Amazon Customer

Way too much reliance on hearsay

Revisado: 03-24-25

My biggest issue with this book is the way Meacham will quote a politician making a shocking allegation about their opponents without clarifying its accuracy. Very often, he'll quote a Democratic-Republican (e.g. TJ, Madison) recounting a scene where they heard a Federalist (e.g. Hamilton, Adams, Jay) express a desire for monarchy, aristocracy, or dictatorship. Then Meacham will move on, without clarifying whether such claims are corroborated by third parties, or whether they are believable based on other evidence.

In my opinion, this is weak historical writing, and it indicates an attempt to shorten the book and make it easier to follow for casual readers. Did John Jay, one of the most influential founding fathers, really want to create a House of Lords (Aristocratic lawmakers) and remove the commoner's ability to vote for his state's representatives? TJ asserted the answer is yes, and Meacham neglects to clarify whether TJ might've been exaggerating or mistaken. The book would have been much better had Meacham investigated the damning claims made by the Republicans about their rivals, because in factional periods like the 1790s and early 1800s, slander was commonplace.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Easy listen about GW's personal life with little in-depth history

Revisado: 03-02-25

I'd give a higher score had the description been more honest. You will learn much more about GW's nagging mother than you will about any of the confidants who helped him make momentous political decisions that directly affected the course of history.

This focus on the relatively trivial throughout will be fascinating to anyone with an avid interest in GW's personal life. Chernow's prose is superb, and he's a compelling storyteller. But for those more interested in his political career, this is not your book.

The sections narrating the many crises that GW was forced to deal with during his 8 year presidency comprise maybe 4-5 hours of a 42 hour book. Consequently, such narration is often cursory, leaving out important details of certain events – e.g. neglecting to introduce important people – which can lead to oversimplifications or lack of clarity. For instance, his narration of the Northwest Indian War (1785-95) is too brief and results in a contradiction of an earlier passage. When discussing the brutal Sullivan Expedition (1779), which saw widespread destruction of native villages in modern PA and NY, Chernow acknowledges (as other historians have) that Washington was motivated partly by an imperialist drive to expel the natives from these lands and leave them free for American settlers after the Revolution. Later, he talks about how Washington was adamantly opposed to further western expansion, condemning the settlers who violated treaties (by encroaching on native land) and thereby precipitated the Northwest War. GW even vowed to execute the whites who had raided native lands. So had his sympathies with the natives changed? Or were such vows empty promises meant to pacify the chiefs? Such questions and many others are left unanswered due to Chernow's (usually) cursory, surface-level approach to political subject matter.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

decent survey with some glaring issues

Revisado: 12-11-24

Ferling is a mediocre writer, and this book will offer an adequate survey of a lesser-known period of the war.

I had 2 main issues with his writing: firstly, inaccuracies. Ferling will sometimes describe an event that completely contradicts multiple other historians, and at (at least) one point he even contradicts himself. in his narration of the Battle of Stony Point, he claims 200 men were in the vanguard, that the vanguard suffered "over 50% casualties", and that the Americans suffered "under 100 casualties" overall. This ridiculous inacuraccy could've been easily remedied with one proofread, and Ferling's failure to notice it suggests this book was, frankly, half-a$$ed.

He also has an inexplicable aversion to specifying dates for key events. You'll rarely get more than a vague description of when something happened.

The narrator would be pretty good were it not for the laughable mispronounciations others have mentioned.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Historical stream of consciousness

Revisado: 10-25-24

This is a bizarre book that often reads like a lecturer suffering from dementia, discursively jumping from one subject to another in a manner suggesting he forgot what he was talking about 2 minutes ago. Take, for instance, the penultimate chapter: after describing some aspects of the air war in Mesopotamia, Hamilton details the sinking of the SMS Konigsberg in Tanzania. Then, after elaborating on the dangers of malaria in the southern Balkans, he narrates the record breaking, 4,200 mile flight of Zeppelin L-59

Funnily enough, he even prefaces that last anecdote by acknowledging he's going off on a "tangent". I sometimes found myself rewinding the app, cuz I figured I must have pocket-dialed to a different chapter. (I hadn't)

Much of the book is more focused and quite compelling, especially Hamilton's narration of the sublime and horrific experience of early test pilots, and the tragic-comic absurdity of daily life for Brit airmen in France. It's a shame he didn't choose to focus on these subjects throughout, rather than attempt to cover a huge scope of subjects from an overwhelmingly complex conflict, giving most a cursory treatment that leaves the reader wanting to know more (or wondering why the hell he's suddenly talking about what it's like to get depth charged by a destroyer at 200 meters below the sea).

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

strong survey of colossal conflict; lack of details can be frustrating

Revisado: 08-11-24

Meyer's detailed narration of the events leading up to WWI during the July Crisis is superb and unusually objective. It's far superior to Hastings' narration in Catastrophe: 1914, which is deliberately misleading.

Any book trying to cover the entirety of such an overwhelmingly massive war is necessarily gonna have to skip over a lot of critical events and minutae, though I feel like there's a lack of many details here that should've been included - for instance, dates. Even for a journalist writing about history (academics are usually much more thorough), Meyer is obnoxiously unwilling to specify dates of critical events. For instance, he narrates a key event during the 10-month conflict that was Verdun without even indicating whether it occured at the beginning, middle or end.

Also, he often offers rounded estimates of death tolls without giving a source, sometimes citing a propaganda figure that has been disproven or heavily disputed by historians (e.g., saying 92k POWs were taken at Tannenberg when the real figure figure is almost certainly under 60k). This is frankly unprofessional writing.

