Book Review - The Brenner Assignment by Patrick K. O'Donnell

As stated in last week's book review post of O'Donnell's Dog Company, small war-time stories can be quite riveting, as we see what a few people are going through in their individual missions, the camaraderie that they have with their fellow soldiers (or whoever they're working with) and the potentially harsh circumstances that they're going through. Since many of these stories are done through interviews with the living, we get to see what those who didn't make it through the events of the book were like through the eyes of friends and colleagues.

It can be quite powerful.

Back in 2009, I read O'Donnell's The Brenner Assignment and was captivated. It's a true spy story that can have more impact than any fictionalized one. The Brenner Pass is a mountain pass through the Alps connecting Austria and Italy that the Germans were using to bring troops and supplies to their northern Italy war effort. The Allies wanted it closed to prevent this. This book is the story of the two missions that attempted to do this.

It has all the makings of a spy novel, but it has the benefit of actually having happened.

My review of the book is on Curled Up With a Good Book.

From the review:

"Modern spy novels don't really do much for me, though I do like those taking place during World War II for some reason. One thing I haven't read much about, however, is *real* World War II spy missions. That's why I was excited to pick up Patrick K. O'Donnell's new book, The Brenner Assignment, about a mission to close the Brenner Pass between Austria and Italy that allowed the Germans to bring their troops and supplies down into the Italian boot. Taking place in 1944-45, this mission has everything: derring-do, romance, battles against tough odds, and lots of intrigue. O'Donnell tells it in an interesting fashion, and it would look good on any World War II history fan's bookshelf.

O'Donnell uses a combination of sources, mostly interviews with the surviving participants in the mission. The main "character," Howard Chappell, was still alive but very reluctant to talk about what had happened. O'Donnell spends the Preface telling us how he came up with the idea to research this assignment and the difficulties he had in getting Chappell to speak. It took having a mutual friend, Albert Materazzi (who was the operations officer in charge of Chappell's mission and his best friend), to finally get him to open up."

It's understandable that Chappell would be reluctant to talk. It sounds like the mission was quite emotional for him. I'm glad that he finally relented and O'Donnell was able to complete this fabulous book.

Book Review - Dog Company by Patrick K. O'Donnell

Being a military history guy, I love books that give the history of World War II (or any other war, really) in broad strokes, giving the whys and the hows, what the strategies were, that sort of thing.

But I also love looking at smaller parts of the war. What were individual soldiers thinking? What was happening in that one small village that the squad was supposed to patrol?

Patrick K. O'Donnell seems to specialize in the small, with books that talk about individual units and that come out of conversations and interviews with those who were involved. I had previously read and reviewed The Brenner Assignment (one that didn't make it on this site, so I will rectify that next week), so it was a natural that I would snap up O'Donnell's latest, Dog Company.

This is the story of the Army Rangers who stormed the cliffs of Pointe du Hoc during the Normandy landings. That's right.: they scaled sheer cliffs under withering fire to knock out a set of guns that were overlooking the beaches that could rain shells down on those heading for the beaches.

It's not just a story of Normandy, though. It's the story of courage, heroism, even desperation as they are later tasked with taking and defending a lonely hill in a German forest, one of the most needless (and thus even more costly, as the lives were given away for nothing) battles of World War II.

My review of it has gone live on Curled Up With a Good Book.

From the review:

"O'Donnell interviewed most (if not all) of the survivors of Company D (Dog Company), the Rangers who were tasked with the most difficult missions in the Western European conflict. They first became famous for being charged with destroying the massive German guns on the cliffs of Pointe Du Hoc overlooking the beaches where Allied troops would be storming ashore. To do so, they would have to scale sheer surfaces with little to no protection. The bravery of these men radiates, from the cliff-climbing training in Great Britain to the lead-up to the fateful assault.

The narrative then moves on to the Hurtgen Forest, one of the most unnecessary battles of the war and one that cost many American lives. For months, the members of Dog Company are cut down right and left in small villages or among the trees. You can almost feel the air bursts of mortars as they send shrapnel and bits of tree slicing through the soldiers. Finally, O'Donnell talks about Dog's role in the Battle of the Bulge and the crossing of the Roer River."

The fact that this is done almost totally through interviews, as part of O'Donnell's "Drop Zone" living history project (a wonderful site that you should explore to keep these heroes memories alive) makes this book even more immediate than it would be otherwise.

It's an excellent book and one I'm very glad that I read.

Book Review - The Battle of Britain by James Holland

Many thought Great Britain would fall to the Nazi onslaught during that fateful Summer of 1940. The country stood alone against the German juggernaut. France had just fallen; the Soviet Union was still ostensibly allied with Hitler's regime; the United States was still "neutral," though they did help the British out in a few capacities.

