occasions throughout the ages there is a soul, not merely a spirit, in the way men battle."

It is a truly magnificent read, detailed and graphic, informative and wise. Read it and understand that, and why, an American army, deployed properly for the right reasons, led by stirring, competent and committed commanders, will never lose a war.

The author is an historic favorite of many of my generation, having regularly appeared on the McNeil/Lehrer News Hour, with beautiful, thoughtful essays on varietal subjects. He was also an essayist and editor of Time Magazine, as well having published several books, amongst them Rules for Aging, an interesting little book.

This is a memoir of incredible sensitivity and poignancy. His 38 year old daughter died several years ago, leaving behind a husband and three young children. Roger and his wife immediately moved in to assist, as grandparents and surrogate parents, to relieve their son-in-law, Harris--a busy hand surgeon at the peak of his demanding career.

With his usual sensitive touch, wry wit and self-deprecating air, Rosenblatt describes the family's "impossible" loss, the tribulations, the grief, and his and his wife's efforts to balance the scales. His modest claim is to be able to "make toast" each morning, precisely to the specifications of each of the individuals in the household. Hence the title.

It is one of the most profound memoirs you will read, right up there with Tuesdays with Morrie, and Have a Little Faith, and every bit as personal. He describes, in myriad reflections and incidental anecdotes, the quiet and largely unstated rage and bitterness, the familial love and sacrifices, the support for the children and each other, and the daily family interactions from study and play times to outings and conversations. Almost every page includes an insight, sometimes profound, and I defy anyone to read this brief memoir without tearing up. It is simple--almost lyrical--and elegant; a testimonial of love and friendship, reinforced by family values of an old fashioned kind.

It is, in part, a diary of events as interpreted by the family and their friends; as well a story of tenderness and patience, a tribute to survival, and at the same time a heartbreakingly beautiful eulogy to a beloved daughter.

Sorman is a prominent French intellectual and a champion of democracy and free markets who has written some 20 books on various contemporary issues, many of them economic. In this lengthy essay he looks under the hood of the current Chinese bustle, glamour and shining achievements to expose the one billion who live in abject poverty, well beneath the world's radar. His conclusions are not dissimilar to The China Fantasy, reviewed here several years ago, but the text is much more detailed.

He exposes the disenchantment, human rights violations, governmental corruption, censorship, repression and propaganda. While 200 million subjects are relatively prosperous, even they are protesting, loudly in some cases, and frequently suppressed vigorously for so doing. None of this will you see in the popular media. Nor will you be apprised of the ignorance of the general public about the past, distant or recent. No one under forty has a clue about the reality of Mao, so complete is the control of history by the government. The current economic development plan, geared to the world--and especially the American--market is basically urban oriented as it exploits the rural population, and in any event is largely for the purpose of developing further the infrastructure to support massive military and related endeavors. "For the price of one rocket, hundreds of schools and hospitals could be built. There would be greater harmony, but the world might not be as impressed."

In Europe, the law preceded capitalism; in China the opposite is true. In China profit comes first. Respect for property and contractual obligations have yet to follow. The path is unpredictable and fraught with uncertainty. Still, China is an economic midget with a per-capita income 5% of that in Europe. Before the midget turns into a giant it has to overcome internal contradictions, unpredictable political institutions, the absence of the rule of law, mass poverty and an insufficient energy supply, with banks on the verge of ruin, the flight of national capital, and the risk of epidemics. (AIDs is rampant, along with other things which you haven't read about in the news recently.) "We in the West can only be threatened if we choose to sit back and do nothing."

Chinese laws exist only on paper. Those in command operate behind the scenes. Only the Party hierarchy matters, and most functionaries are faceless bureaucrats. Meetings are held in secret. No one permeates the top of the party. Local cadres terrorize the people daily. The Party crosses all bounds and has demonstrated its extraordinary capacity to kill, steal and lie; the so called Central Commission for Discipline is nothing like the name implies. It is not a watch-dog operation, but "searches out" corruption and imprisons or executes the perps for the purpose of eliminating fraud. Since the Party is in charge, corruption is worse than ever before. The whole point of Communist Party domination is to maintain its hold over society and ensure the prosperity of its members. (Gee, sounds a lot like modern Washington, doesn't it?)

The Party continues its search for legitimacy, but becomes slowly weaker over the years. Early on Mao promised democracy. Later it was felt that an authoritarian regime was necessary for modernization, but the Great Leap Forward was a disaster. To revamp the system Mao serially eliminated the old Chinese elite. The people have been lied to and used for years, and it would be a mistake to underestimate the desire of the people for freedom and justice. Note the rising number of religious protests, worker demonstrations, dispossessed peasants and petitions of intellectuals. Development alone will no longer satisfy the people, and the Party is looking for another reason to justify its existence. It could be nationalism and war. He explores, as he reminds that the yawning gap between what is said and what happens has, in the past, led to the fall of emperors. In 1912, he notes, the people got to elect their leaders--after 2200 years of imperial rule--and they elected the Republican Party.

Investment decisions are made on a political rather than an economic basis. Skilled university graduates cannot find jobs commensurate with their qualifications. The Chinese economy is based upon the massive deployment of unskilled labor rather than R & D, which is why so many of their graduates emigrate to the U.S. or Canada. Worse, purchasing power depends on proximity to the Party rather than education, enterprise or productivity. The way to wealth is by getting loans and not repaying them, which requires connections, and commissions must be paid to the bankers who then pocket the money. Those with connections get rich at twice the rate of their entrepreneurial counterparts in India, which embraced globalization at about the same time. The wealth of the fortunate fails to take into account the unequal distribution of income.

