Book Description

Described by the Chicago Tribune as "a classic," The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt stands as one of the greatest biographies of our time.The publication of The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt on September 14th, 2001 marks the 100th anniversary of Theodore Roosevelt becoming president. ... Read more

Reviews (113)

Unmatched detail, Hyper-scrupulous research, VERY readable
Morris somehow manages to bring TR to life to the point that he practically stands up and walks out of the book into your living room. Even more impressive, Morris does this while dutifully retaining objectivity, giving equal and judicious space to the man's (relatively few) shortcomings and quirks. The result is that the reader lives through nearly every fascinating detail of how a real human being named Theodore Roosevelt surmounted his very human hurdles ultimately to develop into the true larger-than-legend icon he was and is. As much as I have enjoyed other TR biographies (e.g. by McCullough, by Miller) these do not quite reach the level achieved by Morris. The only disappointment is that the book focuses only on his life to the point of ascending to the Vice-Presidency, but after all the title is The RISE of Theodore Roosevelt . . . On rare occasions, the most detailed and honest truth is the most interesting story to read; this is one of them, don't miss it.

Not much to add, a well deserved 5 stars (and Pulitzer too!)
This biography is one of the most thorough and enjoyable I have read. If there has been controversy over Morris' Reagan bio, at least it brought attention to this book. Morris drew a portrait of Roosevelt and his era and it came to life for me. I particularly enjoyed the description of the political scene of the time, especially the New York State assembly and further on to Boss Platt, Senator Hanna, and the other backroom operatives. Morris does not hide the negative side of TR, the snobbery, the hypocrisy, and the naked jingoism. As a Canadian, Roosevelt took Manifest Destiny to extremes and one sympathized with those who considered him a loose cannon. At the same time, this book shows his drive, energy, and his willingness to put himself face-first into anything, be it the Spanish American War, the unpopular anti-saloon enforcement in NYC, or any of his western adventures. I highly recommend this biography to anyone interested in history, Americana, or the times of the later 19th century.

dscyoung
Outstanding! McCullough and others have done wonderful things with Presidential biographies; however, Morris has brought Roosevelt alive like no other. The struggles young Roosevelt endured are a inspiration. His genius is detailed in true color. I couldn't wait to pick up Theodore Rex. Looking for a hero in todays rough and tumble? Look no further than TR.

Wow! An outstanding story about an amazing person
Teddy Roosevelt is surely one of the most captivating figures in history, and this book is an incredibly lively and vivid chronicle of his rise to the American presidency. Edmund Morris writes in delightful prose with colorful imagery and funny stories, and provides an astounding level of detail. You will not want to put down this book; it is as mesmerizing as Tolkien's Ring. It is hard to imagine a better-written story. Mr. Roosevelt is abundant in charisma, intelligence, and drive. If you can only read one book on the man, choose this one.

A Rising Start!
"The Rise Of Theodore Roosevelt" tells the outstanding story of the pre-presidential years of this remarkable individual. In an attention-holding style, Morris relates the anecdotes known to all TR fans. In addition to the well known facts, Morris reveals lesser known facts which help us to understand TR and his career.

Beginning with he President's New Year's Day Reception of 1907, the book quickly jumps back to a very youthful TR. In the following pages we read of the close relationship between TR and his father. We read of the father who, by example and word, taught TR his greatest virtues of honesty, social responsibility and concern for others. It was this father who drove him through the streets of New York to get him over his asthma attacks as well as the one who told him that he "had the mind, but not the body" and that he must build his body. When TR was contemplating a scientific career, it was this father who told him that he could pursue such a career, "if I intended to do the very best that was in me; but that I must not dream of taking it up as a dilettante", but that he would have to learn to live within his means. Theodore Roosevelt, Sr.'s payment of a substitute during the Civil War left his son with a sense of guilt which could only be assuaged by his own military service. We learn of the shattering effect that this father's death had on the Harvard student. As president, TR would remark that he never took any serious step without contemplating what his father would have done.

Much attention is given to the "Roosevelt Museum of Natural History" assembled by the young taxidermist. This was the first of three career paths considered by TR, scientific, which he abandoned, literary, which supported him for much of his life, and political, which became his life work.

We learn of TR's loves, both of Edith and Alice. We learn of how TR pursued love with the same vigor and intensity that he pursued everything else which he desired. The death of his mother and Alice on Valentine's Day, 1884, which drove him into ranching in Dakota, would be almost as shattering as the death of his father.

There are details of TR's young life of which I had been unaware, prominent among them are his extensive travels in Europe and the Middle East.

In the course of this book we see the step by step maturation of TR from the snobbish Harvard freshman to the inclusive leader which he later became. College, romance, politics, ranching and war all played their parts in the development of the character of TR.

During his political career, TR's outlooks on issues developed, but his core values never wavered. From his first caucus meeting, uncompromising honesty was a trademark of TR's character and his demand from others.

TR always walked a tight rope between independence and party loyalty, earning both the support an enmity of reformers and the organization alike.

After having established himself as an unrelenting foe of corruption during his service on the U. S. Civil Service Commission and the New York Board of Police Commissioners, his appointment as Assistant Secretary of the Navy enabled TR to act on the world stage. Taking advantage of Secretary Long's frequent and extended absences, TR prepared the Navy for its spectacular successes in the Spanish-American War., a war which TR had worked so hard to bring about.

The war gave TR the opportunity to pay his inherited debt by service in the Rough Riders. Organizing a volunteer cavalry of westerners, Indians and Ivy League athletes, TR had to work to get his men equipped and to the front. Their heroic charge up San Juan Hill is the stuff of which legends are mad and TR made his legend as a Rough Rider.

Exploiting his martial glory, TR road into the Governor's mansion where he continued to walk the fine line between independence and party loyalty. His successes he won and the enemies he made lead him to the vice-presidency.

I have mentioned just a few of the highlights of TR's young life, but this book covers many more. Morris employs a talent to tell the details without becoming bogged down. Read "The Rise Of Theodore Roosevelt" to learn of TR's early life and character and then bring on "Theodore Rex". ... Read more

Book Description

It was a contest of titans: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, two heroes of the Revolutionary era, once intimate friends, now icy antagonists locked in a fierce battle for the future of the United States. The election of 1800 was a thunderous clash of a campaign that climaxed in a deadlock in the Electoral College and led to a crisis in which the young republic teetered on the edge of collapse.Adams vs. Jefferson is a gripping account of a true turning point in American history, a dramatic struggle between two parties with profoundly different visions of how the nation should be governed. Adams led the Federalists, conservatives who favored a strong central government, and Jefferson led the Republicans, egalitarians who felt the Federalists had betrayed the Revolution of 1776 and were backsliding toward monarchy.The campaign itself was a barroom brawl every bit as ruthless as any modern contest, with mud-slinging--Federalists called Jefferson "a howling atheist"--scare tactics, and backstabbing. The low point came when Alexander Hamilton printed a devastating attack on Adams, the head of his own party, in "fifty-four pages of unremitting vilification." The election ended in a stalemate in the Electoral College that dragged on for days and nights and through dozens of ballots. Tensions ran so high that the Republicans threatened civil war if the Federalists denied Jefferson the presidency. Finally a secret deal that changed a single vote gave Jefferson the White House. A devastated Adams left Washington before dawn on Inauguration Day, too embittered even to shake his rival's hand. Jefferson's election, John Ferling concludes, consummated the American Revolution, assuring the democratization of the United States and its true separation from Britain.With magisterial command, Ferling brings to life both the outsize personalities and the hotly contested political questions at stake. He shows not just why this moment was a milestone in U.S. history, but how strongly the issues--and the passions--of 1800 resonate with our own time. ... Read more

Book Description

Fidel exposes the hypocrisy of Castro's liberal fan club, delivering the brutal truth about the tyrant the Fidelistas call the first and greatest hero to appear in the world. ... Read more

Reviews (20)

The Mystery of Cuba
Now at about 75 years old, Fidel Castro is in ailing health. Cuba's economy, as with most of the communist centrally planned economies, is at subsistence level. Average annual per capita income is about $1,500 per person. But still it survives. Two new books go a long ways towards explaining why.