Adolf Hitler wanted to get Britain to sue for peace so he could concentrate on the Soviets. If that took an invasion, so be it. If Germany could pound Britain into submission via bombing, that would work too. Either way, the British Air Force must be destroyed.

I've read a few books on the months-long air battle known as "The Battle of Britain," but nothing as comprehensive as James Holland's book, also called The Battle of Britain: Five Months that Changed History. For one thing, it does what most other books on the battle don't do: it goes in-depth into the battle for France, and shows us just what that invasion did to both the British and Germans in preparation for the coming battle.

My review of the book is up on Curled Up With a Good Book, and it posted during my blogging hiatus, which is why you've never seen it.

From the review:

"The trick Holland uses is the ability to bring the battles home to the reader with intimate accounts of the war efforts, both in their planning and execution. Holland does spend considerable time on the pilots and the air force tactics, both in the traditional sense and as it pertains to the French invasion and the evacuation of the British forces at Dunkirk. He also covers the invasion of France itself, the strategy and tactics used by the Germans to gain surprise and cut the Allied forces in two. He discusses the big picture but also zooms in on individual pilots and soldiers, taking the reader down into the heart of the fighting.

Holland is able to do this because many of his sources are journals by or actual interviews with those who were involved in the day-to-day terror and bravery of the effort. The Battle of Britain is full of anecdotes and memories from those who were actually involved, some of whom died between Holland's interviews and the actual publication of this book. The richness of the history by those who lived it adds an immediate quality to the book that raises it above any other chronicle of the battle that I have read."

I loved that aspect of the book. It really made me feel like I was sitting in a bar across from these men, having a beer and listening to them tell me stories.

The book is very well-written and is a joy to read. There's just so much information there, and it's all interesting. I had trouble putting it down.

Check out the review and let me know what you think.

Book Review - Cataclysm: The First World War as Political Tragedy by David Stevenson

I've always been a military history guy, even dating back to third grade (that's the last memory I have of it, anyway). I used to read and collect these World War II cards (about 3 inches square, so not something like a trading card) that explained many aspects of World War II. I had read every World War II book at the Wilson Elementary School library by the time I finished 6th grade.

That has never changed. So when I had the chance to pick up Cataclysm, David Stevenson, I jumped at the chance (one of the great perks of reviewing for Curled Up With a Good Book). I had read a few things about World War I, but not anything comprehensive. This book looked seriously intriguing when I picked it off the "books to review" list back in 2005.

I wasn't disappointed. This book is very dense, which makes it extremely comprehensive for a 500-page book with a ton of end notes. If you have any interest in World War I, or just military history in general, this is the book for you.

From my review on Curled Up With a Good Book:

"It has been a while since I've really gushed about a book, but I won't be able to help myself with this one. Cataclysm: The First World War as Political Tragedy by David Stevenson has to be one of the best books I have ever read on World War I, and one of the most compact yet comprehensive history books I've seen. It is less than 500 pages, but it covers every aspect of the war, from the strategy involved to the politics of starting, running, and, most importantly, ending the war. It goes beyond even that, though, by discussing the impact the war had on the post-war years, analyzing the years between the two world wars and even how memories of the war affected how the second one was fought. As a final thought, the conclusion discusses how the war has been looked at over time, how perceptions have changed, not only of who started the war, but also how it was fought."

The only problem that I saw in the book was the really weird use (or lack thereof) of commas. It made it confusing at times, requiring me to reread a sentence or two to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding something.

I cannot recommend this book highly enough. If you'd like to see why, go check out the review.

Book Review - The Royal Stuarts by Allan Massie

Over the last few years, my love of History has transformed and broadened. I used to be mainly a military history nut, and I still am (and I'm still a nut, too, but that's unrelated). But I have also moved on to things like Medieval History, especially European History that encompasses almost anything from the end of the Roman Empire all the way up to more recent times.

One area I have not covered much is the history of Scotland. That's not really by choice; it's just that I haven't found a good book on the subject crossing my path. There should be one soon, I would think, as some little-studied (by me, anyway) areas of history keep popping up in books by authors I like.

The Royal Stuarts, by Allan Massie, sort of wets that whistle, though not entirely. The book is a biography of the entire Stuart line of kings and queens of England, from Robert II back in 1371 (Scotland only) all the way to James III (VIII in Scotland), a king without a country as he was in exile his entire life. Each chapter is about a monarch, so earlier chapters are shorter as there is less documentation on them than there is on later royal members.