Some recall that Korea and Japan were once in identical circumstances, yet managed to prosper. China may, but she still lacks the innovative spirit because of her institutions. Simply exploiting the masses for instant profits will not suffice, and they cannot steal their way to prosperity for all. Shanghai, he observes, is "nothing but a façade of modernity erected by the Party; the Chinese version of a Russian Potempkin Village. China is not a miracle but an illusion. Further, it has been observed that with the one child rule China will "get old long before it gets rich."

Its religions are ancient and universal, but are not really religions in the customary sense. The much touted Falun Gong along with Qigong, is probably less suited to a Chinese mien than is Christianity, which is making rapid headway there. At least, if properly taught, it might introduce tolerance, equanimity, morality etc., for which the Chinese were formerly quite famous (Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, etc.), and which ancients are, according Sorman, already dead following their century-long struggle against communism. Chinese religions set little store in feelings, love or other ephemeral stuff. They abide by rules. In the West, to do good is to love. In China, to do good is to obey the rules. As a result the malice of communism has destroyed the rituals while the quality of love remains unvalued. Cruelty has come to dominate.

The myth that powerful China will submerge the rest of the world is just that. It is a poor, overpopulated nation with a GDP barely the size of the France. The mindlessness of the West is astounding, and reflects stage management by the government. It is no more "exotic" than India, and probably far less so, yet the fascination with the "slumbering giant" is unabated. Since the government ascribes the failure of communism to mere ineptness, the Party deludes itself into thinking it will go on forever.

The West, he notes, almost universally overlooked the weakening of the USSR. When Gorbachev balked at ordering demonstrators to be shot, he lost, and the Russian empire was finished. The Party works at convincing the West that it is supportive of the people and their desires--that they reflect the will of the population. They don't. The Chinese themselves are not deluded. China should be looked at not as a country of like people, but as Europe, with its many states, ethnicities, attitudes and religions. Getting them all to agree is all but impossible. It has been a country for millennia, but throughout its history there has never really been a unified whole, just a group of coexisting principalities under the rule of one Emperor.

In closing he argues for continued contact and trade because of the benefit to the peasant masses, and to maintain contacts which, however slowly, are infiltrating those masses with a yearning for more of the freedom they see in other parts of the world . . . especially the West. As a reminder recall Tiananmen, and 1989! These people can change their government when they get furious enough, and they are not happy, regardless of what the Party tells the world.

Deftly and elegantly Cornwell draws superb word pictures to explain attitudes of the British officers, the aristocratic architecture of command, and entertainment of and by the privileged at the time of the Revolutionary War. Equally evocatively he describes the signs, sounds and smells of battle; the tactics, turmoil, wounds, destruction, destitution, and death. He is clearly the master of the historic novel, especially so for the history of battle. He develops wonderful characters to provoke understanding of his plot(s).

The book achieves its goal in explaining the turning points of the Revolution: the abandonment of Boston, the British occupation of Philadelphia--as he describes its squalor--and its eventual abandonment after the first important British defeat at Saratoga.

He carefully explores the underlying sympathies of patriots and loyalists, and the apposition of love, hate, mercy, compassion, villainy and deceit, along with vivid descriptions of life and times as he speaks with clarity of the rigors of life in the 18th century. It is a greatly informative tract and a delightful read. With unparalleled eloquence he explains the now ancient and foreign idea of liberty and freedom. Sam, the "Redcoat," was a British soldier, a skilled caretaker of cavalry horses, who was torn over whether or not to desert. He had decided, but was hesitant after his American sweetheart decided to return to a former consort.

I pray that here in Obamaland, very soon, a majority will awaken to Cornwell's stirring thoughts, given voice by a patriot character in his novel as she encourages the Redcoat: "Liberty isn't heaven, Sam, it isn't a blessed reward. People will still die in sorrow and poverty when they have liberty. It's simply, only, the freedom to choose your own life, and no one promises you success. . . . I hate having some fat arrogant man in London telling me what I can or can't do. I'd rather the fat arrogant man was in Philadelphia, because at least then I could throw something at him. We don't need London any more. We're grown up. We want liberty. You grew up, Sam, and you didn't want your parents telling you what to do all the time. You wanted liberty, and you got it. You joined the army [and now you're here] . . . there's a river out there, and on its other side is liberty. All you have to do is cross the water. . . . There's a whole new world. There are more hills and valleys than you could dream of, and they're just waiting for the touch of a man's plough. There are rivers wider than your Thames and they still don't even have names. There are horses waiting to be bred, and there's grass to feed them. There's everything a man could want here, Sam, and if we win this fight, there'll even be liberty for everyone [to use or misuse, it is a citizen's choice.]"

As well he explores French rationale for entering the war in all of its complexity, dissects Clinton's initial command as he speaks of arrogance, pride, honor and dishonor, and as usual brings the plot to a roaring, exciting conclusion.

As with everything this man writes, I recommend it highly. No living writer is better than Bernard Cornwell! Nor are most of the dead ones.

Rapt attentiveness will envelope you within a short period of exposure to this riveting tome on the 1900 Galveston hurricane--the worst natural disaster in American history. Isaac Monroe Cline was the bureau chief on station for the newly created U.S. Weather Bureau at the time, and Larson builds the story around this man. Smart, well informed, thoughtful, careful and hubristic; he considered himself expert on all matters concerning weather prediction, and exhibited the demeanor of much of the world at a time when man had concluded he could control most everything, overcome all hazards, and perhaps run the planet as he saw fit. Some similarly disposed man on the continent, he reminds, designed and built the "unsinkable" Titanic!