Don Bohning's "The Castro Obsession", talks about the secret (and not so secret) operations conducted against Castro from 1959 to 1965. The appearance of a giant country like the United States arrayed against a small insignificant country like Cuba, and then failing created a groundswell of respect and support for Castro among people and countries that root for the underdog.

Humberto Fontova's "Fidel: Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant", is really two books in one. The main theme talks about the comments from selected Hollywood types, media and political left wing liberals, praising Castro (shades of Hanoi Jane Fonda). The secondary theme is that Castro has instituted a bloody repressive regime that attempts to control all life in Cuba. While this is not a surprise, the details are shocking in that we have so much more information because of the communication with large numbers of Cubans now living in the US but retaining close links with the island.

These two books provide interesting background for the actions that will be playing out over the next few years.

The Real Fidel, the Real Che, the Real Cuba
This book destroys the myths about communist Cuba:

- Life under Castro is better than it was under Bautista.
- 1950s Cuba was poorer and more repressive than Cuba today, and thus, it is necessary to have a dictator like Fidel.
- Fidel is a "revolutionary communist leader" who cares about his own poor.
- Fidel is an idealist who wants to help the Third World, and should be praised for "standing up to the U.S.".
- Che Guevara is an idealist, humanistic hero of guerilla wars, and should be looked up to.
- The Cuban Revolution helped the poor in Cuba
- Fidel made Cuba less racist.
- Left-wing Europeans and Americans are right to support Fidel in his "struggle" against the U.S.
- The embargo by the U.S. is wrong

The truth:
- 1950s Cuba was a fairer, more thriving society than modern Cuba, with more freedoms (sure, Bautista was repressive, but not as much as Fidel).
- Fidel and Co. killed 15,000 people who opposed them (mostly by firing .45 caliber handguns into their heads at close range).
- Fidel looked up to Adolf Hitler and modelled some of his writing on what Hitler had written ("History will absolve me").
- There have been 500,000 people (mostly poor, mostly black) in Cuba's Gulags
- Fidel's thugs regularly use torture on prisoners
- Che was an Argentine who personally sent 1,890 men to death - without trial, by firing squad. Che's office had a window where he could look out on the firing squads shooting men in the head with .45 handguns. One after another after another. Che once said, "we don't need evidence", and "we have to become cold-blooded killers".
- Fidel hated Che and sent him abroad on "missions" to get rid of him.
- Cuba's prisons contain 80 % black prisoners. The communist party is 0.08 % black. Thus, Cuba is a racist country (a U.S. "black panther" who hijacked a plane to Cuba in the 1970s and was ended up in Cuban prison, was brutally maltreated and lost the use of one eye as a result once said, "I would rather be a prisoner in the U.S. than "free" in Cuba).

- Fidel was involved in murder across borders (i.e., terrorism).
- Fidel pleaded with the USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 to fire nukes at the U.S.
- Despite receiving billions in aid from the USSR over 4 decades, today, the average Cuban gets less rations per day than the slaves in Cuba in 1840 !!
- Hollywood and the Left turn a blind eye to Cuba's human rights abuses, praising the dictator, Fidel. (whereas Chile's Pinochet - who the Left love to revile, had 5,000 people killed, Fidel and Co. had 15,000 people murdered, all without a fair trial, many with no trial at all).

I wish all the leftwingers in the U.S. and everywhere would read this book before talking about how Fidel is such a great "Third World leader", or putting on that Che Guavara t-shirt.

Roi
As I have stated in previous reviews, when an author writes and reserches an individual, they should be as impartial as possible and present both sides, this book however, is anything but impartial.The audience is clearly the cuban exile community

Please read Fidel
Unlike other books on Cuba, this accountfocuses on Fidel Castro and Che Guevara.I read the acknowledgements section to make sure that the events described in the book were credibly researched.There is little question they were, which leaves little doubt that Castro, along with Guevara, were two of history's greatest mass murderers.

Two chapters are impossible to read with a dry face, the account of the tugboat murder, and the tragic events leading to the return to Cuba of Elian Gonzalez.

The book is certainly an indictment of the media and hollywood that rings as true as Solyzhentisyn's Gulag Archipelago. i for one will never again see a Stone,Spielburg, Redford, Moore movie (along with many others) again.


This book is a must read, especially for those who still believe in moral relativism, the Che Guevara myth and camelot.

Deconstructing Castro
Wednesday, April 06, 2005


Book Review for Amazon.com

Book:FIDEL:HOLLYWOOD'S FAVORITE TYRANT
Author:Humberto E. Fontova


Reviewer: Gordon Hutchinson...

If either of outdoor writer Humberto Fontova's first two books are given to those faint of heart who identify with the Earth Movement, PETA, or The Fund for Animals, they should be delivered in plain brown wrappers with labels warning the reader they are "...notsuitable for `ear-play.'"Reading Fontova aloud in some liberated circles can result in group apoplexy and mass aortic carnage.

Fontova's books "The Helldiver's Rodeo," and "The Hellpig Hunt" are orgiastic feastings of political incorrectness-paeans to the brotherhood of maleness and the religious fervor of the hunt.

If in the defense of hunting, the enemy is at the gate, Fontova is the leather-clad, crossbow-wielding shooter from the parapets lighting the vat of oil and gleefully pouring its contents over the side on the screaming hordes of anti-hunters.He laughs maniacally as their missiles/insults bounce harmlessly from his absolute certainty in the just and correct path of his cause.

Fontova's writings are so frenetic, so hyper-active, and more than frequently so doggone funny, it's surprising to learn he has a masters degree in Latin American studies from Tulane University, and is a frequent contributor to conservative websites on the world wide web.

He takes such great pleasure in puncturing inflated egos and embracing the politically incorrect when it comes to the blood sports, even his myriad of fans from his prolific writings in outdoor magazines are sometimes taken aback, and can only shake their heads, saying "That's Humberto."

For these reasons, and more, his latest book, "Fidel-Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant," is a downright surprise.

While his writings are neither measured or controlled, his expose' of the dictator that has ruled the nation of his birth since he was six years old is a surprisingly entertaining and incredibly educational read. And it still retains more than a hint of the Fontova flavor-in other words, barely controlled hysteria.One gets the feeling throughout the heavily researched and annotated book that Fontova is barely restraining himself from reaching out of the pages, grabbing the reader by the throat, shaking him, and shouting in his face, "Can you believe this?Can you believe the American public has allowed this complete atrocity to occur in their hemisphere?That the liberal elite has played up to this murderous Communist assassin that resides only 90 miles from our shoreline, and has pointed weapons of mass destruction at us, begging his Russian protectors to rain nuclear fury on our country?"

If Fontova's writings on Cuba and the man some call "The Monster of the Caribbean" seem overwrought at times, it is not without reason.He begins the book with a little known incident in the first chapter titled "The Terrorist Next Door."

Agents of Fidel Castro had targeted Manhattan's busiest subway stations -including Grand Central Station-for rush hour explosions.Remember the subway bombings in Madrid in 2004 by Al Qaeda?Some 2000 individuals were killed or wounded in that horrific attack.The Al Qaeda terrorists used approximately 100 kilos of TNT to set off ten blasts-approximately ten kilos per blast.

Castro's agents would have put that incident to shame if they had been able to pull off their 1962 terrorist incident.In fact, they could have easily killed more people than died in the World Trade Center in September, 2001.Blasts were timed for the Friday after Thanksgiving, planning the fiery maiming and death of thousands of New Yorkers with the placing of twelve detonators and 500 kilos of TNT at such busy Christmas shopping centers as Macy's, Gimbel's, Bloomingdale's, and in the subways.

