"The Rise of the Roman Empire" by Polybius

This is actually a collection of Polybius' books 1 through 39. However, as I found out later, this is an abridgment. Some sections were left out on purpose. Other parts of his works were lost in past centuries. One cannot help the latter situation, but I was somewhat annoyed to discover the first about half of the way through the work. Polybius wrote largely about events contemporaneous with himself - specifically the years 200 to 167 BC. The version I read was a translation by Ian Scott-Kilvert in a Penguin Classics publication. The translation is very readable, although I wonder how true it is to the original text. For instance, the words "science" and "scientific" were used, which are anachronistic. The Romans and Greeks had no conception of these terms as we do. The closest they would come to what we call "science" was "philosophy". It makes me very curious to know the underlying text. Within the 574 pages are the expected table of contents and index. There are also maps, a chronology of events, and a 31 page introduction to Polybius' by the editor of this edition, Frank W. Walbank. There are also many modern footnotes that indicate the specific year (BC) of events, clarifications, and sometimes they even take issue with Polybius' statements of fact.

The period covered by Polybius takes us from when the Roman empire occupied but a part of Italy to the time when it spanned three continents. It is a useful preamble to Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", although there is about 400 years between where Polybius ends and Gibbon begins. As easy as this is to read, one must remember that it was written over 2,000 years ago and the conception of a "history" book in those days differs a bit from the modern. There is a lot of history, of course, including short biographies of important persons. But Polybius also includes a lot of commentary on philosophical issues. One of the more interesting of these digressions is this comparison of the Athenian and Roman constitutions - one of the influences on the founders of our country, if I understand correctly. He also spent a lot of time talking about his approach to writing history and he castigated some of his contemporary (or near-contemporary) history writers for their faults. Part of this was his dismissal of those who explained everything in terms of "fate" or assigned outcomes to the Gods. I don't get the impression that he disbelieved either of those things, but he clearly recognizes that most outcomes derive directly from the preparations, character, and capabilities of those engaged in those outcomes. These, and other, observations and digressions are spread throughout his work, although they don't interrupt the narrative of the events he covers (for the most part).

Polybius was Greek, but hobnobbed with the elite of Rome, which gives him a unique perspective on the events he covers. That he admires the Romans is clear, although not to the point of losing all perspective. Nevertheless, one can sense his regret of the decline of Greece near the end of his work, wherein this sad passage is found: "This evil grew upon us rapidly and overtook us before we were aware of it, the simple reason being that men had fallen prey to inflated ambitions, love of money and indolence, with the result that they were unwilling to marry, or if they did marry, to bring up the children that were born to them; or else they would only rear one or two out of a large number, so as to leave these well off and able in turn to squander their inheritance. For in cases where there are only one or two children and one is killed off by war and the other by sickness, it is obvious that the family home is left unoccupied, and ultimately, just as happens with swarms of bees, little by little whole cities lose their resources and cease to flourish."

I typically don't review classics like this, as there are hundreds of years worth of reviews and commentary on them. Not to mention that most people have had ample opportunity to read them. But I decided to write a short review in this case because, unlike a few generations ago where a well-educated person had almost certainly read Polybius, modern generations seem to be largely ignorant of his writings. And although one can certainly find modern histories of the same time period, it is profitable to read contemporary accounts. So, I decided to write this for my friends who haven't read Polybius. I can safely recommend this to anyone with an interest in history - especially Greek and Roman history.

"The Indispensable Electoral College" by Tara Ross

To be candid, I had my doubts that I could learn much more about this topic than I already knew. Not because I know everything, but because it is a fairly straight-forward topic. I was also surprised that an entire book could be dedicated to it. But I was pleasantly surprised to learn a few things. Ross' style is easy to read and I made it through the 185 pages in less than a week. Considering how little time I have to read, that is saying something about how quick a read it is. Note: 30 pages of this were appendices including the parts of the constitution related to the Electoral College, history of "faithless electors", status of state laws related to electors, and house rules for contingent elections.

Before I continue, I have to say that I hate end notes. This is nothing new, but the book has a large number of them and it just brought it home again. I don't mind end notes that are simple references, but when they contain paragraphs of additional commentary, it becomes very annoying to have to flip back and forth from the page to the notes. Perhaps if the end notes were at the end of the chapters instead of the end of the book, it would be easier, but if it were up to me, I'd leave references at the end of the book and include footnotes in the text if they contained more than a simple reference. This problem isn't unique to this book, of course, but I had to get that off my chest. Now on to the contents...