Exact measurement was not possible at the time, but the unnamed storm is felt to have been accompanied by winds in excess of 140 mph, with ocean swells in excess 30 feet, while the highest elevation on the island was but 15 feet. Thus Galveston Island became Atlantis, albeit for only a little while.

The understanding of hurricanes was primitive at the time, but weathermen weren't aware of how ignorant they were. Storms were known to follow nearly fixed courses after all! They originate deep in the Caribbean, hook east over Florida, and track up thru the Carolinas before turning back out to sea. Always! They just could not be expected to go west. While the Cubans staffing the American station in Havana counseled otherwise, the director of the American staff, and his superiors in Washington, were convinced that these were stupid, emotional people given to making all manner of inaccurate claims. The fact that they were more advanced than the U.S. never occurred to anyone up this-a-way. Americans simply wouldn't listen to the Cubans, and they "lost" the storm headed straight for Texas because they were looking for it around Tampa.

Without ship to shore radio, etc., there was no way for ships in the gulf to report the horrendous happenings encompassing their whereabouts. Larson has spent many days researching the data and reports interestingly on the anatomy of storms and the course and calamity of this particular one, eye-witness accounts from sea captains, notes from various government departments, and more. It's not unlike McCullough's book on the Johnstown flood, reviewed here years ago,
The storm brought death and incredible destruction, yet they are but half of the story. The fate of the people at the hands of nature brought out their heroism and determined response, as it had during and after the Johnstown Flood only 11 years before. 10-12,000 people died, 6,000 on the island alone; just under 20% of the population.

Larson has now "done it" for a third time. Devil in the White City is in the top 30 (or so) of my strongly recommended books. Thunderstruck and the current offering add to his successes. He always manages to take some "out of the mainstream" subject and render it as a very readable tract well worth the time to indulge in a good read. Skilled writer, he.

This unique novel is a sleeper of sorts. A "first book," and the winner of the Man Booker Prize (a literary prize awarded each year for the best original full-length novel, written in the English) and a wonderful explication of life in modern India. It was written by a native, educated at Columbia University, who has returned to India to live and work.

Charming is not a word one would use, since he exposes a lot of the intrigue, corruption, and conundrums of life in India, especially for the poor: i.e. most of the population. For those of us who saw the movie Slum Dog Millionaire, it isn't a total shock, but Adiga emphasizes that Bollywood isn't exactly representative of India.

The principal protagonist, Balram, is a poor, lower caste Indian whose father--a rickshaw man--wants his son to be more than he had the opportunity to be; to "live like a man, not a donkey." He contrives as best possible to get his son an education, but the conditions mitigate this goal, largely due to village corruption. Balram is forced to the city to look for work and becomes a driver for a wealthy business man; a lesser protagonist who is corrupt and unhappily married to a woman who wants money, leisure, and the things only available thru wealth in the new India. She's also a shrew.

The poor are used and treated like slaves, even by those "above them" amongst the household servants. Their betters vote for them and elections are rigged, capitalizing on the power pirated thereby. A little pamphlet, he explains, "will be given [to you] by the prime minister [which] will no doubt contain a very large section on the splendor of democracy in India--the awe-inspiring spectacle of one billion people casting their votes to determine their own future, in full freedom of franchise, and so on an so forth." It's a f***ing lie! Peasants are forbidden at the polls, and often beaten if they attempt to vote.

"Never before in human history have so few owed so much to so many. A handful of men in this country have trained the remaining 99.9 percent--as strong, as talented, as intelligent in every way--to exist in perpetual servitude; a servitude so strong that you can put the key to his emancipation in a man's hands and he will throw it back at you with a curse."

Balram finally determines how to use the corruption to benefit himself, and becomes a prosperous and wealthy man; a serious and successful entrepreneur who, by murdering his master and stealing his money is able to open one lucrative business after another, all the while hiding his actual identity in a distant large city. He left "the Darkness" of village life and succeeded.

The entire plot of the book is to explain his life; its origins and thru his various endeavors to success and wealth. It is a dark, shadowy tale, but apparently true of modern India. It's very well written, interesting, and quite worthwhile.

This riveting tome is in the vein of Dancing Under the Red Star, reviewed here about a year ago. It is a well documented, heavily referenced book, whereas "Dancing" was a memoir in the third person, written by the son of the woman who endured the gulag and lived. "Forsaken" is about the revolution and early days of Stalin, presented in considerable detail. Both emphasize the hundreds of Americans (perhaps thousands--there is no documentation) who went to Russia during the depression. They were promised a future in a new and bright land with full employment, freedom and more, only to be disenchanted and disenfranchised before being imprisoned and destroyed. All of this was done without our government lifting a finger to rescue them; not even an acknowledgement. These unfortunates didn't emigrate to become "Reds," they moved for the promise of high paying jobs. Their passports were seized and sold by the Russian government, their meager funds were taken, and their pay was in rubles insufficient for sustenance.

