Speculation, Conjecture, and Right Wing Revisionism.
341557
Fugate strikes again...

'Thunder On The Dnepr' is basically a re-write of the same author's 'Operation Barbarossa' (now out-of-print but widely available used) whose first printing dates from about 1980ish, IIRC.

The Rezun-esque theme is the same; the overconfident but naive Wehrmacht arrogantly marches into the USSR, thinking it can conquer the unconquerable, but gets fatally ensnared in Zhukov and Stalin's cunning and devious "state defense plan" - a plan which has roots in Russia's strategic designs dating back centuries.

This time around however, Fugate says he has actual Soviet documents and the assistance of someone named Lev Dvoretsky to prove the thesis. One would think the authors are trying to "rehabilitate" the Red Army's poor historical reputation, but the real thrust of this book (and Fugate's 'Barbarossa') becomes clearer when one reads between the lines, and does a bit of Googling.

Mr. Dvoretsky is not really a historian - he is a Russian anti-communist who has co-authored a couple of books on the Red Menace which echo many of the same themes that right-wingers have been touting throughout the Cold War:

The Soviets, especially Stalin, fully intended to conquer the free world and possesed the means to do it. They had cunningly concealed the truth about their vast military might from western observers. All of the myths about woefully inadequate Soviet preparation for Barbarossa were all part of this charade. In reality, they were well-prepared for war and thus able to defeat the Germans at the gates of Moscow. This secret plan thus paved the way for the Soviet conquest of Europe. They allowed the myth of the "surprise" German invasion to stand because it made the USSR look like victims, when in reality Stalin was well prepared. If it weren't for Mr. Fugate, we would still go on believing the USSR was a victim of Nazi aggression. After the war, the USSR continued to hide their true military capability from the world, even fooling the CIA. If it weren't for Reagan and the US military buildup in the 80s, which caused it to collapse, the USSR would still be a threat to world peace today.

Fugate's writing appears to be part of this equation.

His claims that Stalin and the Red Army were fully prepared for the German invasion are supposedly based upon "new research", conducted after the collapse of the USSR, despite the fact that his previous book on the subject had exactly the same theme. Was that one written using "old research"?

The main problem is, well, his "new research". There isn't any. Footnotes are almost non-exsistent which is a bad sign when publishing a work supposedly based on "the archives" of the former Soviet Union.

In fact, there are only 3-4 citations of what could be called primary materials. The scant remainder are all based on secondary works long available to researchers. Much of the text is a verbatim copy of 'Barbarossa'.

Fugate has absolutely no evidence of his claims, and they can be dismissed.

The best thing about the book is his analysis of the German High Command. But again, Fugate relies too much on conjecture and supposition.

'Thunder On The Dnepr' is not a very good "history" book. Rather, it's the authors' opinion, presumably based upon right-wing revisionism.
663405
Reich raises important issues although book written in a turgid style.  It is, however, a useful reminder of a potentially useful progressive agenda described in a way that individuals on the right and left can understand.
3202741
Annette Gordon-Reed has created a revisionist text with some refutable details.  Primarily her focus on the dual family, and TJ's relationship with Sally Hemings.  This has been challenged as there is no irrefutable evidence that he was the father.

DNA tests revealed only that the Hemings decedents had the Jefferson DNA, which could have meant TJ's brother Randolph or one of his sons could have had on ongoing relationship with Sally.  Unfortunately, we will never know for certain but again revisionism must be separated from historical accuracy.  William Hyland Jr.'s book " In Defense of Thomas Jefferson" presents a persuasive argument in this regard.

The book otherwise presents some interesting insights into TJ's life.  Credit should also be given to Prof. Peter Onuf for his contribution.
3870201
The Venona decrypts and declassified Soviet archives show that McCarthy was quite right about the numerous Bolshevik agents in American government from the 1930's onwards.

The author even gives their Soviet code names and shows the great harm that they did to US interests in places like China and Yugoslavia while always presenting themselves as loyal Americans.

This all makes something of a problem for the American Left since "McCarthyism" is a key word in their lexicon of victimization. However, all is not lost. Leftist spokesperson Anne Applebaum now says, " Recent documents showing that some of his accusations were correct do not change the impact of his over-zealous pursuit of communists in American public life: ultimately his public "trials" of communist sympathizers would tarnish the cause of anti-communism with the brush of chauvinism and intolerance."

In other words, he should have been more relaxed about it all (like the State department) and he showed far too much of a chauvinist (i.e. America First) attitude. Even if he was sometimes (weasel word) right he should still have shut up and not victimized (named) anybody.