The first two (short) chapters provide a brief overview of the Electoral College. The next three chapters are the weakest of the book. Ross puts forth the idea that the main benefit of the Electoral College is that it forces candidates to, generally, reach a broad consensus of voters instead of a narrow majority. It is an interesting idea, and there is some merit to it. Although Ross doesn't come right out and say it, it seems to me that she implies that broad consensus was the intent of the founders. But she offers not one reference that would prove such a viewpoint. Not surprising since I've never read any original documents that even hint at this. If we assume that this is a benefit, it could only be viewed as a lucky side-effect. Fortunately, the rest of the book is far superior. Ross addresses some ambiguities that could theoretically happen under some circumstances, such as some situations that might occur when ties throw the election to congress. None of these theoretical situations have every happened, but it she does bring up some things I'd never considered. Ross also goes into several historical events related to the Electoral College, including the reasons behind the 12th amendment. This is where the text becomes more of a history book. And an interesting one. She describes the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016 in terms of the Electoral College. She starts the book's introduction with a description of a close election that sounds exactly like the one between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, but then Ross points out that she was describing the 1824 election between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams. Because she pulls in historical events, the book avoids being merely theoretical, and instead we see how the Electoral College has worked in real life. Ross doesn't appear to take sides in any of the elections, keeping to the relevance of the Electoral College to those elections. If I had to guess, I'd say that she leans right, politically, but she writes with a fairly unbiased tone, and so the book should appeal to everyone who wishes to have a greater understanding of this aspect of our constitution. I think there is something to learn from this book regardless of how familiar you are with the constitution and elections. For that reason, I recommend the book for all Americans and anyone interested in American history.

"The Making of America" by W. Cleon Skousen

The book covers a lot of material and risks being a hodgepodge of information. But it manages to hang together. The first part of the book is a series of mini-biographies of the members of the federal and state convention participants (about 15 pages). It is along the line of the "Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence", although briefer and covering a slightly different mix of people (but with much overlap). This is followed by a historical context of what led up to the work of the founding fathers, plus some commentary on their vision of freedom and government. This sometimes becomes more a matter of opinion than fact, but I didn't find opinions that I thought were incorrect. The next section is a longer biography of Thomas Jefferson and the writing of the Declaration of Independence. Following that is a chapter that discusses the historical context used by the founders in forming their worldview - which the author refers to as "ancient principles". This included considerations of the laws and governing principles of the ancient Israelites and the Anglo-Saxons, among others.

The next two chapters contain a brief overview of the Revolutionary War, including a discussion of the Articles of Confederation and the issues it caused for the war effort. The next two chapters cover the period between the war and the adoption of the US Constitution. Things got pretty dicey due to post-war inflation: a depression, civil unrest leading to riots, and near-disunion of the states. Skousen then describes the point of view of the founders in regard to the historical examples of various governments - their strengths, weaknesses, and the underlying reasons for those. This is followed by a primer on the free market.

The foregoing is the first 252 pages, not counting the table of contents. The rest of the book's 319 pages consist of a discussion of the constitution, a copy of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (total of 18 pages), a phrase index (52 pages), and subject index (33 pages). Although it is obligatory to have a copy of the Constitution in a book about the Constitution, this copy is annotated to indicate what parts were altered by subsequent amendments. It's a nice touch and something none of my other copies of the constitution have.

The rest of the book is a clause-by-clause examination of the Constitution. Discussed are the reasons the founders thought the clause should be included, including historical context - such as what good old King George had done to the colonies. In some cases, the disagreements among the founders is included. In other cases, some of what happened with a given clause later in American history is discussed. I learned quite a few things from this section - in particular about Supreme Court decisions over the last 200+ years. Skousen starts each section with "This provision guaranteed ...the RIGHT..." It's a valid reminder that the Constitution is about securing people's rights, although it goes get a little old after the 264th time.

In all, I learned quite a bit from this book, particularly in regard to history. The period between the war and the development of the Constitution was one that I had little knowledge of, in particular. The book is a treasure trove of information. Nevertheless, there are some things that I take issue with. As with most discussions of the constitution I've read, the 17th amendment is put in a very poor light. The arguments against it seem pretty weak - and this book did nothing to change my mind about the subject. I won't bother to go into a discussion about that amendment, but let's just say that it is the one that I care the least about, either way. The main point of disagreement I have with the author is with his idea that the founders thought that the American constitutional system would eventually take over the world (what he calls "Step 8"). That they hoped others would emulate this formula for freedom is clear. But I've seen no indication that they were foolish enough to believe that it would be universally adopted.

Skousen is a firm believer in the US Constitution, and this shows. It is a bias that I happen to agree with, but it must be recognized that it is a bias. There was a lot more that could have been said about various things, but given the size of the book, it would have been impractical. The problems with the book are minor and infrequent, and I enjoyed reading it. I recommend this book to anyone who wants to better understand the Constitution and the historical and sociopolitical context in which it was written. In our modern society where the major of people questioned in polls couldn't list three of the five rights granted by the first amendment, a book like this should probably be read by everyone.

"Columbus & Cortez, Conquerors for Christ" by John Eidsmoe

It took me a while to put down my thoughts about this book in a coherent form. I'm not entirely sure that I've succeeded, but here goes...