Thank God for J. Edgar Hoover's FBI.This was November, 1962-just weeks after the Cuban missile crisis, and the country was still severely rattled.But the FBI had gained knowledge of the plot, and managed to capture all the ringleaders and confiscate the explosives and detonators before they could carry out their murderous plan.After breaking up the group of conspirators, it was found their list of targets was even bigger than anyone had guessed-it included Manhattan's main bus terminal, oil refineries on the New Jersey shore, and the Statue of Liberty.

Had these would-be murderers not been infiltrated by the FBI, and carried out their plots, as Fontova so succinctly pens it:"...September 11, 2001 would be remembered as the second-deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil."

While he doesn't go into his own background very much in the book, Fontova's personal history identifies deeply with the Cuban expatriate community in both Miami and New Orleans-thus the tenor of the book sounding as if it was written by someone personally wronged by Castro and his minions.

He was.

After Castro overthrew Fulgencio Batista, Fontova's father, an architect, and his uncle, a Cuban Naval Officer, and a member of the Cuban Foreign Service, were each arrested at different times, and thrown into La Cabana fortress in Havana where every day dozens of men were stood before la paredon (the wall) and executed by firing squad.Thousands of men were executed over the years by Castro's butchers, and thousands more women and children were driven from the island with little more than the clothes on their backs while their men awaited death by bullets in the chest.

Fontova's mother and his aunt ended up in New Orleans (the aunt came over first) with few possessions, no money, and no understanding of English, to be embraced by the blue-collar neighborhood where they were placed, sheltered and fed by working-class folks frequently mislabeled as typical deep-South racist types.

As Fontova puts it, their neighbors--Irish, Italian, Cajun people of the working classes fed them, clothed them, gave them rides to school and stores, helped the adults find work and translators, and generally adopted these Hispanic victims of cultural genocide.

Small wonder, as Fontova frequently points out, that Cuban-Americans are loudly pro-American, Republican-leaning, and vehemently anti-Castro.They were taken in by this country and allowed to prosper through their own hard work while their brethren in Cuba suffer today under a regime so repressive that refugees from Haiti will not emigrate or attempt escape into Cuba.

Fontova's uncle was released first, and his father at a later date.They had been spared the firing squads due to their connections with some higher-ups in Castro's hierarchy, so they were banned from the country--penniless, but alive.

This review could go on and on-but better to get the book and read it for yourself-to be amazed that such atrocities and murderous behavior could occur so close to our shores, and be ignored bysuccessive generations of glitterati and liberals in the media and entertainment industry.


Fontova documents erratic behavior and violent retribution by Castro, his brother Raul, and the liberal's favorite guerrilla poster-child, Che Guevera until one reads in amazement, turning the pages to discover what evil these Communist assassins will unleash next on the beaten masses of the Cuban populace, and what terrorist plots they will next export against the United States and other countries.

Fontova's descriptions of the bravery of the freedom fighters executed by Castro and Guevera's orders at La Cabana will bring tears to your eyes and heart-rending admiration of the men who faced the firing squads unbowed, pulling their shirts open, pointing at their chests, and shouting "Here traitors!Communist cowards!Shoot me here-right in the chest!Like a man!"

The bravery of these men and their hatred of Castro and Communism is an incredible story.It is a story of how an evil man and an equally evil social system took what some called an island paradise-a country with one of the highest levels of education per capita in the world, with an immigration rate so prolific from western Europe it had to be limited severely in the late Fifties, and one of the highest levels of personal income in the Latin Americas, into a country thousands risk their lives yearly to flee, and where people have been known to inject themselves with the AIDS virus to go to an isolated hospice to die, away from the crushing misery and drudge-filled life of existence in a now sub-standard Communist country.

Castro, Fontova points out, has imprisoned more people per capita in his reign than either Hitler, or Stalin.The longest-imprisoned political prisoners in the world come from Castro's Cuba, and his human-rights violations rank with the very worst in history.

Fontova has told an amazing story.Even more amazing because it is true, and has been so conveniently ignored by the liberal elite in the media and the entertainment industry.

Throughout the book, as he details Castro's atrocities and terrorist plots against this country, his exportation of torture, Communism, and revolution to third-world countries (Castro sent KGB-trained interrogators to North Vietnam during that conflict to assist in the torture and questioning of American captives) Fontova juxtaposes the ignorant bleatings of media and Hollywood apologists for Socialism like Danny Glover, Steven Spielberg, Dan Rather, and Chevy Chase who have praised, and continue even today to praise Castro, and his government.

"Fidel-Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant" is beyond timely.With Communism dead almost everywhere in the world except right here on our doorstep, and with governors and scions of business traveling to Cuba to be wined and dined by a 78-year-old torturer and murderer, one can only wonder what will happen in this formerly beautiful Caribbean nation once its despotic tin god of a dictator passes into what will surely be a special form of everlasting punishment.

Perhaps that will be the subject of Fontova's next book.It is likely the only way he'll be able to top this one.




---THE END---




... Read more

Amazon.com

Did the clothes make Jackie, or did Jackie make the clothes? Decide for yourself: Jacqueline Kennedy: The White House Years is a stunning catalog of some of Jacqueline Kennedy's most important dresses as worn during her years as first lady of the United States. As visually sleek and elegant as Mrs. Kennedy herself, the book offers a beautiful analysis of the stunning, simple outfits that typified the Jackie style and brought a breath of sleek modernity to the White House after the somewhat frumpy fussiness of previous first lady Bess Truman. Released to coincide with the 40th anniversary of Kennedy's "emergence" as a style icon, the book presents an eclectic selection of suits, evening dresses, daywear, and accessories from the John F. Kennedy Library and Museum collection. Divided into cities where each item was first worn, the gowns, suits, and dresses are first presented alone in a full-page color photo. Each is then accompanied by various photos of Jackie wearing the item and detailed design notes, history, and anecdotes behind the outfit.

These photos give a wonderful context to the clothes, and it's clear that Jackie's carriage and persona injected life into these garments--which sometimes appear markedly different from what one might deduce as each item's "personality" when simply viewing it alone. For example, a pale cream embroidered silk Givenchy evening gown looks dull and somewhat dowdy when seen alone, but the accompanying photograph of Jackie wearing it while cuddling a newborn John Kennedy Jr. transforms the dress into something feminine and timeless. Or a very simple, innocently pretty pink shantung evening gown by Guy Douvier becomes arrestingly sexy when she wears it with nothing but white gloves and a Palm Beach tan. Contextualizing and interpreting Kennedy's style is an important part of this book. Featured are essays on Jackie and her effect on the world of style by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., Kennedy friend Rachel Lambert Mellon, and the book's author and Vogue editor at large, Hamish Bowles. Jacqueline Kennedy: The White House Years accompanies an exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. --Marisa Lencioni, Amazon.co.uk ... Read more

Reviews (14)

Jacqueline Chic
This is a "must have" book for anyone who loves the beauty, style and grace of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, fashion and history. The beautiful fashion photography with insightful essays showcases the former First Lady as one of the 20th century's fashion icons. Her clothing, simple and modern, yet classically elegant, created by major designers of the time such as Oleg Cassini and Givenchy, reflects her visionary fashion savvy. This book will make you ask do clothes make a person, or does the inner soul and outer beauty of a person, such as the former First Lady, make the clothes?

MOST EXCELLENT
Excellent EVERYTHING!!!
A must for jackie AND caroline fans...i figure she did a lot for this and chose some GREAT photos...esp. the last one, in my humble opinion.
THE BEST PHOTOGRAPHY!!!
I LOVE IT!!! and was shocked when i actually saw it after the few not-so appreciative reviews.
TOP SHELF BOOK/TOMB.
THANKS to everyone who was behind putting this out. As my grandmother would say about such a great book, "It lifts you up." (she said that about the Sotheby's Auction catalog of JBKO's Estate.
THANKS and LOVE TO ALL!!!