Washington did know! The documentation herein is much more damning, and is backed up by references and quotations from original commentators, notably the disingenuous Walter Duranty and Paul Robeson, and the renowned Russian scholar and diplomat, George Kennan. Duranty (the Moscow bureau chief for the N.Y. Times) won a Pulitzer for reportage on, and denial of, the "alleged" Ukrainian holocaust, amongst other Stalinist horrors. Robeson (a very talented black entertainer and later recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize) was virulently anti-fascist and anti-racist, yet embraced communism even after exposure to its duplicity and its murderous degradations. So Duranty lied, and Robeson caved. The soviets figured (correctly) that these folks would soon be forgotten; they couldn't allow the Americans to leave and tell the world how vile and bestial was the revolution. Kennan* and Ambassador Bullitt, the wealthy friend of the president, were unable to influence FDR to do anything; another event to tarnish his legacy. It was neither America's nor Roosevelt's "finest hour."

Few of the handful of survivors were available to Tzouliadis for interviews, hence there is great emphasis on specific gulags, most notably Kolyma. This was the gold mine which singularly financed Stalin's malevolent machine; a remote Siberian hell from which very few emerged. Thomas Sgovio, the only American survivor of this camp returned to the U.S. some 30 years later. He credited his survival to his promise to dead compatriots, and to his determination to live to tell the west what it did not know, thanks to our government, Duranty and his ilk. I should mention here that Hitler did get his nationals out, proving it could be done (though he executed them for treason.)

What makes it all worse was the fact that the U.S. government was supplying Stalin with machinery, tools--even shovels--all made in America, and ships on the "lend-lease" program (neither returned nor paid for) which made it possible for Russia to continue its operation of Kolyma. "We" knew it was a prison gulag, and that there were Americans there! Worse, after WW II hundreds (or more) of the American soldiers imprisoned by the Germans were simply transferred to the gulags. When it became known, Eisenhower eschewed the opportunity to comment, fearing that confrontation of the Soviets "could be disastrous." Even in the '50s, reports of Americans in gulags were ignored by our government, and undisclosed by the press.

Recorded for posterity, for anyone willing to expend the time to read it, is this astonishing exposition of Russian atrocities. The Gulag Archipelago was, and will remain the definitive text, but this book deals more fully with the American experience. This is up close and personal.

"In a totally fictitious world, failures need not be recorded, admitted or remembered. Factuality itself depends for its continued existence upon the existence of the non-totalitarian world." A quote from The Origins of Totalitarianism, by Hannah Arendt-c.1951

From Russia there emerged neither newsreels, nor photos; nothing but a few witness statements accompanied by drawings from memory by survivors. Few memoirs have ever been published. After the war, the audience had already grown weary of narratives of violence and human suffering. The existing horrors were more than enough--the clear confirmation that the Allied nations had been fighting a justified war against a manifest evil as represented by the verities of the black-and-white newsreels from the Nazi camps. "To add a concurrent notion of a Soviet genocide, and one from within the wartime alliance, was perhaps too much to bear. . . . Few had believed the scale of the reports from Poland or, in the early stages of the Holocaust, had dismissed them as 'atrocity tales.' How much more incomprehensible, then, that a society [ostensibly] predicated on the equality and fraternity of mankind could commit a crime even remotely equivalent?"

It is important to be apprised and to remember. The horror of Communism has been, and continues to be forgotten by the world. Evil is associated primarily with the Nazis. That is unfortunate. This book goes some distance to correcting that fact, but only if it is read; an undertaking which I strongly recommend.

*In fairness it must be observed that Kennan was the architect and fierce advocate of the containment strategy during the Truman administration--opposed vigorously by many on the left. It continued for virtually all of the "cold war." Thus he redeemed himself credibly, if belatedly.

This is a gripping though bone-chilling little book which exposes "New Russia" as more corrupt than we might have hoped or expected. The author is a journalist who has lived in, and reported on Russia for more than a decade, and is thus clearly "in the know." It is a very readable account of his subject. Were it not true, one might conclude it is just one of those thrillers written by the likes of Berenson, Thor or Forsyth. It's not, which is why it is so frightening. The man and his cronies are every bit as vicious as Stalin, Beria and Yezov or Dzerzhinsky, promulgating murder and mayhem indistinguishable from the bad old days, except that on the modern stage they have to be a little more clever. More people are paying attention now, and there are few apologists like Walter Duranty, the NY Times reporter who won the Pulitzer in 1932 for his glorious reportage on Stalin's utopia (now thoroughly discredited before all but the most ardent believers, and everyone with an I.Q. above room temperature.)

The "dark side" of Russians is exposed as tolerant of these crimes, having been taught by history "to be indifferent toward the suffering of others at their death." They are used to it; it's a psychological defense toward death. After a brief respite in the early 90's, when democracy was tried (and abused), the old Russia is back with a new aspirant to Czardom. The Kremlin is again in full control. Resistance is punished by imprisonment or death, as reflected by the Gazprom billionaire, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, now stripped of his wealth and serving a drummed up sentence, ostensibly for corruption. Actually, he financed opposition to Putin.

In recent years there have been many murders, most notably Anna Politkovskaya, a Russian journalist and human rights activist well known for her opposition to the Chechen conflict, and Alexander Litvinenko, whom you will recall was poisoned with polonium-120, and died a miserable and well publicized demise. This was a complicated and faultless assassination and P-120 is a rare agent virtually impossible to obtain without a deep governmental source. As well, recall the poisoning of Ukrainian president Viktor Yushchenko with PCB in a failed assassination attempt.

The governmental collusion in these and myriad other attacks have been confirmed by Oleg Gordievsky, a colonel in the KGB, and Boris Berezovsky, a well connected expat business man (both of whom are themselves at risk)

Under Putin the apparatchiks have accumulated fortunes at the expense of the economy, stealing vast sums from Russian coffers; especially so with oil and gas now spinning off enormous profits at $80-150 per barrel. Putin himself--the richest man in Europe--is said to be worth 40 billion dollars.