But overall, his prose is elegant and engaging, and he does a great job characterizing the war's key figures.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

excellent survey compromised by some flawed revisionism

Revisado: 07-20-24

I'd give this book 5 stars if Hastings wasn't so insistent on being contrarian. A central argument, that recurs throughout the 1st half, is that Germany and Austria were the only nations truly responsible for starting WWI. The majority of modern historians have suggested otherwise, especially vis-a-vis Russia. Most argue that RU and GER deserves comparable (if not equal) blame because RU mobilized their army first, and this momentous effort was tantamount to a declaration of war. Hastings disputes this by pointing to the fact that RU had mobilized in 1913, during the 1st Balkan War, and that they had ultimately stood down and chosen not to intervene.

However, later on he contradicts his point by acknowledging that the 1913 mobilization had been partial - meaning, 10s of thousands rather than millions of men had been prepared for war. More problematic is the fact that he neglects to mention that RU's 1913 mobilization did not directly threaten AU, GER, or any other European powers; rather, it threatened the Ottoman Empire. The OTE had not been considered a military "power" for well over a century. Thus, the idea that RU partially mobilizing against a vastly weaker state in 1913 is akin to them fully mobilizing against the most powerful military in the world (GER) in 1914 is, in my opinion, highly dubious. It's an interesting point, but I found him too eager to absolve the Romanov government of all blame.

Anyway, the book is still really good overall, I just strongly disagreed with ~1% of it.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

unclear and vague descriptions throughout

Revisado: 06-06-24

As another reviewer mentioned, this audiobook is inexplicably missing a huge section on the 2nd Silesian War, making much of the book incomprehensible (since the events of that war are constantly referred to thereafter).

Had it been complete I probably would give it 2 stars. I found Showalter's prose obnoxiously vague and pretentious. instead of clearly describing a certain tactic, for instance, he references a book by Nietzsche that, if the reader hasn't read, will mean nothing to them. He's obsessed with analogies and droll idioms, and I learned very little by his constantly unclear descriptions.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Mostly strong survey of RAF campaigns, though a bit unfocused

Revisado: 03-14-24

This book is incorrectly titled; it isn't about the Allied bombing of Germany, it's about RAF bombing of Germany. Major USAAF campaigns and shifts in strategy are summarized. There's only one lengthy section from the US perspective, which offers us detailed backgrounds on 3 commanders. This section should've been omitted for concision IMO, because none of them figure prominently in the narrative.

I didn't like how much Hansen focused on a repetitive argument between RAF commanders Harris and Portal. It goes like this:

1) Portal advises Harris to stop carpet bombing civilians and focus on oil/factories like the USAAF

2) Harris says no, that won't work.

3) Portal capitulates and lets him do his thing cuz he's absurdly meek.

This conversation is repeated over. And over. And over. It comprises maybe an hour of the book, and I found it rather excruciating. Certainly, history should not always be exciting, but this hyper-focus on a specific topic belongs in a Harris or Portal biography, not a 4 year survey of a massive, expansive campaign.

Probably Harris's biggest contribution to scholarship is his firsthand accounts of the bombings from interviews he conducted with German witnesses. These are narrated with engrossing and appropriately horrific prose.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

compelling and focused history

Revisado: 01-23-24

I dispute the reviewer claiming the title is inaccurate, and I'm surprised some others found the chronology confusing. There are two timelines that proceed in a linear fashion; one centered around McKinnley's presidency, the other on the anarchist movement and Czolgosz's life in the US. Miller jumps back in forth in time when alternating these lines, but I found it easy to follow after becoming accustomed to it.

Apparently one reviewer was bothered by the fact this book isn't solely about the personal lives of the two subjects. It is true that, while most of the book is focused on these two men, there's ample detail of events they didn't witness (e.g. Battle of Manilla Bay, Haymarket Riot). It is after all a history book, not a novel, and I found such contextual info very well narrated and essential to understanding the decisions these men made.

Miller's relatively short book is very consise and focused. Almost every chapter is about either imperialism or the treatment of workers in the guilded age. It seemed pretty unbiased to me. Strongly recommended for those not well read in McKinnley's presidency.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

compelling but a bit biased and lite on details

Revisado: 11-08-23

Brands isn't a genocide apologist, but he does go to great lengths to explain (if not justify) why Jackson decided to push through the infamous Indian Removal Act. Brand's aim is to convince us of the validity of Jackson's argument: that long-term peaceful coexistence between American farmers and Indians was impossible, and that their removal was therefore inevitable - or at least was necessary to preclude another bloody war.

But he doesn't provide any counterargument; he doesn't quote AJ's contemporaries who were against the Removal Act, nor does he interrogate the historians who have argued that there were other solutions besides forced removal.

Brands narration is usually objective, but a lot of info is omitted vis a vis the Removal Act, seemingly to avoid an ignoble depiction of his subject. The fact that the Trail of Tears - the defining event of Jackson's legacy - is given only 2 or 3 paragraphs, is inexplicable.

On the plus side, this is an eloquently written and compelling book with lots of info on wider historical events to help contextualize the period Jackson lived in - a feature I always appreciate in such biographies.

Minor pet peeve: Brands' text is sparse on minutae to a fault. He'll frequently say something like "... most states in the Northeast supported the policy" - ok, so which state(s) didn't support it? I get that stats can get boring, but his penchant for summation often left me wanting more details.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 2 personas