My review of the book is up on Curled Up With a Good Book.

From my review:

"The history of Great Britain is well-mined territory for many casual history readers with any interest in Europe through the ages. Two areas that I have missed in all of my reading, however, are Scotland and the English kings (and queen) after Elizabeth. Many (like me) stop with Elizabeth and don't delve any further. However, the Stuarts are an interesting family in themselves, especially James I (best known for the King James version of the Bible) who immediately succeeded Elizabeth. With The Royal Stuarts, Allan Massie takes a look not only at James and his post-Elizabeth version of Great Britain, but also the entire Stuart family from beginning to end. A welcome side effect is that the reader gets a nice (if somewhat superficial) history of Scotland as well."

I greatly enjoyed this book, and I will have to make do on my promise to myself to find a book on Scottish history soon.

In the meantime, The Royal Stuarts will do me well. It's nice to see that the Stuarts were such a randy bunch of guys, especially the early ones.

Last Segments of Egyptian Book of the Dead Found

The archaeology of Ancient Egypt has always fascinated me, and I get a thrill when I hear about new discoveries about the ancient tombs, Pharaohs, or whatever. I know I have a few fellow travelers in that respect.

After yesterday's super-serious post, I thought I would present to you something that's more intriguing than anger-inducing.

Did you ever see The Mummy, with Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz?

One of the objects in the movie, and one that causes a bunch of problems for our heroes, is the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Evelyn (Weisz) reads a passage from the Book and it brings to life the ancient mummy Imhotep, a High Priest that was entombed for falling in love with the mistress of the Pharaoh.

We all know that these types of movies have tons of historical inaccuracies, but that's beside the point. They're a hell of a lot of fun. One inaccuracy is, of course, that they didn't have books back in Ancient Egypt. By "books," I mean bound copies with pages that you flip, even if they do appear to be metal plates or something like that in the movie.

No, they wrote everything on papyrus scrolls. Like this:

(Thanks to the Daily Mail)

The real Book of the Dead, or at least the most famous one, has been an incomplete set of papyrus scrolls and fragments that have been collected from museums over the last 100 years. But some pieces were still missing.

Until now.

Apparently, according to the Daily Mail, the last remaining pieces of this particular manuscript have been found in a museum in Queensland, Australia.

"‘After spotting the piece Dr Taylor was shown the other 100 plus fragments held in the Museum’s stores and was floored by what he had uncovered,’ Ms Bates said.

‘These unsuspecting papyrus pieces form the missing part of a highly historically valuable ‘Book of the Dead’ that belonged to the Chief Builder of the temple of Amun, Amenhotep."

I see what the producers of the movie did there. Nice subtle name change.

So what is a "Book of the Dead?"

"A ‘Book of the Dead’ is an Egyptian manuscript, up to 20 metres in length, of magical spells written on papyrus that were commissioned by families upon the death of a loved one to guide them on their hazardous journey into the afterlife."

There are apparently many books like this, but this one is special because it's one of only four or five that have "unusual features" compared to the rest of them. These sorts of things appear to indicate that a person was quite wealthy and influential.

Now that they've found these missing pieces, they can put them all together and electronically join them together into one actual book. The missing pieces have made it impossible to do that until now.

This also speaks to the sci-fi nerd in me. Does that surprise you?

It shouldn't, if you're a Dr. Who fan. Many of the older Dr. Who episodes were lost because the BBC deleted them back in the old days rather than keeping them. So for the past 30 years, missing episodes have occasionally resurfaced when found in an attic bin of an old collector or what have you, overlooked for years, sometimes in a film canister that wasn't labelled.

This kind of find reminds me of those Dr. Who episodes. Hiding in plain sight, with nobody who sees these pages daily even realizing what they have until somebody who knows what they're seeing actually spots it and brings it to our attention. These pages were donated to the museum by a collector and have been sitting there for years.

Yet another ancient mystery solved! Now if they can only determine what the Sphinx really is.

Oh wait. Somebody's already done that.

World War II a "European Civil War?"

History is being increasingly whitewashed, either to avoid "offending" anybody (such as the suggestion that the Holocaust not be taught in schools for risk of offending modern Germans) or in some weird attempt to foster European unity.

The latter appears to be the case in the latest outrage.

The European Union is opening a £44 million museum called the House of European history that will change World War II to be "the European Civil War." (h/t: National Review's "The Corner")

What blatant stupidity! Not to mention offensiveness. It signifies an increasingly narrow viewpoint that disregards anything that's not European in nature, all in the name of trying to unify the continent?

It's patently absurd.