Quality, Youth, Beauty, Style and Culture in the White House
Caution: If you like looking at lots of photographs of early 1960s designer dresses, you will probably like this book. Otherwise, this is probably not the right book for you.

During the presidential election of 1960, Ms. Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy made an immense impression on American society. At 31, she was a dramatic contrast with the vice president's wife, Ms. Patricia Nixon, and recent first ladies (Ms. Mame Eisenhower, Ms. Bess Truman, and Ms. Eleanor Roosevelt). She was much younger than these women, was pregnant with her son, John, and seemed like someone who came from another world. Ms. Kennedy was highly cultured, interested in the fine arts, attractive in a way that showed up well in photographs and on television, and wore gorgeous clothes of the sort usually only seen in the best fashion magazines.

Once in the White House, her differences from other first ladies became more apparent. A major effort to redecorate the White House with authentic pieces ensued, Lafayette Square's appearance was conserved, entertaining began to feature people from the world of fine arts, the Rose Garden was redesigned, and the clothes she wore became even more magnificent. A great deal of the sense of Camelot certainly came from Ms. Kennedy.

I was disappointed in the book. For someone who had such a wide and important influence on America, the book barely seemed to scratch the surface. It is almost as though a decision had been made to create a book about her dresses on state occasions, and to mention and show all of the other influences she had as little as possible.

This book minimally and partially captures the impact she had on our national consciousness. The best essay is found in the foreword by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. who provides a good overview of the influence of Ms. Kennedy (as described above) and her husband, the president, more broadly on the arts (including efforts that helped lead to the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., and providing a temple from Egypt to the Metropolitan Museum in New York). Most of the book is visually devoted to her clothing during state occasions, with notes about those who created the clothes. A typical section has color photographs of the clothing on mannequins, Ms. Kennedy wearing the clothes at an event, and a black-and-white image of how she appeared in the context of the whole event.

The clothing captures what was called at the time, the Jackie look. Most of the dresses are by Oleg Cassini, Givenchy, Chez Ninon, and Gustave Tassell. There are also lots of examples of her hats (often pillboxes by Halston). The outfits are usually as simple and conservative as possible in solid colors, made special by perhaps one elegant bow or sash. Unfortunately, these sections have little material about Ms. Kennedy's views on these apparel, designs for the clothing, or thoughts about how to coordinate them with shoes and accessories.

What was most impressive to me was the success with which she selected outfits that fit in with the nations she was visiting. In France, the elegance of Givenchy enveloped her. In India, bright pastel shades made her look like part of the jungle flora. I'm sure the host nations were delighted to see their specialness magnified in her efforts to be an attractively dressed guest.

But these clothes are unremarkable without Ms. Kennedy. Like a well-known fashion model, she enhanced the clothes enormously with her youth, vitality, personality, and trim figure. So, for me, the book's real value was in seeing the many photographs of Ms. Kennedy. I especially liked the candid photographs, either talking with guests or playing with her children.

How can we recapture a sense of uniquely American style and good taste in ways that will bring approval?

What are the ways that the president and first spouse should set a good example for the rest of us?

An elegant blast from the past!
When I took this tome out of its mailer & began to turn its pages, I suddenly remembered my own set of formal white cotton gloves - long since discarded - so reverential was the aura emanating from this glossy artbook.

Jacqueline Kennedy kept it simple - most of her clothes were in solid colors with only huge buttons, cockades or discreet stylized bows, scarves, shawls or frogs for detail. In the Travel Chapter we see the simplicity of her wardrobe & her passion for colors.

Combining original & new photographs, this volume presents images we have rarely seen, as well as photos that have become a part of our national consciouness. The final one of the President & First Lady together in the open touring auto needs no words - we all know what happened next.

Certainly a treasure of memories - where we were, what we wore, what we wished we could wear. I never realized how Mrs. Kennedy acquired her wardrobe assuming, incorrectly, that she always wore top-of-the-line haute couture - when in actuality she wore "knock-offs", sometimes chosen by her mother-in-law.

For anyone who cannot make the pilgrimage to the 40th Anniversary Exhibition at the John F. Kennedy Library & Museum, Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York & who craves visions of those much-mimicked fashions of yesteryear.

An unexpected pleasure
After reading some of the reviews for this book stating it was dull and offered nothing of particular interest except alot of talk about A line dresses and cuts on the bias, I was apprehensive about wasting so much money on it.However having bought nearly every book published on Mrs Onassis I went ahead and ordered it anyway.Upon opening it I was pleasantly surprised. It was well set out,interesting and with many fine photos I had not seen, to illustrate the somewhat dry text.But the most facinating aspect of this book is to actually see what these dresses looked like in colour....after seeing numerous black and white photos of the Kennedy reception at the Elysee Palace and to hear the pink straw dress worn by Mrs kennedy described, it was mesmerizing to actually see it...no wonder she was described as radiant....and the most amazing thing is that Mrs kennedy dresses were sometimes even more interesting when viewed from the back...the intricate drapery and patterns.The photo of her in a backless sundress on the Italian Riveria is a revelation as it was worn in 1962 and was so ahead of its time...this book shows that Jacqueline kennedy had true style and is worthy of the mantle of fashion icon even though she would probably want to be remembered for her more substancial contributions.A very worthwhile addition to any devotee's library ... Read more

Amazon.com

Robert Caro's Master of the Senate examines in meticulous detail Lyndon Johnson's career in that body, from his arrival in 1950 (after 12 years in the House of Representatives) until his election as JFK's vice president in 1960. This, the third in a projected four-volume series, studies not only the pragmatic, ruthless, ambitious Johnson, who wielded influence with both consummate skill and "raw, elemental brutality," but also the Senate itself, which Caro describes (pre-1957) as a "cruel joke" and an "impregnable stronghold" against social change. The milestone of Johnson's Senate years was the 1957 Civil Rights Act, whose passage he single-handedly engineered. As important as the bill was--both in and of itself and as a precursor to wider-reaching civil rights legislation--it was only close to Johnson's Southern "anti-civil rights" heart as a means to his dream: the presidency. Caro writes that not only does power corrupt, it "reveals," and that's exactly what this massive, scrupulously researched book does. A model of social, psychological, and political insight, it is not just masterful; it is a masterpiece. --H. O'Billovich ... Read more

Reviews (104)

Best of the Three Volumes
After reading all 1,040 pages of this biography cum political history there is something to be said for the book. Richard Caro does not admire LBJ. But there is much not to like about LBJ. In the worst way he was deceitful, manipulative, crude, selfish, cowardly, and dishonest, however he was also smart, a very hard worker, willing to make sacrifices to serve ambition, a student of human nature and thrived on politics. He knew what he had to do to get power and, when he had power, he knew how to use it. Caro's research is thorough yet he does not get lost in minutia. There is not a dull page in this tome. For an historian he has a smooth, if not elegant, writing style - reminiscent of David McCullough or Doris Kerns Goodwin.
While this book covers only about 12 years of Johnson's life, it is rich in politics and history. For each biographical episode Caro sets the historical foundation to better understand the flow, the impact and importance of events. A compelling example of this concerns civil rights legislation. Caro does not limit his investigation to the weeks and months preceding the passage of the voting registration law of 1957, rather he goes back to Reconstruction and gives an historical thread up to the 1950's just to get the proper perspective. In this connection, LBJ for years stood with the South and shamelessly blocked civil rights legislation - doing do as a Senator, as minority leader and then as majority leader. It was at the 1956 Democratic convention that he got a rude awakening. He sincerely believed that he had a respectable chance at the nomination for president. It was there he learned that in the eyes of the rest of the country he was just another southern bigot. For the 1960 presidential run he would have to change that image by becoming a champion of civil rights. In executing this turn-around and orchestrating the passage of the first civil rights bill in 72 years Johnson's performance is truly masterful. History and personal ambition came together to serve the county. You can take the last 200 pages of this book alone and sell a 100,000 copies!