Chechnya was/is a holocaust covered up by Putin. The Beslan school massacre was in response to Russia's invasion of Chechnya, as was the terrorist destruction at the Moscow opera--both of which we have heard much about, though what we hear is about these events as terror, not their cause, which is their response to Russian terror.

Putin has, by chance, gotten hold of enormous power and has used it to catastrophic effect. The new president, Dmitri Medvedev is but his lackey. Crime is rampant and goes unpunished. Twenty-six reporters were murdered in the former USSR in 2006 alone, and while these murders are not necessarily ordered by Putin, they result from the climate of impunity which he has created. He protects those inside the system, and at least accepts these acts. "Without the sanction of Putin, no one would touch someone of Politkovskaya's stature. She was their political enemy, and that's why they killed her." Politkovskaya once observed that "You could be shot because of a thousand-dollar debt. Think about it." Practically everyone is for sale in Russia, and everything has a price.

Putin has signed a law granting the Kremlin's intelligence the right, indeed the responsibility--with his approval--to assassinate Russia's enemies within or without the nation's borders. In 2009 jury trials for crimes against the state have been eliminated, as the definitions of treason have been loosened. The president's term has been advanced from 4 to 6 years, the better to keep Putin in power for decades.

The ways of power in Russia have always been invisible, but Putin would not be in power without the acquiescence of the Kremlin, the military and security services. It is clearly in their mutual interest, professionally and financially. Medvedev may claim otherwise, but 'taint so.

Putin claims his policies have rejuvenated Russia, but in fact it is oil prices. Russia is reverting to its past. Oil prices have again recovered and refill Russia's coffers, but the economic slump revealed the essential hollowness of Putin's economic boom. A sustainable economy does not exist outside of oil, and to some extent gold. Don't look for things to improve!

A very interesting book, and since its subject is timeless, it can't be said to be dated; yet his agenda--and there is one--shows through. Throughout, he kept making the case for global warming, now called climate change, since it appears that we skeptics have been correct all along. He opines that the reconstruction of earlier climatic records "requires meticulous detective work, considerable ingenuity, and increasingly, the use of statistical methods." From the recent e-mail debacle, and the "discovery" that the melting glaciers in the Himalayas is a hoax, it would seem that ingenuity is the operational feature in such "reconstructional" endeavors. Why he uses the global deep-freeze as a springboard for global warming escapes me completely. If the globe is warming, it would seem clearly preferable to the cold of the era he is explaining.

Nevertheless it is a thoughtful and data filled recantation of climate cycles beginning with the immediate pre-renaissance period. He explains the mechanisms and, more interestingly, the impact upon life with the difficulties encountered by that ice age in its various stages.

For instance, he reviews the, devastating North Sea storms which excavated the Zuider Zee, known in Holland as the "Great Drowning of Men." At least 100,000 people were washed out to sea, along with their land. Not until the 20th century was the land reclaimed by Dutch dikes. The worst of these storms occurred in 1362 with hurricane-force winds which devastated large parts of England, Denmark, and Norway as well. For centuries the Basques experienced notable human loss attendant their cod fishing activities in the North Atlantic, their then secret fishing ground.

At other times crops failed and cattle perished as famine and epidemic diseases followed. Accusations of witchcraft abounded. Places where snow had historically been light were inundated with feet of snow, further compounding the calamitously low temperatures. It is not unreasonable to presume that the French Revolution was in part caused by the dire climate of the time--sufficient to marginalize further the already poor French farmers. The living standard of an average English farmer in 1800, he notes, was worse than that of many modern-day Third World subsistence farmers. "Tens of thousands of Englishmen" left for the U.S. from 1815-19.

Volcanic eruptions were productive of several depressions in global temperature, most notably the so-called "Year Without Summer." As well, he allows that diminished solar activity figured into this cooling. Ya think?

"Global mean surface temperatures have risen between 0.4 and 0.8 degrees Centigrade since 1860, and about 0.2- to 0.3 degrees since 1900." Just how and who determined this is left to the imagination. Of course we could just take his word for it, but even today there is serious debate over this kind of information and the means of properly assessing it. He infers that his models are the correct ones. I'd suggest that changes in temperature of a degree Centigrade, or under 2 degrees Fahrenheit over a century and a half are pretty unremarkable. More pleasant, anyone?

He acknowledges that The Little Ice Age is poorly explained and little understood, but certainly there have been similar changes over the eons. While we might expect recurrence in the natural cycle, he insists that there is "increasingly compelling evidence that humans have altered the climatic equation irrevocably (emphasis mine) through their promiscuous use of fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution." That, and the unprecedented land clearance which both increased the release of carbon dioxide and destroyed the forests which converted it back into oxygen. Our Bad!!

He omits, of course, that reforestation is occurring, and there are now more woodlands in Europe and the Americas than at the time of the ice age he is writing about.

He sums up that "mostly we know what to do but we lack the will to do it." We'd be wise to learn from the climatic lessons of history . . . blah, blah, blah.

Would that he'd bypassed his personal war on "global warming," and limited himself to his subject: "How Climate Made History: 1300-1850," and delivered a pleasant, informative dissertation on its origins as best understood today, and its impact upon civilization! With that caveat, it was a pretty good read.

Clinch undertakes the development of Huckleberry Finn's father, sketched only briefly by Twain in his 1884 classic. The book is fascinating, and could well stand alone, but is more interesting as a long awaited sequel. The language is elaborate and colorful, almost poetic. He paints "Finn" with infinite grace. I've never read a novel so well constructed and linguistically sophisticated, yet nothing is sacrificed by the erudition. Scarlett, it most definitely is not!