First, the title. It seems like an unwise choice. I certainly would've chosen something less provocative. But, Cortez was a military man and the title "conqueror" applies. Perhaps to some very small degree, to Columbus as well - although he was an explorer, not a military man. Columbus certainly didn't start out with any plans other than opening a new trade route to the orient (the existing trade routes being choked off by militant Muslim regimes). So, it is not just provocative, but not very accurate either. Now, Columbus did have evangelism on his mind as well as trade, so if you want to consider him a "spiritual conqueror", I have no problem with that. But I do have a problem with mixing that kind of "conqueror" with the military kind. Let's address the organization of the book next. There are basically three sections to it of unequal length. The first is about Norse explorers reaching Iceland and Greenland (and possibly what is now Canada). The second part was about Christopher Columbus, and the third was about Cortez. To be honest, although interesting, the first part seemed brief and not particularly integrated with the other parts. But, as the title indicates, the book is about "Conquerors for Christ" (i.e. early mission efforts in the new world, which goes back to the early Greenland colonies). Still, it *felt* out of place. The third point is that the book is obviously biased in favor of Columbus and Cortez. Unlike the first two complaints, I don't have as much of a problem with this. First of all, the title makes it clear what the author's agenda is. This isn't someone who is pretending to be unbiased while he puts in a bunch of bias, unlike some authors I've read. So, we're given a heads-up which I'm okay with. One should always spell out one's perspective and biases from the onset. Secondly, as is explained by the introduction and first chapter, the book is largely a response to recently developed perspectives on history - especially in regard to colonialism and Christian roots of modern western civilization. Perhaps when providing an alternative way of looking at things, one cannot help but emphasize one's biases as a contrast to the opposing perspective. I don't have too much of a problem with that, as long as the author is being honest about it. We've all heard about the negative things regarding Columbus and Cortez, so I don't see a problem with someone pointing out that we're only getting part of the story. Finally, on the bad side of the scale: end notes. I hate them. Need I say more?

Now, the good points. First, the writing style is engaging and easy. It isn't written in a scholarly style, which is perhaps part of my problem with it, but it will definitely appeal to the mass market better that way. Second, I've always said that a good history book will make you want to learn more about history, and this book does that. I know of a couple subjects I want to read more about. As soon as I make it through the two stacks of books that are in my office. Third, Eidsmoe makes an effort to address the motivations of people like Cortez and Columbus. Now, normally, I wouldn't consider this a positive. It's hard enough to determine the motivations of contemporary figures, much less those of whom we have incomplete written records from people who can neither defend nor expound upon that for which we judge them. However, since a lot of the modern conception of these individuals is about their motivations, it seems only right to examine this aspect of their lives as well. Fourth, the author does make an attempt to point out some of the bad things that Columbus and Cortez did, although he does kind of gloss over them. In the case of Columbus, whom I've read a fair amount about in the past, nothing that Eidsmoe says contradicts what I've already learned from other sources. I am, therefore, inclined to assume that what he says about Cortez is accurate, if somewhat biased. In other words, he does seem to make an effort to present both sides of the story, admitting that both men were flawed. Granted, I know about as much about Cortez as your average US public school student, so I cannot be sure. But he does point out some important things about Cortez and his fight against the Aztecs. For instance (just to whet your appetite), the Aztecs were a lot more advanced than many people think. No, they didn't have metal armor or horses, but they managed to nearly wipe out Cortez and his men. The Spaniards only survived because they had the support of many neighboring tribes who were tired of being subjected to the Aztecs. One reason for this was that the Aztecs demanded people from these tribes for use in gruesome sacrifices - to the tune of about 50,000 per year. The Aztecs may not have liked Cortez or the Spaniards, but to the rest of the tribes they were their salvation. In my experience, there is no person in history who was entirely evil and did no good, nor entirely good and did no evil (who was not nailed to a cross). Any judgments we pass on historical figures must take both sides into account. This book, in conjunction with the modern biased histories should help provide a more balanced and nuanced view of some important historical events and individuals. For that reason, I do recommend the book to anyone interested in history.

"The Runaway Sleigh Christmas Special" by Victoria Bastedo

I read a lot of heavy material - technical documents on hardware and software, history, 18th century political writings, theology, science and so forth. So, every so often I like to read something lighter - and I have to confess to enjoying a good romance. So, when I got this book as a gift a couple months ago, I put it ahead of a lot of other books in the queue.

Full disclosure: I've been friends with the author for many years, and I'm sure that has *some* effect on my biases. But, if I thought it was a bad book, I'd simply not comment on it. Fortunately, I found the book to be quite enjoyable and somewhat reminiscent (in style and enjoyability) of romance novels by Mary Stewart that I've read.