Caro Delivers on LBJ Again.
As usual, Mr. Caro's work on LBJ is excellent. In particular, the book starts with a very absorbing overview of the US Senate, showcasing the concept of the founding fathers to make the Senate a bastion of calm and reason. However, he also shows the Senate's inherent flaws so keenly exploited by the southern senators who for many generations successfully fought off Civil Rights legislation. Mr. Caro includes a sobering and retrospective view of the Senate's inherent isolationism to include "what if" the Senate had ratified the Treaty of Versailles and America had joined the League of Nations.

As an historian with a deep background in 20th Century America, I have a professional interest in the topic, but so should any reader with an interest in 1950's America, in particular during the tumultuous challenges brought on by the Cold War and the fight for Civil Rights .

However, this book definitively showcases LBJ's years in the Senate. He remains a larger-than-life figure in American politics and his "history" is truly extraordinary.

A master work with a central flaw
I have read all three of Robert Caro's volumes on LBJ with fascination. Caro is unsurpassed as a researcher, and while there is far too much repetition here (similar evidence marshalled to make a similar point) and too wide a sense of relevance (was it necessary to spend a chapter, for example, on Coke Stevenson's happy marriage AFTER he lost the 1948 Democratic Primary for the Senate to LBJ?) and a lot of stagey writing, too (eg, thundering one-sentence paragraphs), the degree to which Caro succeeds in reconstructing a context for the most minute of LBJ's machinations gives priceless insight and makes this a truly exciting work to read.
The great flaw of these books, however, is that they make Johnson a one-dimensional character, a tireless self-seeker and manipulator of men and women who cannot live a day without furthering his ambitions. In the service of his cause, Caro's Johnson never commits himself, never gives a hint of his true views, if he has any. He started out as a New Dealer but with Southern Conservatives he always behaved like one of them. Then finally, added to this portrait of the shamelessly sycophantic bully, Caro also would have us believe that Johnson all along was an idealist who really wanted to help people, a trait that Caro sees expressed in LBJ's heroic early performance as a teacher of poor Texas children. This assessment will be borne out by the record of LBJ's presidency (Caro is still at work), when Johnson did abandon his Southern base and revert to the emulation of his original model, FDR. But there is no way that the Johnson has described so far will be able convincingly to be transformed into the idealistic reformer president Caro hints at in volume theree. The complexity of motivation simply isn't there in these three volumes. Caro's LBJ seems always to be approached through the eyes of others, whereas LBJ's own point of view remains elusive.
LBJ's life makes a fascinating story--that of a man who used every dirty trick in the book on his way to the top, then tried to use his position to help people. Caro's book would have been better titled LBJ and the Art of Corruption, for he shows that part of the story brilliantly--how money and power work together (roughly, power equals money squared). It's the other side of the story that is unconvincing here, and we are still left wondering Who is the real LBJ?

Like chinese food: an hour later, you're hungry again
I should start by saying I feel badly that I am only giving this book two stars, but I think the biggest factor affecting the rating should be the book's substance and general tone, and that is what I take issue with. That said, I will point out that the style of writing is classic and the sort that only appears in great works of nonfiction. Caro really is a very skilled writer and others should emulate his phraseology.

The problem with the book is that, even though it's 1000 pages long, it feels oddly unsatisfying. I read it through and found myself asking, "Wait, how did he get control of the Senate again?" When you really look at it, Caro tends to say things like, "If so-and-so senator couldn't be persuaded by money or by concessions [or whatever else], then Johnson would just use his power to get the vote." Caro seems to keep using this phrase - Johnson would just use his "power" - to explain things. But that doesn't explain anything, and when you dig down to see what it means, Caro doesn't have any more of an answer than anyone else. He fails to really convey the "why" of things - why no one would vote for Estes Kefauver to get one some committee, or why everyone followed Russell's word so closely, or why the Policy committee decided so much. Any attempt to explain it just hits up against some well-written but basically empty passage saying how "clever" or "feared" or "powerful" Johnson or Russell was.

The real reason for this failure is the basic exaggeration of Johnson's power. Caro makes him out to be the wisest, cleverest person since Solomon. But instead of being "Master of the Senate," Johnson is really just "Master of His Times." That is because Johnson, instead of imposing his will on the majority, like some seem to believe, really just shepherded the pre-existing will to passage. The heart of the book, the struggle over the 1957 Civil Rights bill, proves this. It passed not because Johnson singlehandedly made them do it, but because there was finally enough liberal support, coupled with Republican votes, to make it happen. Johnson may have insisted on making the deal, but any majority leader in office at the time could have done so as well.

So the book's main failure is one of emphasis. By devoting so much well-written copy to a great story (but re-telling it with Johnson as the prime mover), Caro gives too much credit to his subject, and his slippery definition of the exact source of Johnson's power is a symptom of this. Many future politicians will surely try to use this book to imitate Johnson's feats; too bad there really isn't anything particularly exceptional to learn from them.

4 Volumes on a Dead Man. What a Waste of Time
4 Volumes on a Dead Man. What a Waste of Time.

Homo-Erotism of a Dead President. LBJ Dead since 1973.
I am always curious why smart people devote years obsessed with dead people, not to mention dead people from the long past.

It must be a man acting out their homo-erotic fantasies out of another man. Of course, LBJ was Texas roughneck, cowboy, and Robert Caro, the pencil-neck geek must find this guy attractive.

LBJ died in 1973 from a Heart Attack. He got kick out after one term in office, the Vietnam War was a diaster. The welfare state left us with billions in debt.

All this can be debated in academic circles. But why devote three books to a man dead since 1973.

Robert Caro, please get a life, a real job. All humans born, live and then die. The USA life expectancy is about 72. We can debate politics and so on.

Weak males tend to be attracted to strong, dominating males and that explains why Robert Caro is devoting three books to a dead man. ... Read more

Reviews (5)

The Great Communicator
Historians across the political spectrum agree that the United States has had only two great presidents, Washington and Lincoln. They also agree that of all our presidents Lincoln was the most eloquent.

By analyzing some of the speeches that Lincoln composed while president, White puts them into historical context, illuminating their whole truth where previous scholars might have been satisfied with a partial one. He describes each speech as a pearl connected by a common thread. Stringing together these pearls, he demonstrates not only Lincoln's habits and thoughts but the evolution of his thoughts, for one speech usually built on a previous one and pointed toward another. Lincoln lived and wrote within the continuum of past, present, and future.

As Bridges and Rickenbacker write in their book, The Art of Persuasion, schemes and tropes are the tools of the language, having originated with Aristotle; their use lends weight and authority to the spoken and written word. Lincoln made heavy use of alliteration, antithesis, assonance, asyndeton, ellipsis, erotema, isocolon, parallelism -- practically a dictionary of rhetoric -- which White too rarely refers to by name. He argues persuasively that Lincoln met Aristotle's qualifications for successful art of persuasion: 1) moral character; 2) the ability to excite listeners based on an understanding of their thoughts and feelings; and 3) the ability to prove a truth through various forms of argument. An experienced lawyer, Lincoln often argued by syllogism. He wrote on practical occasions to achieve practical effects. Frequently he shunned polysyllabic Latin derivatives for plain Saxon in order to appeal to a broad audience.

Some biographers have been reluctant to credit Lincoln with a traditional religious sense, calling him a deist, fatalist, or skeptic, but his rhetoric suggests otherwise. Not only did he attend services, he read carefully the King James Bible, employing biblical cadences and references throughout his work. One might say his writing, like his life, was informed by a strong awareness of the workings of providence.

Lincoln's skill was even more remarkable when we consider that he was self-taught. In a Congressional directory, when asked to comment on his education, he wrote: "defective." He studied Scott's Lessons in Elocution, he absorbed Kirkham's English Grammar; both were more rigorous than what today's students encounter. I have found other sources which listed Lincoln's literary influences as the Bible, Shakespeare, John Bunyan, Daniel Defoe, and Blackstone's Commentaries -- difficult to read on one's own, all of them. Throughout his life Lincoln worked diligently on writing and revising, sometimes reading to the nearest listener, sometimes aloud to himself, always concerned with orality and effect on the audience. He wrote slowly and spoke slowly.