Interestingly Applebaum is pulling the same trick with the other side of the equation concerning Bolshevik Russia in her 2003 book, "<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Gulag-A-History/dp/1400034094/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Gulag: A History</a>".

The Gulag death camps were set up as part of the Bolshevik state terror that consumed something like 15 million mostly European Christian lives. Her index refers to "Jewish prisoners", (the Americans Left's truly untouchable victims), while completely blanking out the fact that the Gulag camps were all in fact headed by Jews and they founded and led the Bolshevik movement itself and the Soviet state terror organizations until 1937.

Unfortunately the truth can only be found outside Party approved media, with the clearest statement probably being David Duke's recent samizdat hit "<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/The-Secret-Behind-Communism/dp/1892796015/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">The Secret Behind Communism</a>" (Usually out of stock on Amazon but available on his website).
4231874
This is a mendacious right-wing hit piece. Apparently, the author needed to recover financially from his conviction and his adultery.  His attack on Pres. Obama is nothing more or less than slander, with no evidence to support the "criminal" or "con" accusations - the focus of a three page discussion is on the father, as if his sins are visited on the son - this is actually quite despicable.  Attacks on straw men follow one upon the other (for example, he make a big to-do about restitution to Native Americans and others - this is not a major issue on the "progressive" agenda and has little traction; nor do "progressives" want to expropriate Bill Gates).  Apparently, all of our Terrible Troubles are due to the "progressives; no mention of Wall Street shysters, Big Pharma, Big Ag, Ethanol Lobby, Defense Contractor Lobby, Zionist Lobby and the other assorted racketeers and con men who seem to run things in our great republic. And I must have been mistaken to think that we live in the new Gilded Age.  And I must also have been mistaken to think that the Repubs haven't been pillars of financial rectitude - remember the Contract of America which lasted perhaps six months and Bush Jr.'s big drug Medicare give-away to Big Pharma - these must have been aberrations.  Oh, and the morally wonderful "conservative movement" of which the author is fond:  Without the Nixon/Buchanan Southern Strategy, which puts the most backward, ignorant, racist part of our great nation behind the cause, "conservatism" on a national scale wouldn't amount to a pile of dog-doo.  So that's what we have here:  A pile of steaming dog doo.
3527993
This book takes on an important topic: historical revisionism of the decision to drop the atomic bomb.  Now that all persons involved in the decision are dead as are most of the soldiers and families whose lives would have been affected by an invasion of Japan, the modern left has rewritten the history of that decision.  The revised history makes make Japan the victim at the end of World War II, not all the peoples against whom it committed atrocities too numerous to mention and for which it refuses to apologize.

Mr. Newman explores the original source documents, which include interviews of high officials of wartime Japan and also their testimony at the war crimes tribunal.  He also puts this in context of a world that was weary from, in effect, two world wars: first the war in Europe and then the war in Japan and after the war in Europe was won.  His evaluation of the evidence is compelling and shows clearly that the atomic bombs and the entry of the USSR into the war, with the atomic bombs being the most important, are the reasons why Japan surrendered.

Once he has laid out the evidence and reached his conclusions, he discusses the people on both sides of the debate in the early post-war years, their hidden agendas, and why they reached the conclusions they reached.  An interesting point he makes is that sometimes hidden agendas made hawks and doves reach the same conclusions.

It is in his discussion of the later years between the end of World War II and the Air and Space Museum debate where the author's flaws come to light.  After reading the book, his beliefs can be summarized as "the atomic bomb was necessary, and the hydrogen bomb was evil."  While this position is worthy of consideration, the author's extremism in support of it is distracting.  Literally everyone, left or right, hawk or dove, Republican or Democrat, military or civilian, who disagrees with him or was involved in something with which he disagreed is bad, disillusioned, or possibly mentally ill.  The book contains rhetoric like this throughout, and it gets old when it goes on page after page, year after year, person after person.  For me it detracted from his initial research and conclusions.  It became clear that he was attached to his position (atomic bomb good/hydrogen bomb bad) with such rigidity and determination that the entire universe turned black and white when viewed through this lens.  For me, that undermined the analysis of the decision to drop the bomb.