Set in Montana around Christmas time, it has interesting and enjoyable characters, and I especially liked the banter between the two main characters/love interests. There was a lot of humor, a bit of danger, and a happy ending. A happy ending is absolutely required for a good love story, in my opinion. After all, if there is a dark, heavy ending then it isn't much of a break from my normal reading material.

In short, it was exactly what I was looking for in a novel. If you like light and breezy romance novels (and perhaps even if you don't), I recommend this one to you. I'm going to make an effort to read more of this author's books in the future. Now, back to reading history...

"Hitler's Monsters" by Eric Kurlander

This book is subtitled "A Supernatural History of the Third Reich". Besides having a cool-sounding title, I didn't have much of an idea as to what the book was about. I'd call it a psychological profile of German society of the early 20th century in general, and of the Nazis in particular. Kurlander explores the various links between Nazis and occultism. In this instance, occultism is broadly defined to include so-called "border science", an alternate view of history, and the more traditional occult practices of dowsing, astrology, and so forth.

The book itself weighs in at 300 pages of text and 14 pages of b&w photos, followed by 86 pages of end notes (mostly citations), 20 pages of bibliography, and 14 pages of index, which makes for a fairly thick tome. I would classify it as a scholarly book, but not entirely outside the domain of mass appeal, due to Kurlander's quite adequate writing style.

The Germans kept a lot of detailed paperwork associated with official actions of the government. But it provided little information on what was going on in the minds of the Nazi leadership. So Kurlander starts by explaining how he teased the likely truth out of some contemporary sources that are not considered 100% accurate. Some Nazi writers were, shall we say, a little loose with facts - or somewhat detached from reality - when it came to their personal correspondence. Then he jumps into the interwar period when there was a widespread interest in occultism. This was true in much of the western world at the time, but German society seems to have been more subject to its influence than other parts of Europe or the United States. As is human nature, the Nazis projected their viewpoint onto other countries, such that they thought astrology predictions in newspapers would be as effective a means of propaganda in Britain as it had been in Germany, despite evidence to the contrary.

I confess that I like to have things "wrapped up" at the end. I don't like cliff-hangers at the end of a TV show's season. I like it even less when things just end without explanation. Not that I necessarily agree with conclusions reached by an author, but I still appreciate the effort to bring things to a resolution. If this also describes you, you might find the book somewhat annoying in that is doesn't progress from a well-defined starting point and end with everything wrapped up in a nice box with a bow on the top. Instead, it is a study of the various influences that led to the ideas held by prominent Nazis.

There wasn't a single root from which grew the Nazi weeds. Their mindset was a strange melange of various ideas and concepts involving discredited "scientific" theories such as World Ice Theory, metaphysical border sciences, an occultic spiritual belief system involving the application of old Nordic religious beliefs to the Third Reich, and view of German superiority. Some odd theories they held that constitute "border science" occasionally came tantalizingly close to actual truth. They believed that there was magical "radiation" in certain places on the Earth. In fact, there are places on earth where there is natural radiation (for instance, from radon gas that filters up through the ground). Some believed that there was cosmic radiation that could affect the weather. In 1997, a Danish scientist demonstrated evidence that cosmic rays have an effect on cloud formation. Of course, being able to detect these rays with diving rods and pendulums, as these people thought, is utter nonsense. And, without the modern empirical science that they often dismissed, there was no way to arrive at actual truth.

Further muddying the water is the fact that there was often a lot of disagreement between the members of Hitler's inner circle on what were, or were not, acceptable beliefs. The Nazis alternately persecuted and promoted occultists - depending upon who was in charge of enforcing the laws, how distracted they were with other issues, and how strongly aligned with some of the leaders were those practicing the occult. Besides that, the Nazis were fairly tolerant of anything that helped promote their agenda. Hitler obviously believed some of this pagan and occult mixture, but didn't enforce a particular creed other than German superiority and an idea of a destiny that he never achieved. The author sums a lot of this up with the following: "In pursuing this argument, I do not want to discount the important role of bio-political thinking, wartime radicalization, or the invasion of the Soviet Union in catalyzing the 'Final Solution'. Rather, I want to suggest that the Holocaust was only possible in its scope and severity because of the elision of these bio-political and circumstantial factors with volkisch-esoteric, fantastical, even magical conceptions of Jewish monstrosity."

He restates this later: "The Nazis were immersed in a shared supernatural imaginary in which certain 'cosmological and ontological beliefs' about the Jews were virtually universal, a belief in the supernatural, that all foreigners are not human, that an individual's race determines his moral and intellectual qualities, and 'that Jews are evil'."