Robert Frost one said that he intended to "lodge a few poems where they couldn't be gotten rid of easily." Lincoln's speeches have become lodged into the American vernacular: First Inaugural ("better angels of our nature"); Second Inaugural ("with malice toward none"); Gettysburg Address ("new birth of freedom"); Cooper Institute Address ("What is conservatism?"); the House Divided speech, the Emancipation Proclamation. How many American presidents have made such an impact through their words? Who was the last president even to write his own speeches?

The terrible irony is that critics of the time denied Lincoln's eloquence, much like the impoverished souls of today who, unable to let go of the Confederacy, insist with John Wilkes Booth that Lincoln was a tyrant. Such is the fate of the good and the great. Profound are their efforts, however, for those like Ronald White who are paying attention.

The living word
This is a highly interesting history of the emergence of Lincoln's great rhetorical career during the civil war, starting with his railroad tour on the way to Washington after his election. Tracing the particulars and varied drafts of these gestating classics, the author puts each of the classic speeches in its context, especially the Gettesburg Address. The resulting fine-grain context for Lincoln's great masterpieces of eloquence is highly enjoyable and highlights the tenous edge they gave to his threatened passage as president through the trials of the Civil War.

The self-taught communicator
For anyone who enjoys the process of writing and speaking, this book is a great treat.Lincoln carefully selected words for their mental and emotional impact.And he seems to have gotten better every year.Very inspiring!

An Eloquent Book
Mr.White lucidly conveys the striking skills possessed by Abraham Lincoln in the writing, for oral delivery, of the most important political speeches of our country's history.

It is a book that should be read by every serious student of President Lincoln and all those interested in the art of formal political speech.

Brilliantly explains substance and style of Lincoln's prose
Abraham Lincoln was eloquent; everybody knows that.But what kind of eloquence did he have?How did he use it to advance his ideas and political agenda?How did he use it to enlighten the American people and to summon up the best that this nation can be?Any reader who has any interest in those questions must read this book.It is a profound yet lucid and fast-moving examination of Lincoln's uses of oratory as president-elect and as president.It stands with yet somehow manages to eclipse studies of specific speeches such as Garry Wills's LINCOLN AT GETTYSBURG or the author's previous study of the Second Inaugural Address, LINCOLN'S GREATEST SPEECH.I teach Lincoln in my Law and Literature course and I plan to have this book at my elbow as I teach Lincoln this semester. ... Read more

Book Description

Who is Bill Clinton?

A man whose presidency was disgraced by impeachment -- yet who remains one of the most popular presidents of our time.

A man whose autobiography, My Life, was panned by critics as a self-indulgent daily diary -- but rode the bestseller lists for months.

A man whose policies changed America at the close of the twentieth century -- yet whose weakness left us vulnerable to terror at the dawn of the twenty-first.

No one better understands the inner Bill Clinton, that creature of endless and vexing contradiction, than Dick Morris. From the Arkansas governor's races through the planning of the triumphant 1996 reelection, Morris was Clinton's most valued political adviser. Now, in the wake of Clinton's million-selling memoir My Life, Morris and his wife, Eileen McGann, set the record straight with Because He Could, a frank and perceptive deconstruction of the story Clinton tells -- and the many more revealing stories he leaves untold.

With the same keen insight they brought to Hillary Clinton's life in their recent bestseller Rewriting History, Morris and McGann uncover the hidden sides of the complicated and sometimes dysfunctional former president. Whereas Hillary is anxious to mask who she really is, they show, Bill Clinton inadvertently reveals himself at every turn -- as both brilliant and undisciplined, charming yet often filled with rage, willing to take wild risks in his personal life but deeply reluctant to use the military to protect our national security. The Bill Clinton who emerges is familiar -- reflexively blaming every problem on right-wing persecutors or naïve advisers -- but also surprising: passive, reactive, working desperately to solve a laundry list of social problems yet never truly grasping the real thrust of his own presidency. And while he courted danger in his personal life, the authors argue that Clinton's downfall has far less to do with his private demons than with his fear of the one person who controlled his future: his own first lady.

Sharp and stylishly written, full of revealing insider anecdotes, Because He Could is a fresh and probing portrait of one of the most fascinating, and polarizing, figures of our time.

Reviews (19)

An Excellent and Comprehensive Biography
This is a well-written biography by the British journalist Simon Montefiore covering Stalin's life from 1878 to 1953. Photos on the book cover depict Stalin with his associates (the magnates) but it is mainly about him in the period 1932 to 1945. The author attended Cambridge University and has written one previous historical book "Prince of Princes" plus he has written two novels, and contributed many articles on Russia and those regions of the old USSR to the Sunday Times, the New York Times, and created various other written and TV works. He is very well qualified and does an impressive job examining original Russian sources such as letters and diaries, interviewing survivor's relatives or consulting with scholars, etc. From the book, one must conclude that it must have taken a long period of time to pull all the facts together and write the book - since the book is lengthy - is almost 800 pages long with the introduction, photos, maps, notes, lengthy index, etc. Plus it has many references and comments. In short it is not a quick read.

There are many things that one can say about the story and Stalin but I will try and limit my comments. Needless to say I recommend the book. It holds your attention and in many ways is quite fascinating. In any case, what really brings this book to life are two things, i.e.: the author uses a lot of quotes or accurate summaries from primary sources that are conversations or communications either written or spoken by Stalin or received by Stalin, so we get the feeling that we are back in the USSR on some chilly Moscow night at the Kremlin or on the warm Baltic coast at his dacha listening to the conversations as observers, plus the author inserts four sets of black and white photos that show all the main characters including Stalin's second wife Nadya, different associates (the magnates) such as Beria, and it gives the reader some perspective as one proceeds through the book. Without these photos and good writing I think this would be a much more difficult read for the average person to keep an interest in the book - and to follow while wading through the many pages of Russian names and relationships. So the author has done excellent background research job for the book and then he does a good job at presenting the material to keep our interest. Also there is a certain degree of drama in the book during the loss of Stalin's second wife and the invasion of the USSR by Germany.

In the book the author tells us that he is attempting to provide an accurate and complete biography of the man and his politics, not just the one-dimensional evil genius that is the normal perception of the man. We learn that Stalin enjoys his family life, and endless parties and dinners, hunting trips, billiards, visits by his children, comments by his mother, and his reading from an extensive personal library, singing and dancing, etc. His personal life is not all rosy and you will see that when you read the book. The author reveals these human sides to his complex personality and it works to a point in the book. Also, he gives the reader many details on the war, and the near destruction of Moscow, Stalin living in the subway, meetings with Churchill, Mao, Tito, endless diplomatic and business dinners, drinking binges with many including Churchill, and meetings with his associates to plan the war or the next purge, etc. But in the end it is a story about a ruthless killer that seized control of large country and retains power through the use of a terrifying secret police, bands of armed thugs, mind boggling torture techniques, firing squads, rigged courts, random killings, party purges, killing off of millions of independent farmers and business people, labor camps, and all the mayhem that this entails. But the author for the most part manages to keep the book an interesting read and an educational historical experience.

Overall this is an excellent and well-written book that I would highly recommend to anyone interested in the man and European history. I read it cover to cover and enjoyed the book. Also, I read many of the notes and comments. As a follow up I would suggest "Khrushchev" by William Taubman. It is a highly acclaimed best seller. The same author Taubman has written other books on the Soviet Union and Stalin's foreign policy.