I would say that the first third of the book dealing with factual analysis of the decision to drop the bomb based on interviews, testimony, and writings of contemporary leaders and advisors is an important contribution to historical research.  The part that follows, however, detracts from the good portion of the book.  I give it five stars for the first third, less for the rest, and a result of four stars.
4107102
Bernie Goldberg has had an easy time choosing mostly Left wingers as examples of simian halfwits. This is a breezy two day read. Don't expect to go into deep analysis of current movers and shakers. Instead, the author points to many well known facts and some surprises that makes one want to throw rocks at the Liberals. There are many bright,competent black women in this country, yet Shelia Jackson Lee and Maxine Waters, two unhinged

and near hysterical individuals are two black women who hold actual U.S. Congressional seats. Their antics rival the inmates at maximum security mental facilities. Some stupid, some dangerous, but always against American interests. What punishment is deserved that makes these two possible? Ted Kennedy is another obvious choice of an American F***UP. This guy should probably be in jail...you pick the reason and crime. He has driven the Kennedy name, helped by some latter day relatives, into a deep cold storage berefit of any ideas. I don't agree that Michael Savage's name should be on the list.
1854139
More than fifty years ago the great consensus historian Richard Hofstadter argued in The Paranoid Style in American Politics that the particular strain of populism that fosters conspiracy in American culture operates at the fringe of society and represents a threat to the dominant consensus of the nation. We may take exception to Hofstadters analysis, something Fenster does to devastating effect, but few would disagree that conspiracy theories are much more common than Hofstadter was willing to acknowledge. Indeed, even those who do not accept them as the norm would probably agree with the old adage, Just because you're not paranoid it doesnt mean they aren't out to get you.

Mark Fenster argues in Conspiracy Theories that these ideas swirl around us and everyone to a greater or lesser degree buy into them. We could not work effectively in society without sometimes wild explanations. What percentage of the population, for example does not believe there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK in 1963? Is your theory the same as mine? What evidence supports these assertions?

For Fenster conspiracy theories are something of a mind game we play to help explain what we view as irrational. It is also a way to ease the boredom of our mundane modern existence. It also helps to explain an overarching cynicism about contemporary culture and especially politics, which seems both out of reach and impossible to parse. Moreover, it plays to modern societys hidden desires for scapegoating, racism, and fascism.

Fensters short study, only nine chapters with an introduction and an afterword steps through several key issues. A first section explores the use of conspiracy to shape political thought and action. Here he takes down the marginalization of conspiracism of politics that was so much a part of Hofstadters consensus historiographical tradition. He then undertakes several case studies of conspiracy, offering sophisticated analyses of the many conspiracy themes surrounding the Clinton presidency, popular manifestations of JFKs assassination and the X-Files, Christian fundamentalist apocalyticism, and the possibility of the using theme as an organizing principle in cultural studies.

Conspiracy Theories is very much a work of scholarship. For those seeking the scholarly situation of the theme into the larger area of American studies, media studies, and cultural analysis and criticism this is a welcome work. For those interested in a more practically and politically motivated discussion this work will be disappointing. As it is, this is an insightfully useful place to begin in analyzing a complex theme in modern American society.
2100266
A very good overview of the scientific arguments agains the ozone depletion scare. Unfortunately the last few chapters are a conspiracy theory that is overstated.
David (dwojick@shentel.net)
933764
The author took liberties for sure, alleging people were thinking things at any given time. Based on public behavior, even wild anecdotes seem plausible. Thats part of its draw - if the events in this book happened, I wouldnt be surprised. If they facts were stretched, Id expect they were only stretched a little.
2603990
This book presupposes that the foundation of the American Revolution apparently resembled the pretentious Jacobin egalitarianism of the French Revolution. With its highbrow aurora of seriousness and countless pages, it purports that the 1776 Revolution was about woman's suffrage and black liberation. It than shows that these 'evil dead white guys' (e.g. the founding fathers) came along and somehow betrayed all of this. Tise just regrets that the Jacobin fervor that befell colonial Haiti didn't hit home in America.
What is more striking to me is the fact that right-wingers who read books by Thomas Fleming and Patrick Buchanan are apparently buying this book as indicating by the related purchases. They need to do their homework and read some reviews before throwing away [money] on this book. You could, at least peruse this book at your library if my warning doesn't suffice. You'll see that this tome is little more than shallow politically correct revisionism in the spirit of Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture, which rewrites American history and mythologizes the Second Amendment through fraudulent scholarship, hyperbole and fanciful conjecture.
3469670
In the preface (page vii), the author describes as largely a group project by the left-wing political blog Crooked Timber (i.e. group think). On pages 5-6, he spends a few paragraphs on the 1920s, the U.S. stock market crash then skips straight to "the aftermath of the Great Depression and World War II" and Keynes without even a mention Tariff Act of 1930 (Smoot-Hawley), the New Deal, their effects, or why eight years of FDR's Keynesian Economics (and 25 of the Federal Reserve) failed to bring the U.S. out of the depression. And the scholastic gerrymandering has just begun...