In other words, there were a lot of factors the led to the rise of the Nazi regime, and much of how they prosecuted the war and Jews, and interacted with other countries. The point of the book is to examine these factors and how they affected the actions of the Nazis. If I may summarize in my own words, the Nazi's were seriously messed up. "Obviously!" you may say. Hitler was clearly a mad man. But once I understood his viewpoint in terms of the pagan Nordic religion, for instance, many of his otherwise inscrutable actions make sense - they were logically consistent with his belief system. For instance, why did he insist on his forces remaining in place to be annihilated by Soviet forces when they could have retreated a short way, consolidated and, possibly, have provided a useful defense (as recommended by his generals)? In the past, I merely assumed he was descending further into madness. But the book makes it clear that he descended into madness long, long before this. His initial view was that it was German destiny to rule over all of Eurasia, hence he didn't shrink back from invading the USSR (possibly one of his worst military decisions). Once the Soviets were able to start pushing the Germans back, his view was that Germany needed a "Ragnarok" moment in order to truly triumph in the end. In that kind of thinking, the sacrifice of so much German treasure would ensure final victory. Obviously he wasn't much of a military mind, but he felt that he was mystically endowed with the ability to accomplish his goals - and, at first, it appeared he was equal to the task. His survival of various assassination plots only encouraged this belief. This was not *merely* megalomania, but a nearly religious viewpoint.

Much of the emphasis on where to spend money during the war was also influenced by this odd collection of beliefs. After the bombing of the heavy water factory, Hitler directed funds away from nuclear research to more fantastical ideas. If not for the army/navy officials and technologists who held more mainstream ideas, the Reich would have fallen much sooner. Fortunately for the world, Hitler interfered with much of this work to instead chase fantasies more in line with his belief system.

Another thing I learned from the book was that the whole vampire vs. werewolf concept goes back, at least, to Nazi Germany. The werewolves were viewed as heroic defenders of the German people, while the Slavic vampires were the evil that fed upon German blood. There was even a group of Germans called the "werewolves" which operated outside of normal military and SS bounds, especially in the east. They were essentially an official terrorist group supported by the Nazi government.

I recommend the book to anyone who has an interest in history. It is interesting to see how the Nazis crystallized a lot of thinking that was popular culture and created a monster. There is a warning here too - against superstition and muddled thinking that interferes with, or dismisses, the scientific method.

"The Indispensable Electoral College" by Tara Ross

To be candid, I had my doubts that I could learn much more about this topic than I already knew. Not because I know everything, but because it is a fairly straight-forward topic. I was also surprised that an entire book could be dedicated to it. But I was pleasantly surprised to learn a few things. Ross' style is easy to read and I made it through the 185 pages in less than a week. Considering how little time I have to read, that is saying something about how quick a read it is. Note: 30 pages of this were appendices including the parts of the constitution related to the Electoral College, history of "faithless electors", status of state laws related to electors, and house rules for contingent elections.

Before I continue, I have to say that I hate end notes. This is nothing new, but the book has a large number of them and it just brought it home again. I don't mind end notes that are simple references, but when they contain paragraphs of additional commentary, it becomes very annoying to have to flip back and forth from the page to the notes. Perhaps if the end notes were at the end of the chapters instead of the end of the book, it would be easier, but if it were up to me, I'd leave references at the end of the book and include footnotes in the text if they contained more than a simple reference. This problem isn't unique to this book, of course, but I had to get that off my chest. Now on to the contents...

The first two (short) chapters provide a brief overview of the Electoral College. The next three chapters are the weakest of the book. Ross puts forth the idea that the main benefit of the Electoral College is that it forces candidates to, generally, reach a broad consensus of voters instead of a narrow majority. It is an interesting idea, and there is some merit to it. Although Ross doesn't come right out and say it, it seems to me that she implies that broad consensus was the intent of the founders. But she offers not one reference that would prove such a viewpoint. Not surprising since I've never read any original documents that even hint at this. If we assume that this is a benefit, it could only be viewed as a lucky side-effect. Fortunately, the rest of the book is far superior. Ross addresses some ambiguities that could theoretically happen under some circumstances, such as some situations that might occur when ties throw the election to congress. None of these theoretical situations have every happened, but it she does bring up some things I'd never considered. Ross also goes into several historical events related to the Electoral College, including the reasons behind the 12th amendment. This is where the text becomes more of a history book. And an interesting one. She describes the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016 in terms of the Electoral College. She starts the book's introduction with a description of a close election that sounds exactly like the one between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, but then Ross points out that she was describing the 1824 election between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams. Because she pulls in historical events, the book avoids being merely theoretical, and instead we see how the Electoral College has worked in real life. Ross doesn't appear to take sides in any of the elections, keeping to the relevance of the Electoral College to those elections. If I had to guess, I'd say that she leans right, politically, but she writes with a fairly unbiased tone, and so the book should appeal to everyone who wishes to have a greater understanding of this aspect of our constitution. I think there is something to learn from this book regardless of how familiar you are with the constitution and elections. For that reason, I recommend the book for all Americans and anyone interested in American history.