One becomes engrossed after but a page or two as he begins to draw his characters. The plot is wickedly serpentine, but easy to follow as he weaves thru numerous tangents, all in the furtherance of plot. Finn's grandfather and father were talented individuals, high up the regional pyramid, and respected, or at least feared. His brother is a wimp, but assists Finn in many ways, usually with neither knowledge nor consent of their bigoted, racist father, against whom Finn has rebelled his entire life.

He's a clever if cruel drunk; a tormented man who acquires what he possesses thru theft, manipulation, fraud and disingenuity. Amongst his chattels is a slave woman whom he acquires thru blackmail, and moves her to his horrible, previously abandoned riverside hovel. He provides for them as a "river man," largely by fishing, and collecting river-born debris to sell to interested locals. Most of his petty earnings are spent on whiskey.

Finn demonstrates occasional flourishes of hidden kindnesses, but even those are usually self-serving. By and large he is a nasty, irredeemable lout. With Mary, his captured "wife," he sires Huckleberry, who by fate or good fortune is born nearly white, and can "pass." Both mother and son are abused, Mary sometimes viciously. Huck disappears to places unknown.

When Huck and Tom Sawyer find a fortune in gold, Finn undertakes to claim "his" fortune to ease his life and provide himself with better whiskey. In this, as in all endeavors, he is truculent, shifty, and irremediably evil. He influences Huck to return, but eventually Mary and Huck leave. Finn eventually coerces her to return as a trade, of sorts--for leaving Huck alone.

Eventually he murders Mary and is in turn murdered. You'll recollect from the original story that Huck finds his dead father in the remnant of his house, floating down the Mississippi River. Clinch explains all.

The book explores familial damage done to the young by tyrannical fathers; as well the stain of slavery and color, even for freed blacks; and specifically the shame of several generations of the Finn family.

There are characters similar to Finn, along with noble personages and interesting people of all stripes between those poles. The women who undertakes to "mother" Huck--the widow Douglas, you'll remember--is considerate and compassionate, as is his mother Mary, despite her origins and travails.

The descriptions of life on the river in the era are fulsome, interesting, and as captivating as Clemens originals. It won't be confused with a "delightful" novel, but it is powerful, explosive, and memorable. Read it!

So impressive was the Thatcher bio by this writer that I had to try her older book (2006). It skims the war on terror, but explores in depth the reasons for Europe's refusal to engage, as its civilization declines. Berlinski is an American who has spent most of her adult life studying Europe and its history; living and reacting within its cultures from England, France and Germany, to Istanbul, Turkey where she currently resides. Her work is a treasure trove of information and memorable analysis.

She observes, strikingly, that Europeans are behaving as they always have. The seeming novel developments in politics and culture are not new--they have ancient roots. "From the sack of Rome to the Yalta Conference, that past has been one of nearly uninterrupted war and savagery." The most quiescent time in generations was after 1945 till the end of the Cold War, when their destiny was really controlled by the two superpowers. After the collapse of the Soviet empire Europe's history simply resumed its historic course. Then, as now, Europe was incapable of marshaling any effective, unified response. Not to Germany, nor to Communism, nor now to radical Islam. Its leaders lack the imaginative power to appreciate their adversary. They expect radicals to be like Europeans, amenable to reason and susceptible to bribery. They cannot appreciate that their posture engenders not reciprocal conciliation, but contempt. (Not unlike Obama and the left.)

Since the French revolution, and perhaps before, Europe has been gradually de-Christianizing. In recent years it is attempting to move from nation states to the mythical European Union without much success. It leaves behind little "beyond pleasure and personal relations, and these [are not] enough to keep hopelessness at bay." Without a common transcendental belief, this hopelessness universal.

Their anti-Americanism has been a theme of their tradition for 200 years. "They can exist without God, but fail without something to hate." Life is meaningless to them, and by their inclusion in the Western world their problem becomes ours. An unmoored, amoral Europe precludes our avoidance of them. Their combined economy and population exceeds ours, and it is imploding under the weight of social and economic pressures which neither the citizens nor the politicians will confront. Everything about their state of existence impacts us in some way; there is inchoate anti-Semitism, and a refusal to halt the advance of Islamic radicalism in their own spheres. Jewish pogroms have always been the canary in the coal mine, which bodes ill for yet more dissimilar immigrants. Europe--France especially--had enormously profitable relations with Iraq, which explains their vehement opposition to the overthrow of Saddam.

Liberal Americans are "besotted with Europe." They look to their cultures and institutions for inspiration, as they work to copy their welfare states. They wish "to learn of their family values," but there is no recognition that their low marriage rate, reduction in the establishment families, and catastrophically low birth rates are a problem. They are the lowest in the developed world, and well below replacement. Their native populations are shrinking. I immigration is required . . . most of it from wholly different cultures. To fund their welfare programs they are vigorously importing people to fill jobs and pay taxes, as they refuse to allow the integration of these foreigners into their societies. America attracts people who actually want to be here, to assimilate, and to intermarry.

Progressives style themselves as more sophisticated and politically mature, and believe Europe's antipathy is impartial, and a rational response to American failings. "I encourage them to feel uneasy in these sentiments."