(Hint to the EU: This didn't take place in Europe. Thanks to Answers to the Questions)

Donal Blaney in the Daily Mail says it best:

"Europhiles love to decry those of us who want Britain to become an independent nation state as "little Englanders" - despite the fact that we want Britain to continue its role as a global trading nation.

In truth the proposal to redesignate World War II as the European Civil War shows Europhiles to be "little Europeans" - insular, arrogant and inward-looking."

This idiocy completely ignores every other theater of the war, disregarding the Americans, Russians, Japanese, Australians, Chinese, and so many other nationalities who fought and died in this horrible war.

I think "insular" is probably a great word for it. Narrow-minded, disrespectful, and ignorant are some more great words for it too.

As Mark Steyn says (also on the Corner):

"If this were truly a 'European Civil War', it would have been over in nothing flat, because on the Continent of Europe every nation was either neutral, conquered, or on the wrong side. It’s hard to have a civil war with only one team."

Britain was the only European country holding out against the Nazis (Russia doesn't exactly consider itself part of any "European identity" that's being fostered, which is why I think Steyn excludes them in that quote), which doesn't make it much of a civil war, does it?

There are so many things wrong with the European Union as a political entity. This is just another example of how they are trying to force this "unity" down everybody's throats. One of these days, everybody's going to choke on it.

I'm not one to get on the "offense" gravy train, as I think people take offense to things way too easily. This, however, is offensive in so many ways. The exclusion (and thus disrespect) of so many millions of people who fought in World War II who aren't European. The reasoning behind it, creating some sort of artificial unity that nobody seems to really want.

All of that, but I also think that it reduces the fight against Nazism to some sort of political struggle rather than the fight against evil it was. Sure, countries didn't go to war to save the Jews and prevent the Holocaust (many denied it was happening at the time or didn't seem to care). But they did go to war to fight the same type of evil that would perpetrate the Holocaust, subjugate any race or nationality that got in the way of their plans for territorial expansion, and ostensibly want to take over the world.

Can that really be boiled down to a "civil war?" Even if you do just keep to the European part of the war?

That's the really offensive part.

Should the Holocaust be Taught in Schools?

That does seem like a stupid question, doesn't it?

(Thanks to the Telegraph)

Yet that's what one former Education Secretary is proposing for Britain. Lord Baker, who was Education Secretary under Thatcher and designed the National Curriculum, is advocating that History classes stop teaching children about the Holocaust. But it's not because he doesn't think that the kids can handle something that horrifying.

No, it's because it is supposedly giving kids a bad view of Germany. Yes, present-day Germany. Because, you know, kids are too stupid to separate modern Germany from the horrors of Hitler and Nazism.

This all appeared in an article in the Telegraph. I have checked for recent mentions of Lord Baker in the news, and this was the most recent article, so it doesn't appear that he's recanted or changed his mind or anything.

Actually, the idea about children is not totally off-base, though I don't believe that kids are "stupid." However, depending on how young they are, they are impressionable, and if the subject is not taught right, then it is possible to tar Germany in total with that brush. That shouldn't be a reason to stop teaching it, though. That should be a reason to improve the teaching of it, and History in general.

From what I understand, the teaching of History in school is not in a good state, and I think that needs to be improved.

This is actually the part of Baker's statements that I agree with, which is that German history shouldn't be taught at the expense of British history. He's quoted as saying "Why I’ve got a thing against the Holocaust and all of that is I think you study your own history first," and "I'm sure that German children are not studying the British Civil War, right?" Yes, British kids should have a good basic understanding of British history, just like American kids should have a good understanding of American history (which sadly, as a whole, they don't).

The problem is that this is not enough, in my view. Kids should understand their whole country, but they should also understand how the world works, and how it worked in the past. The Holocaust is such a huge thing, a worldwide horror, that I don't think it can just be dismissed. As James Smith, chairman of the Holocaust Centre, is quoted as saying in the article, "The period of the Nazis was not just a blip in German history; the Holocaust was a Europe-wide crime." It affected not just Germany, but all of Europe. And its ramifications have been felt worldwide, including in the troubles that plague the Middle East to this day (yes, I do realize that there is much more than that, but it's certainly in there).

I don't want kids to have no inkling that something like this happened within the last 100 years unless they happen to catch a special on the History Channel. I don't want "Never Forget" to turn into "Well, we don't want people thinking *bad* things about Germany, so we'll just ignore this."

I did like one other thing that was in this article. Baker's suggestions come during a time when a committee has been formed to overhaul the current curriculum. One of the suggestions is that History be compulsory until age 16 instead of the current 14. I think this is an excellent idea, and I hope they implement it.