"The Battle of the Atlantic" by Samuel E. Morison

This is volume 1 in the "History of United States Naval Operations In World War II". You may be aware that I've reviewed other volumes of this series in the past. The series lends itself to non-linear reading of the volumes, so it wasn't a problem to read the first volume after I had read several later volumes. This volume covers the period of time from September 1939 to May 1943.

As with the others, Morison writes books that are an easy read. He describes the journeys of numerous convoys across the Atlantic in detail, but it doesn't read like a dry list of a the ships involved in different convoys. As usual, Morison includes some humor in what is often a grim subject. For instance, when talking of the commodities carried by convoys, he says "These commodities, with the possible exception of coffee, are essential to a nation engaging in modern warfare; and, although the United States Navy might win a war without coffee, it hopes never to be forced to make the experiment."

The story of the convoys is one of bravery (and sometimes rare cowardice), of technology competition between the allies and the axis, of great loss, and of ultimate victory. Morison takes a couple example convoys and tells the story of their journey in rough seas and attacks from an enemy they couldn't see. He quotes the writings of some of the men who lived through terrible ordeals, so that we have the chance to better grasp just what they experienced.

This volume contains no great events, such as D-Day, Midway, or Pearl Harbor. However, the part of the war told in this book was of vital importance to winning the war, even though the first two years covered were before America was official in the war. Perhaps the lack of some dramatic turn of events is why I couldn't find a new copy of this book for sale. It probably sells less well than some other volumes. But one would be mistaken to think that this part of the series should be skipped. There wasn't a lot that was new to me, although the information added much detail to my knowledge. I was somewhat surprised at the sheer number of ships sunk by German submarines along our eastern and gulf coasts. You get a sense of the desperation felt by both sides, as the fortunes of war changed over those years. The book contains many informative maps and several pictures. It also delves into relationships between the US and Atlantic coast countries in South America, who joined with us in defending vital merchant shipping. One also gains an appreciation for the huge importance of air power, whether it was the Luftwaffe decimating convoys in the North Sea, or our own army and navy air forces that helped protect convoys along the North and South American coasts, or heading across to Britain.

As with his other volumes, I recommend this one (and the entire set) to those with any interest in history - and especially those with an interest in the United State's involvement in WWII.

"The War of 1812" by Donald R. Hickey

Before my review, I have to confess something. The war of 1812 is one of those parts of American history that I'm not very familiar with. Perhaps that is true of most Americans. But the point is, I have very little knowledge to help in discerning how accurate this history book is. Perhaps it is as unbiased as one can be, with both the advantages and disadvantages of hindsight some 200 years after the fact. Or, perhaps it is revisionist history - a surplus of which our age is unfortunately saddled. So, I cannot give a knowledgeable recommendation for or against it. I can only offer my analysis of the writing itself. Obviously, I will need to turn to some additional resources to gain a better perspective of that time period. Eventually, perhaps, I'll be better able to judge the merits (or lack thereof) of the accuracy of this book. Now to the review... The author has an engaging writing style that keeps one's attention throughout the book's 316 pages (not counting the 138 pages of end notes). He deftly describes the various battles with enough (sometimes gory) detail to satisfy the amateur historian, but without bogging down in mind-numbing minutiae. He describes both the war and the political situation in American during the war (and in Britain and Canada to a much lesser extent), including the events which led up to the war. The 20 pages of conclusion that end the book seemed somewhat superficial relative to the amount of detail in the rest of the book. But I cannot complain too strongly. This is a book written for popular consumption and the details of the ramifications of the war might have only been interesting to people with more interest in history than the average American. Nor is it unexpected that the political situations in Britain and Canada were covered much less thoroughly than that of America - this was a book by an American and (I believe) for Americans. Besides, so much of the British perspective involved the greater war in Europe at the same time, which would have greatly expanded the scope of the work. I suppose it is every historian's best guess as to where to draw the line as to what to include and what not to include. There are always other books that cover the information not included in this volume. Overall, I think Hickey did an admirable job for a introduction to the war. As with any good history book, I now have many new resources to check out, and I certainly learned a few things. The book didn't make me an expert on the war of 1812, but I'm definitely a less ignorant after having read it. Now to the failings of the book. In 1812, there were two parties - the Federalists, and the Democratic Republicans. At the time, the name of second party was often shortened to "the Republicans", or sometimes "the Democrats". In the book, the author is fairly consistent in using "Republican party", although quotes from people of the time use both. On occasion, it was unclear to me exactly which party the author was referring to in a couple places, as I think he used "Democrat" in reference to the Federalists once or twice. However, I didn't mark down the pages at the time and I have no desire to reread the entire volume to locate them. Ignoring that, nowhere in the book is this background information given. In our polarized modern society, it seems inexcusable to leave that out. I can just imagine how someone, who picked up the book without much historical background, could be led to view much of the book as a description of the ideological battle between the modern Democrat and Republican parties. Of course, the modern Republican and Democrat parties didn't exist in 1812. In fact the Democratic Republicans eventually splintered into several factions, two of which became the modern Democrat and Republican parties. The author describes the politics of this war as the most contentious in American history. Frankly, he didn't convince me that it was more contentious than, say, the Vietnam war (the book is copyrighted 2012, so its not like it was written before the Vietnam war happened). And it certainly was less contentious than during the Civil War. I have to chalk it up to the tunnel vision that experts on some subjects tend to acquire. So, that's the good and the bad. I liked the book, but I don't know if I can trust it. If you are discerning, and at least as jaded as I, with an interest in American history, perhaps this is a good starting place for information on the American war of 1812.