She explores myriad avenues in exposing Europe for the "sick man" it is. She explains how America is better at almost everything of contemporary importance. Europe does have a remarkable history, but hasn't accomplished much since before Napoleon. It is strangely passive, vaguely coherent, and practices an odd sort of utilitarianism which avoids rule by divine right, yet offers nothing to replace it. Laws are obeyed because it's preferable to chaos. Things are done as they've always been done, and without belief or rationale. Rejection of moral absolutes is the source of a profound risk aversion. While amazingly tolerant of some things (terrorists?), they are intolerant of Jews, Americans, "Franken foods," and a variety of things which challenge their claim to tolerance.

She touches upon the electoral result of the Spanish train bombing, and the Dutch fears engendered by the Mohammed cartoons as well as the murders of Pim Fortuyn (a gay politician) and Theo Van Gogh (the producer of Submission.) European leaders demonstrate an unwillingness to comprehend the threat. They continue to insist that radical Islam is a problem of underdevelopment. The list of countries which spawn terrorists do have a common theme, but it is not underdevelopment. Most of the prime terrorists are from the middle and upper classes.

While it is possible to be European without abandoning Islam, it is impossible without abandoning its radical forms. Embracing a diluted Islam is little different than embracing diluted Christianity, which explains why immigrant Muslims feel no significant compulsion to integrate. Why integrate in a country which is decadent and without convictions?

For millennia there has been general agreement by cultures that certain things are deeply meaningful, while others are not consistent with a Good Life. Europe (and not a few Americans) has become fixated on money, sex and fame. Yet "religion, and the philosophical ideas of love, courage, integrity, dignity, respect, compassion, authenticity, genuineness--these are the things that will deliver the Good Life." Europeans are hungry for something no longer provided by their cultures. Conventional religion has been replaced by other "religions" like environmentalism.

The West devours religion by tempting the faithful with more immediate satisfactions: personal autonomy, sexual freedom, few rules, and neat things to buy. Europe has snuffed out Christianity, and may do so with Islam . . . hopefully before Islam snuffs out Europe. But it is far easier to destroy than to build.

"Of course it is true that military force is not the only solution. Overwhelming military force is the only solution." Her critics insist that she "keeps bringing up the Nazis." She challenges them to find a single situation where the analogy fails.

Profound instincts become sublimated when repressed. Religious instinct, and the nationalistic instinct, amongst others can be neither denied nor eradicated. We now have nature worshippers, global warming worshippers, faux religions like the Druids, Wiccans, etc. The most prominent rock group in Germany--Rammstein--is Naziesque, but the group and its followers deny this vigorously. She reviews many of their lyrics, however, and they are scary. If they represent the "normal way of being German" spare us the abnormal way. They claim to be "helping Germany to rediscover its identity," but she asks why Germany would want to rediscover that identity?

There is an ancient theme in German history, one of resentment when it does not occupy its "proper place." But the scariest feature is that they plainly have not learned from history. They feel oppressed by the world, and especially by America. Imagining that they could be brothers of the French, sisters to the Belgians or cousins to the British is at least laughable.

Comical--or not--she reviews the Laeken Declaration in which, "At long last Europe is on its way to becoming one big family," then lists a full page of wars--at least 70--beginning with the sack of Rome and ending with the Balkan Wars, with the caveat that "only the first wars that come to mind: I have probably forgotten quite a number. By way of contrast, the United States has fought one war, and that against itself."

"As someone who has spent time thinking about Europe . . . I do not prophesy [its demise] . . . nor do I predict catastrophe on [its] soil, [but] Europe's entitlement economy will collapse. Its demography will change. The European Union may unravel. [Terrorists] may succeed in taking out a city." And once again, the only people to whom this will come as a surprise are those how have not been paying attention." (emphasis in the original.)

European anti-Americanism is a cultist system of faith, rather than a set of rational beliefs, and as such is "impervious to revision upon confrontation with facts, logic, evidence, gestures of good will, public relations campaigns, or attempts on the part of [the Americans] to be better, more sensitive listeners." The bulk of the attitude, America's deficits notwithstanding, is exuberantly irrational. And it is neither improving, nor likely to.

Dobbs is nothing if not a fantastic writer. This is a novel, but only just. It is historic fiction at its best, and covers one of the darkest periods in 20th century history. Another reviewer described it as "Churchill as nature intended: Dobbs captures his famous subject with artistry. With every stroke of his brush, he etches the character deeper into the memory. It is beautifully done." Hard to improve upon that. I've read a lot about Churchill, but this gives one a real understanding of what motivated this historic giant.

The early chapters are about Winston's desperate attempts to rouse the Parliament to face Hitler, as he knew must be done. Later he was elected Prime Minister, whereafter he exercised comparable effort to motivate the U.S. to enter the conflict.

Along the way he remarkably observed to his daughter-in-law that "after the war is over, whoever holds the reins of authority, it will not be Britain." It would be a new world; a young world. Britain's days in command would be over. Pamela asks whom he would choose. His answer was "America." Better them than Russia or Germany. "Even though at times they [Americans] totter around like blind men . . . [and] they don't understand that all men are not as they are. Even when they stumble over the truth they pick themselves up and carry on as if nothing has happened." And they are optimists, believing they can achieve whatever they decide to undertake.

Dobbs explores the depths of Germany's depravity, with its declaration of war against their ally, Stalin. He describes the terror and destruction of England--especially London--by the Nazi bombers as he chronicles the stoic heroism of the English. All of this in real life terms with clarity that helps the uninitiated understand just how awful war is, and how it must be endured when necessary. Churchill, without doubt, was responsible for the sustenance which kept Britain and its people sane and engaged. The sacrifices were numerous, challenging and costly.