Jack in Toronto

OK book but not for beginners
Mr. Montefiore certainly worked hard to get this book right and his intimate look at Stalin and his inner circle certainly is worth reading if you are already knowledgable about Stalin and the happenings of the Soviet Union under his rule. THis book goes to a level where we almost know what Stalin had for dinner every night. It spends much time on his relations with his family, friends and comrades. I am sure this will enlighten some.

On the other hand this book is not recommended for non-Stalin scholars. Important external details (like much of WW2) are omitted so it is hard to figure out exactly what is happening at times. The onset of the Cold War is even less well explained, although some events, like the meetings with Churchill and FDR are explained in detail.

I would say the greatest plus of this book is its description of a tyrant going mad, eliminating every person around him who might be a threat and creating new threats out of an overwhelming imagination. I would say the greatest flaw is the picture much of the book draws of Stalin as some sort of intellectual who likes to eat with friends and party with women. WHile this is going on millions are dieing, but hte focus remains on the fete of the evening and not the atrocities.

Finally, while I understand Mr. Montefiore is Jewish, his focus on who is and is not jewish was quite off=putting. If somebody did not tell me he was jewish I would have guessed he was leading to some sweeping anti-semitic conclusions. I was not sure through the whole book why I needed to know who was Jewish and who was not. Maybe in England the word "Jew" is used as an adjective before a name like the Jew, Leon Trotsky, but it is not common in the U.S. and as I just said, it turned me off tremendously.

The Most Compelling Book I've Ever Read About Stalin
"Stalin: The Court of The Red Tsar" is simply the most compelling book I've ever read about Stalin, and I've read a few (from Martin Amis to Solzhenitsyn to Robert Tucker to Volkogonov.) Montefiore has the skills of a novelist with narrative drive, smooth prose, and psychological portraiture. He also has ransacked a treasure-trove of freshly available documents like personal correspondence, newly published memoirs, and in-depth interviews with family members of the Soviet elite. The result is the most gripping picture yet of this time and place in world history.

Interestingly enough, the Soviet leaders were like a small town where everyone knew and lived in close proximitity with each other. Add to this the murderous habits of the Bolsheviks and you get something which looks amazingly like "The Sopranos": family men who were also monsters. (I guess David Chase just has great instincts for this kind of material.) There's also a resemblance to "I, Claudius" in the mixture of power, family banality, and horror. For example secret police chief Beria was a loving husband, father and grandfather who also personally tortured, raped, and killed his victims. (Human bones were recently found in the basement of his old mansion, according to Montefiore.)

The author also has a sure grasp on the moral and intellectual issues raised by Stalin's life. He says that the Communists were a fanatical sect and compares them to the "Islamo-fascists" that we face today. He also gives an amazingly rounded portrait of the human side of the dictator and the people around him. We learn about Stalin's mistresses; that the secret policeman Yezov's flighty, doomed wife slept with the great writer Isaac Babel; that Stalin ordered the destruction of his wife Nadya's entire family (including one woman who had an affair with him.) This is an absolutely essential book which you must purchase immediately.

At Last, a Stalin Study Free of Cold War Hyperbole!
Montefiore's study of Stalin is truly the first, comprehensive, academic study of Stalin WITHOUT the ubiquitious Cold War rhetoric and moral grandstanding of so many previous English language biographies. Unlike Payne, Ulam, Tucker, and Lacquer, for example, Montefiore provides readers with an exhaustive examination of Stalin and his close associates for what they really were: Human beings who loved, hated, gossiped, told bawdy jokes, back-stabbed, got drunk, went on picnics, struggled with self doubt, cried, worried about their careers, enjoyed singing folk songs, spent long hours at the office, played with their children, endured personal health problems, and grieved for lost family members. This book does NOT focus on geopolitics or diplomacy but rather the million-and-one seemingly day-to-day activities that make up the thing we call Existence. Based on many interviews and newly-opened Russian archives, Montefiore presents a fascinating, lively, and well written study for both the scholar and the general reader. Stalin and all of his lieutenants -- including Molotov, Kagonovitch, Mikoyan, Beria, Zhukov, and dozens of others -- are portrayed not as two-dimensional robots mindlessly spouting-off Marxist-Leninist slogans, but rather as ordinary persons struggling with the mundane pettiness of Life. As a result, this tome leaves nothing sacred, and makes no apology for the horrific crimes committed by the Stalin regime. Nevertheless, because of the everyday banality of these individuals, it only makes the reader think of the hatred and destruction ordinary humans are potentially capable of....

Horrifyingly Fascinating Account of Stalin
I must admit that I feel a bit of guilt for the compulsive manner in which I read this highly personal account of life in the court of Stalin. This well-told story is horrible, but fascinating.

Montefiore makes no effort to dissect the big geopolitical issues of the Stalin era, except to use them as a backdrop to the backstabbing, denunciations, groveling, and horror in which the senior leadership of the Soviet Union operated from the early 30s until the early 50s. Using in-depth interviews and newly-available archival information, including much of the correspondence between and among the senior leadership, Montefiore fleshes out what was going on under the surface, in particular the complex love-hate (mostly hate) relationship of Stalin to his court.

It's a wonderful account of a country run by leaders who viewed their role more as mafiosi than as leaders of a legitimate government. In a real sense, they were gangsters and that's the way they ran the country--including the way Stalin required the leadership to all participate in the Great Terror (he wanted all them to have blood on their hands and thus share in the collective guilt).

The author's behind-the-scenes view of the Great Terror is the centerpiece of the book. His portraits of Yeshov and Beria, the two most malignant monsters after Stalin, will now be etched into my memory.

But in the end, the book is a portrait of Stalin, a man who could turn on the charm, perform an act of kindness for an old comrade, then in the next moment sign the death warrants of hundreds of innocent victims. I disagree with other reviewers who criticize the author for treating Stalin too kindly. There's no question where Montefiore stands: he views Stalin was a monster, and Stalin's occasional human touches makes him even more so.

I've had long-term interest in 20th century Russian history, particularly trying to understand how a country could find itself in the hands of the personification of evil. This book helps answer the question.

A final point. Montefiore is an excellent story teller. I don't pretend to be in position to judge all his conclusions, but they have the ring of truth to them, and the author is good about telling the reader when he's departed from evidence into speculation.

I recommend this book. I only wish that in reading it, I lacked the guilty fascination that comes from watching an entire nation turned into a train wreck by a single evil man. ... Read more

Book Description

Reviews (41)

Curse, my (expletive deleted)
Yet another book for the Kennedy cult, this one examining the so-called "curse" of the toothy family. Klein's book is not without interest for all those who are obsessed with America's unoffical royal family, but his premise is wrong. With the possible exception of the assassinations of JFK and RFK, the many tragedies that have befallen the Kennedy clan can be blamed on recklessness (skiing while videotaping your misadventures, piloting a plane when you aren't really experienced enough to be trusted all alone behind the controls, etc), and, though I hate to judge, poor parenting. The powerful men in the family were too busy acquiring power to instill sound values into their kids, and we have witnessed the wreckage.

Money, power, and fame can be a deadly combination for those who don't know that life is about something more tangible than that. If there is a curse, one might look to the family's patriarch, Joseph Kennedy, who built his fortune on bootlegging. The Bible says something about the sins of the father being inherited by his sons. Perhaps the devil is simply collecting on a debt that old Joe didn't repay.

Leaves you wanting more...
I enjoyed the book, particularly the first chapters which are on the patriarchs of the [Fitzgerald/Kennedy] family. However, take it as you will, the book leaves you wanting more. Well, at least for me it did. That's probably a good thing to say about this book, how Klien was able to spark my interest to learn more about the Kennedys. And by the way, the book is NOT all about JFK Jr. as mentioned earlier. If that's what you're seeking, try instead The Day John Died by C. Anderson. The Kennedy Curse instead simply touches upon some (not all) of the notorious Kennedy's &/or their notorious behavior & events.

Interesting but not complete
I read this book after reading the Micheal Bergin book and while I thought it was interesting I also thought it was incomplete.