"The Atlantic Battle Won" by Samuel Eliot Morison

"The Atlantic Battle Won" by Samuel Eliot Morison is volume X of the "History of United States Navel Operations in World War II". I've reviewed some of the other volumes previously. Unlike those previous volumes, this is one that should be read after Volume I, if not in order. The reason is that Volumes I and X both tell the story of the battle against the German "wolf packs" in the Atlantic. Besides being the second half of the same story, volume X also makes many references to the previous volume. This is the first of these volumes that I've read where the order in which you read them makes a significant difference. The title is slightly misleading as it also covers operations in the Arctic and Indian oceans. But most of the action takes place in the Atlantic, so I won't quibble. The volume covers the period from May 1943 to May 1945. Naval support for specific operations (such as Overlord) are covered in other volumes, so this book focuses solely on the battle against German - and occasionally Japanese -submarines. It is a tale of a technology race between the allies and the Germans, with each side leap-frogging the other - on the American and British side, to detect and sink submarines, and on the German side to remain undetectable and become more deadly. In the end, it was the sheer amount of men and material that America was able to throw into the effort that effectively defeated the U-boat menace even before the war was over. And it was fortunate that the land war ended when it did as the Germans were about to deploy the most advanced submarines to date (they were undergoing trials at the time), which might have significantly changed the situation. It was also a tale of bravery on the part of navy personnel, as well as the men on the convoy ships - at least most of the time. Finally, it is a tale of the tragedy and cost of war. More people died in the embrace of ocean waters during WWII than all of previous human history put together, and probably including all of human history since then. Besides learning new things, as one would expect, I also gained a slightly expanded perspective. The term "world war" is a correct moniker (at least for WWII), given the number of nations involved, however indirectly. For instance, the allies had navy bases on the Atlantic side of South America. There were battles in every ocean and sea in the world. Few and fortunate were the nations who lost no citizens to hostile action. America and Britain suffered the most casualties on the seas. The British estimate of their losses was over 20,000 souls. At the time of writing, the Americans had not yet calculated their losses, but estimates put it even higher than those suffered by the British. German loses were also high. As has come to be expected from Morison, the book is both easy to read and enjoyable. He includes his expected occasional humorous comments. In one instance, a hand-to-hand battle ensued after a destroyer escort and a U-boat collided during battle: "...others dodged tommy-gun and pistol fire, shell cases, and even coffee mugs hurled by the Americans; a few would-be boarders were even repelled by bare fists". In summarizing this action, Morison states "The entire action lasted only 16 minutes from start to finish, and three minutes later the breaking-up noises were heard. Buckley had fired 105 rounds of 3-inch 50-caliber, over 3000 rounds from her machine guns and 260 pistol bullets - no exact record kept of shell cases and coffee mugs!" The crew of the Buckley "suffered no other casualties than one bruised fist." Of course, most naval actions were done from a significant distance, although there were a surprising number of intentional rammings by (and of) U-boats. I feel compelled to admit that this was my least favorite of Morison's books in this series, so far. That isn't to say that it was poorly written or unenjoyable. Rather, it was very good. I simply found the other volumes to be more compelling reading. I'm not sure if this was a consequence of the subject matter (hardly Morison's fault) or if he was simply tired after having completed the previous nine volumes! I suspect the former, since in the next volume he was as interesting as ever. If you are a history buff, you should include this in your reading without any qualms. Just read it *after* volume I. If, on the other hand, you simply want to read about U-boats in WWII, I'd recommend the excellent book "Wolf Pack" by Gordon Williamson. Of course, if you are into history, you should read both.