Aware that he must succeed, Winston posited that had he failed at Trafalgar, Nelson would have been tried and convicted. His future was no less at risk. So he involved Averill Harriman, sent by Roosevelt to work with him in the effort. Harriman became caught up in an affair with Pamela (who later became Pamela Harriman, you might recall) and Winston had the dilemma of using both, or perhaps losing the war. How much, and what would he sacrifice to save his country?

The "fiction" in this passionate work involves Dobbs' conjecture over events in life which go unmentioned; emotions, inspirations and ambitions; the "inner events" which motivate us all. It is in this area that Dobbs shines, writing a gripping narrative of events, conversations and encounters equal to those in Killer Angels, and most anything that Bernard Cornwell writes.

And it is fantastic history as well; far better than reading dry history books about the war. Enjoy!

This is a somewhat older book (2004) but one worth a peak. Timmerman reviews the French-American relationship from the Revolutionary War to the present, observing that in times past we were best of friends, sort of; well, periodically at least.

Throughout, and up to the Cold War there wasn't much bad blood; at least none which couldn't be explained by a variance of individual national interests. Europe remained key to the Western alliance as a bulwark against Soviet Expansionism. But from the time of the Balkan crisis the new Europe was "revealed in all its nakedness."

American strength confers a propensity to use strength when necessary, while Europe's weakness has resulted in an aversion to the exercise military power. It has intensified Europe's interest in a world where strength doesn't matter; a world where unilateral action by powerful nations is forbidden; a world where all nations are equally protected by commonly agreed-upon rules of behavior. If only it was so. American unilaterality is upsetting to Europe as it has become dependent on our use of military might to deter or defeat those who still believe in power politics--that is, of course, the rest of the world. This has been most pronounced in France since 1945, with occasional exception.

France's political system has a major impact on arms sales policy, and the government is in bed with industry in the interests of French prosperity, even when such action is adverse to the welfare of the free world. About this activity Timmerman goes into great detail; notably so with regard to the Middle East, and most especially with Saddam Hussein.

The French doubled down on Iraq's denial of the uranium yellowcake they'd been acquiring surreptitiously for years. They brought pressure in the UN to ease Iraqi sanctions since it forbid so much profitable French activity--they even cheated (who's surprised?) Throughout the 80's and 90's "France's petty sins were overlooked; her greater sins discussed but never punished." The Russians were guilty, too, but we knew they were the enemy.

The French did assist in some efforts in areas where their superiority was clear. It has been improving nuclear power technology while America has not, because the Left has blocked our pursuit of energy generation using nuclear power. As well, Mitterrand supported cruise and Pershing II deployment in Europe. These were their last cooperative activities. Sarkozy remains an uncertainty, but appears to be more attuned to reality, putting general security above national monetary interests, sometimes.

In the last half of the book he reviews, "chapter and verse," The French betrayal of America. It ain't pretty, but it is pretty well and fairly documented. Aside from France's latent anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism, there is documentation of their specific and repeated activities--clandestine and otherwise--which have been detrimental to the West in general, and to America especially. Most of these activities stem from deep seated corruption of government in France, involving all of their leaders, all of their defense contractors, and most of the businessmen, Spying, bribing . . . you name it . . . they've done it. Corruption which would be unacceptable in the U.S. and most European countries is de rigueur in France.

Most of French policy was oriented to their economic interests in Iraq in the effort to secure the prime position in oil acquisition and building contracting when sanctions were lifted. They even voted against the first Gulf war when Saddam took over Kuwait (!), and were adamant about Gulf War, chapter two.

While the growing dispute between U.S. and France was an issue, it wasn't alone. In relations with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and Iran, Chirac and his government were engaged in unrelenting efforts to undermine U.S. policies to position France as the alternative source of power and legitimacy in the Middle East. Chirac pushed hard to reorganize the procedures for getting exports to Iraq, approved and gutted the export control process, essentially lifting them. "Fly by night" and ghost corporations were established. Excessive fees were charged and paid by Saddam. Sometimes legitimate "oil money" was paid to French companies who shipped less than half of what had been paid for. Other times companies kept 40 percent commissions on goods never shipped. Then, as now, "French diplomacy continues to consider Iraq as a cake to be divided and not as a democracy to be constructed." While France has been of almost no help there, it still insists that Iraq not be under American control of its economy, but under the UN or France, or Europe--anyone but the U.S.

Oil is absolutely critical to understanding France's foreign policy. It is driven by a deep fear that it will be unable to adapt to the post-cold war world, or compete in the global market-place. In that world the advantages and subsidies granted by the state to French companies would be subjected to international scrutiny and likely banned. The battle of the present is not between freedom and tyranny, but between the French religion of the all-powerful state and the Anglo-American system of transparency with its checks and balances

The French do not understand the change in America since 9/11. They still believe they can do business around the globe with dictators they can bribe, without having to pay any serious price. September 11 put that argument to rest, at least in America.

At the 60th anniversary celebration of the D-Day landing, the U.S. media was full of accounts of heroic veterans who fought to survive the German machine gunners, scaled Pointe duHoc, etc. The French papers, in contrast, recounted the horror experienced by French civilians killed in Allied bombings of Normandy's towns. LeMonde even stated that when American soldiers arrived at Saint-Lo they were greeted by local résistance fighters with raised "clenched fists." The paper whined that 13,900 French civilians died in the 6 months surrounding the Normandy invasion, yet failed to mention that there were well over 10,000 Allied casualties--over 4,400 dead--on D-Day alone.

With friends like that . . . . . ?!