If Klein was giving examples of the "Kennedy Curse" then why did he leave out the eldest Kennedy son, Joe Jr., or Bobby Kennedy and his sons: David, Micheal, and Joe. It seems that if he really wanted to drive his point home then he would have written about this men as well. With the exception of Bobby's son Joe, they all died while they were young. Bobby died while trying to complete "the family mission" and two of his sons died while doing stupid things.

I also thought it was odd that while he would write about William Kennedy Smith and the rape trial, he did not devote a chapter to Ted Kennedy and Chappaquidick.

All in all, like I said before, it was a good book, just a little incomplete.

The Kennedy Curse: Why Tragedy Has Haunted America's First F
Death was merciful to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, for it spared her a parent's worst nightmare: the loss of a child. But if Jackie had lived to see her son, JFK Jr., perish in a plane crash on his way to his cousin's wedding, she would have been doubly horrified by the familiar pattern in the tragedy. Once again, on a day that should have been full of joy and celebration, America's first family was struck by the Kennedy Curse.

THERE IS NO CURSE
This book is interesting from a hypothetical viewpoint. The Kennedys are a very large family - Bobby and Ethel alone had eleven kids! The larger the family base the more propensity for problems and they did suffer their share of unsolicited tragedy. But many of the Kennedy misfortunes were self induced thru bad choices and high profile politics which carries definite risk. Joe Jr. was killed in WWII but so were many other pilots. JFK and Bobby were assassinated by whackos due to the celebrity status they cultivated and lack of protection. Ted's life was torn asunder by drink and poor decisions vis a vis Chappaquidick. Michael met an untimely demise when he skiied at high speed into a tree while unwisely playing Kennedy football on the slopes. Michael Skakel (Ethel's nephew) is serving a life sentence for murdering 15 yr old Martha Moxley. John Jr. died because he was not certified to fly without gauges. There are many families who've suffered from cancer, have children who are physically or mentally challenged, and who have lost loved ones in war. These are not curses, but common trials of life which are often unavoidable. Behavior and choices, however, are controllable and therein lies the flaw with the "curse" theory. ... Read more

Book Description

Reviews (11)

The last days of a fallen empire....
Fest, who is the author of one of the most authoritative biographies on Hitler, focuses on the final few days of the Third Reich in his new book. This is a really riveting book, and once you get past the first 15 or so pages, you won't want to put it down. Fest does a great job at describing the general disorganization and confusion of those final days, and showing just have bad Berlin had been destroyed by the Russian and American assault upon it. I think Fest does raise some good questions about Hitler and his importance in history. Also, the speculation that Hitler's aims and goals for the Third Reich were not for the betterment of civilization, but for the eventual destruction and enslavement of it, is an apt assessment. Also, Dembo's translation is much better than the translators for some of Fest's other works, and I think this also had a lot to do with why the book was so good. The reson why I gave it only 4 stars as opposed to 5 is that it does seem a little sketchy at times in its treatment of the Bunker, but then again, much is speculation anyway. Another reason for the 4 stars is that Fest really gives no dramatically new information here, but he makes other excellent observations and such that you just can't stop reading. A good companion to this tome would be UNTIL THE FINAL HOUR by Traudl Junge, Hitler's last secretary in the Bunker, so that one can get a historical, as well as personal, perspective on the events surrounding the fall of the Third Reich.

A Dark Ending to a Dark Time
Joachim Fest is a distinguished German journalist and the author of an acclaimed biography of Hitler. In "Inside Hitler's Bunker," he focuses on the last days of the Third Reich, beginning his narrative on April 16, 1945 as the Soviets open their final offensive against Berlin. The book explores the surreal and miserable world of the "Fuhrer Bunker" under the Reich Chancellery, the fanatical resistance and eventual collapse of the German armies defending Berlin, Hitler's delusional attempts to command armies that had been wiped out, and the astonishing willingness of soldiers and civilians to obey his orders until the very end.

This is a highly readable and very powerful book, and the translator (Margot Bettauer Dembo) deserves high marks for the result. I read the book avidly, and as soon as I was done my wife picked it up and did the same.

"Inside Hitler's Bunker" may be somewhat disappointing for those who have read a great deal about the Battle of Berlin or Hitler's last days (the book does not appear to break a great deal of new ground), but it will prove to be a gripping narrative for those who are new to the horrors of Berlin in 1945. Part of the continuing fascination of this dark time is the challenge of trying to understand the incomprehensible: how could a madman like Hitler stay in control of Germany in the last weeks of April 1945, and why did so many Germans follow him as he dragged them into the final catastrophe?

The answer to those questions may lie in the 12 years of indoctrination that preceded those fateful days in 1945. For a brief and readable perspective on this period (which has been thoroughly explored in numerous more massive tomes), you may want to try "Inside Hitler's Germany: Life Under the Third Reich" by Matthew Hughes and Chris Mann.

No Footnotes? Say What?
Personally, I'm not a big fan of having a tremendous amount of footnotes in a book. Then again, any book of history that doesn't contain any is immediately suspect. Generally speaking, "historians" who don't use footnotes are either: 1) Elderly; 2) Egotists; 3) Lazy; or 4) Glorified journalists.

Here's Joachim Fest's reason for not using footnotes in his book "Inside Hitler's Bunker":

"This volume contains no footnotes. Every citation or incident mentioned can be traced to a source, however. I decided not to use footnote references because of the hopeless confusion in the statements and testimony of the witnesses, much of which can no longer be cleared up. Too often a reference would have to be compared with one or more differing statements or descriptions."

In other words, this book is historical fiction. It's still worth reading, but then again, lazy, unaccountable scholarship should not be tolerated, especially for a subject as important as this one. Was Fest hoping that, because he wrote an acclaimed biography of Hitler, that he was therefore an "expert" and could get away with this sort of thing?

Sure, I'm not blind to the fact that there are so many contradictory accounts concerning Hitler, that the logistics of unravelling the truth about his reign are formidable. Then again, that is what HISTORIANS do. Surely at least a FLAVOR of the problems in writing this sort of book might have been attempted to be conveyed in a few judicious notes.

Very Interesting But...
Fest has written a very good account of Hitler's and the Reich's last days. However, there is a glaring error or at the very least, an ambiguity that I have not heard others mention in their reviews.

Page 111 states that Hitler had his last meal at 2 P.M. on April 30, 1945, the historically accepted day of his suicide. However page 115 mentions that "...some witnesses say they heard one shot at about 3:30 in the morning." That would make it May 1, 1945. Page 123 then goes on to say that Hitler died on the afternoon of April 30, 1945.

Additionally, page 116 says that Hitler died on a '"...flowered sofa." while the sofa may have had flowers in the pattern, the primary motif was a Russian Cossaack on horseback with sword drawn.

Joachim includes interesting details that some accounts fail to mention. He accurately records that Hiter was shot with a 7.65-mm Walther pistol (not a revolver). He also mentions that Eva Hitler was found with a pistol that was unfired. He excludes the fact that the smaller gun was in fact also Hitler's, the one he carried since the 20's in a holster built into his pants.

This book is an excellent addition to others about Hitler's last days in the bunker, but not the best work on the subject .

A FITTING END
As World War II was coming to an end and the Russian armies were marching towards Berlin, Hitler and some of his most die-hard supporters hid themselves in a secret bunker deep underground. This excellent book lays out the events that were happening inside the bunker and also in the streets outside as the dream of a maniac was coming to an end.

As you read you see a Hitler who still has dreams of the Americans and Russians turning against each other and Hitler coming in as the cavalry to aid the US. The bunker was a fertile playground for pipedreams of still being able to win the war even as the cement was falling from the ceilings as bombs struck overhead. It made me think of the Iraqi press officer in the recent war as Americans were invading the country saying that all the Americans had been kicked out and defeated.

The portrait of Hitler that emerges is the mentality of a gang leader. He wasn't a visionary. He wanted to kill, loot, and pillage. The worl