History is such an important subject, and while I don't think people need to study it to the microscopic level that historians do, I do believe a basic knowledge of History is essential to anybody's education. It requires teachers that make it interesting rather than a chore, engaging rather than boring. We don't always get those, but I'm sure they are out there. In my schooling, I only had a couple of teachers who really made it come to life. Thankfully, I was already hooked even on my own, so I was able to get past all of that. I wish I could say the same for others.

I realize that you can't teach everything about History, even if you do raise the age where compulsory History-studying ends. Something as big, as world-effecting as the Holocaust? There's no way that this should be ignored.

Book Review - Pacific Air by David Sears

Those of you who know me know that I'm a huge World War II buff, having read numerous books on the subject. In fact, I remember having read every book on World War II in the Wilson Elementary School library by 3rd grade and wondering where I was going to find more to feed my hunger (Public library? What is this thing you speak of?).

That hasn't gone away as I've grown older. In fact, while my interests have branched out to a huge swath of history, I still love me a good World War II book, especially if it's about something I didn't know a lot about.

Thus comes David Sears' new book, Pacific Air. This book is all about the naval aviation aspect of the war in the Pacific Ocean against the Japanese. It talks about the pilots, the aircraft, the trials and tribulations as well as the triumphs of these flyboys. The other good thing about the book is that it's not totally American-centric. Sears does examine the life of a Japanese pilot as well, adding a fresh perspective to the whole thing.

It's a very good book, and one I'm glad I read. My review has now been posted on Curled Up With a Good Book.

From the review:

Students of World War II know that a large part of the war in the Pacific Ocean against the Japanese consisted of huge carrier battles, where enemy ships never saw each other and the war took place among the planes in the sky. These planes were based on aircraft carriers and the war was a back-and-forth battle between these planes to try and sink the enemy carriers before your own were sunk. Pacific Air by David Sears examines the war from the viewpoint of these pilots, and it's a great read.

Sears begins with the aircraft themselves, detailing how before the war, Grumman became one of the mainstays for the building of naval aircraft. He talks about the flight tests, the strengths and weaknesses of some of the first planes to fly off the assembly line. It is important to get a basic understanding regarding what these pilots were actually flying. However, while the first chapter starts with the reaction of the factory higher-ups when the attack on Pearl Harbor was announced (they were opening a new plant on the same day), and the second tells us about the first naval pilot casualties as they attempt to land in Hawaii and were shot at by panicked ground gunners, this does not make a riveting story for those readers just beginning the book.

Yes, the beginning of the book is really slow, but it definitely picks up and becomes an interesting read.

I give it a big thumbs up, though you pretty much do have to have an interest in World War II or it may not have the same effect that it had on me.

Book Review - Livia: Empress of Rome by Matthew Dennison

I've had an interest in ancient Rome for a while now, but that was further stoked when the wife and I watched the BBC adaptation of Robert Graves' book, I, Claudius a few years back. The wife had seen it before, but I hadn't, and I was enthralled. I think Derek Jacobi, as Claudius, certainly helped. I loved the intrigue, almost soap opera-like.

In that show, Livia, wife of the Roman emperor Augustus, is portrayed as conniving and ruthless, doing anything she can to make sure that her son Tiberius rises to the throne when Augustus dies.

But is that real history?

Matthew Dennison says no, and he's written Livia: Empress of Rome in order to counteract that portrayal, which is taken from a number of Roman historians who seemed to have it in for her.

Sadly, Dennison's book only sometimes makes the case, and isn't interesting enough to hold the reader while he attempts to do so.

From my review on Curled Up With a Good Book:

Was Livia really as bad as some Roman historians (on which many more recent portrayals are based) make her out to be? Dennison considers some of her detractors as incredibly biased, such as Tacitus, who it seems makes every effort to badmouth her at every turn, at least when she shows up in the histories. There are points in the narrative where Dennison demonstrates that something the historians say about her can't possibly be accurate based on any kind of logic or precedent. These passages are effective in doing what Dennison wants to do.

Unfortunately, too many times the best Dennison can do is say that there is no other corroboration or that something doesn't quite make sense. He can't demonstrate definitively that the histories are wrong. When these passages came up, I could almost see the mental gymnastics Dennison went through to try and lessen the impact. He tries to get into her head a little bit, supposing what she might have really thought in this case, rather than what Tacitus or Dio say she was thinking.

I could only struggle through a few pages here and there at a time, rather than being enthralled with the book.

Which is sad, because I really wanted to like it.

Anyway, check out the review and let me know what you think.