"The Rising Sun in the Pacific" by Samuel Eliot Morison

"The Rising Sun in the Pacific" by Samuel Eliot Morison is volume 3 of the "History of United States Naval Operations in World War II". I previously wrote a review of the volume about D-Day. As with the previously reviewed book, the book is full of detailed information, including maps, and the writing is clear and interesting. I learned some new things, plus I was able to get a wider picture of everything that happened during the period covered in this volume (1931 through April 1942) - as opposed to the piecemeal image I had gained from various other sources. Not to mention that I have a better appreciation for the scope of Japanese naval operations. The Japanese push in the Pacific was probably the biggest operation in naval history until the invasion of Normandy. Their navy covered an area of ocean larger than that of Europe. The attack on Pearl Harbor was just the first of several objectives on a long list for the operation. For instance, as soon as they navy finished at Pearl Harbor, Wake and Guam were next and within days they also fell to the Japanese. The story of Wake island is not one that I was familiar with as more than a footnote in other histories. Frankly, it would make a compelling movie drama. In fact, there is enough material in the history covered by this book to make two or three full-length movies about various incidents in the early months of the war (apart from Pearl Harbor). Hey Hollywood, how about, instead of another reboot of a superhero or sci-fi movie series, you make a movie about some of these compelling stories that haven't been told yet, outside of history books? But, doubtless, I expect too much. The story of Wake island is one of incredible valor as a handful of American marines held out for days against an overwhelming Japanese force, on a insignificant lonely rock in the middle of the Pacific ocean. It is also the story of incredible ineptitude on the part of some people in the US Navy whose attempt to rescue/relive those troops failed miserably and for no reason other than incompetence. In fact, reading it made me rather angry. Frankly, all those who were responsible should have been jailed for criminal incompetance. But again, I probably expect too much. The book finishes up with the defense of the Malay Barrier in early 1942, covering the ally retreat from east Asia all the way to Australia. Even in the midst of defeat and retreat, Morison inserts some humorous stories into the narrative. For instance,

"The Japs used their famous infiltration tactics at night, but this did not have the expected result because Bridget's boys, innocent of the military principle that it is fatal to be outflanked, simply held their ground and send out detachments to mop up the infiltrators. A diary later found on the body of a Japanese, described the strange conduct of the 'new type of suicide squads, which thrashed about in the jungle, wearing bright-color uniforms and making plenty of noise. They would attempt to draw Japanese fire by sitting down, talking loudly and lighting cigarettes.'"

As noted earlier, the book starts with events ten years earlier than the attack on Pearl Harbor. Morison provides insight into what was happening inside the Japanese government, and society, that inevitably led to the later events, despite there being some reasonable individuals on both the Japanese and American sides. But no amount of diplomacy or understanding will help with dealing with people who are bent on conquest or other mayhem. Perhaps there is a lesson here for us in modern times. As with the previously reviewed volume, I recommend this book without reservation. If you have any interest in American or World War II history, you should read this book. Even if it had nothing to say about the attack on Pearl Harbor, the rest of the material is well worth it. It is an easy read and I found it hard to set down once I started.

"The Greek Myths" with commentary by Robert Graves

The work, in two volumes, contains selected Greek Myths translated to English with comments by Robert Graves. The Myths were enjoyable, but I found the commentary (50% of the material) to be seriously lacking in critical thought. Without going into too much detail, Mr. Graves describes a supposed time in pre-history when human kind was universally matriarcal and men slowly ursurped the power held by women. He goes on to describe ritual death of kings, sun and moon-worship, and the king/tanist relationship as the original and universal state of human kind. Although it is possible that some segment of human culture at some point in history matched this model, Mr. Graves gives no support for his theory that stands up to scrutiny. Rather, he takes his views for granted and reads these into every myth in the book. While this shows Mr. Graves' imagination, it is not particularly creative. I could do the exact same thing with, say, the script to Gilligan's Island. To paraphrase Freud, “sometimes a story is just a story”.

Mr. Graves also draws upon other ancient stories to shore up his theories with supposed parallels. His two favorites for this treatment are the Bible (Old Testament) and Irish Mythology. However, the Old Testament examples are unrelated to the point. Nearly any story, old or modern, true or false, could be used with as much relevance. For example, just one instance (of many) is in his treatment of the myth of Phaedra and Hippolytus in which he draws a parallel to the story of Potiphar's wife and Joseph. Now, I am quite familiar with the Joseph story and I know that it has absolutely no relevance to the mentioned myth. Further, Mr. Graves states that the myth and the story of Joseph are both derived from earlier Egyptian or Canaanite mythology. But he gives no support for this theory. One must wonder why the myth that came down through the Greeks was based on an Egyptian myth rather than vice versa. Mr. Graves is silent on this. I realize that it is popular in some circles to trivialize the stories in the Bible, and Mr. Graves is firmly in that camp. However, as I have already mentioned, his parallels are horribly flawed. I am not as familiar with Irish mythology, but based on what I've seen with the Old Testament, I doubt his parallels to Irish mythology are any better.

I could expend the time to tear apart every bit of Mr. Graves' commentary, but the result would be as tedious a read as his commentary. I'm sure “The Greek Myths” will be popular among some undiscerning individuals whose biases are supported by Mr. Graves' comments. My recommendation to the discerning reader, however, is to find another version of the Greek Myths which is mercifully free of this kind of attempt to prove a bias.