While an interesting study for those who enjoy dissecting rhetoric and high school witticisms, it is sorely lacking objective supporting data with the sole non-prose representations of such being three graphs, two from bloggers (one who endorses the book on the back cover) and one from Wikipedia (e.g. p. 154), relieving himself of the academic complexities involved in finding and citing the original source material. Page 210 under "what is needed in economics" sums up the book best with suggesting that in the 21st the focus should be "* More on realism, lesson rigor *More on equity, less on efficiency *More on humility, less on hubris" without any details on how to operationalize, to transform ideas into empirical actionable policy, them. However, the first suggest rationalism and empiricism are incompatible (they're not; it's called science), the second favors redistribution in spite of the fact that reduced efficiency reduces overall wealth for all segments, and the third is subjective personal moral views which are independent of market transactions (did you investigate the humility/hubris of those who made your cell phone?).

The author (who predicted in 2012/9/27 in Aeon Magazine that the "15-hour working week predicted by Keynes may soon be within our grasp" lists "Advance Praise" for the book on its back cover. It consists of Brad DeLong (UC Berkeley, cited on pages 18, 30, 118) stating Quiggin is "[a]rmed with nothing but the truth," fellow Aus. Nat. U. alum Andrew Leigh (cited on 159 & 166) saying it's "quite a page turner," and Yves Smith (pen name of Susan Webber of the Naked Capitalism blog) saying it will arm you when speaking with your "bromide-spouting coworkers." Unfortunately, if those coworkers are even moderately skilled in Critical Thinking, research methodology, or the scientific method, it will quickly be apparent who the walking dead are.

Procuring a free copy via inter-library loan should be easy as a local copy in a million-plus metro has remained crease-free for over two years. Same can not be said for Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.
721981
The term 'Neo-Conservative' is now a term of reprobation in most American political discourse. The 'neo-cons' are taken to be responsible for the highly problematic war in Iraq. Legitimate fair critics of the Neo- Cons are unfortunately outshouted by radical left, often Anti- Semitic critics of the neo- Cons who ridicuously accuse Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney of being servants of Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith.
Murray's book comes not specifically as a defense of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq but rather as an effort to outline the basic Neo- Con position, and to argue that it is the right one for the people of the West to take. He devotes his first chapter to an outline of the thought of the principal theoretician of Neo-Con thought Leo Strauss. The bulk of the book is devoted to outlining Neo- Con thought in international and domestic areas.
Peter Berkowitz in his highly favorable review of this book in the 'Weekly Standard' writes of it as follows:

"In contrast to traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are more comfortable with capitalism, always accepted the moral and political necessity of the welfare state, and consistently sought a prominent role for America in creating a stable and just international order.
In contrast to progressives, neoconservatives are more concerned about the costs of modernity's disruptive ways to the family and traditional morality, strongly doubt the ability of the federal government to improve America through higher taxes and more aggressive social policies, and are skeptical of the integrity and efficacy of the United Nations, while maintaining confidence in the ability of the American armed forces, when diplomacy is exhausted, to advance American interests and ideals."

Berkowitz goes on to to say that Murray shows how Neo- Conservatism is a new kind of Conservative thought aimed at and placing greater emphasis on America's leading role in the world.

However difficult the situation may be in Iraq, and it certainly seems like a no- win situation now , even to many who supported the original incursion Murray's thesis is that the Neo-Conservative ideology is the one which will best serve the U.S. and the world in the years ahead.

My reservation would be - With less arrogance, with less certainty, with more caution, with more consideration of what other peoples and other worlds are about - and with greater understanding that one can wholly hope to improve the world and not to dramatically transform it overnight.
3617483
Nisbet's conservative masterwork often times reads like it could have come from the Populist or Anarchist Left (and indeed he quotes many of these folks). Prescient not just for its depth of Western Political Theory as well as its primary indictments of the State historically and today but also its trenchant rejection of 'free market' capitalism the Right embraces today. If there is to be a true conservative realignment based on voluntary pluralism, it will only come with an understanding of this prophet's work.
59974
I thought this book would provide a little more detail and maybe even provide some evidence that was not shown in the 2009 DHS report on Right Wing Extremism. I was mistaken, this book was just further agenda driven speculation that tied honorable service members, American citizens, and civil rights advocates with extremist hate groups. No one can deny that there are hate groups and gangs that are growing in membership and increasing their rhetoric; however my issue is when the author attempts to tie that growth in radicalism to public policy such as immigration, government spending, and gun control. This tactic not so subtly suggests all groups opposing these type of legislative actions are somehow connected to the radical right and should be looked at with a great deal of suspicion. That is a shame considering this author may have been partially responsible for illegal domestic spying on American citizens as well as additional IRS scrutiny placed on Right Wing non-profit groups. In the end I will recommend you read this book just so you can see for yourself the level of paranoia and distrust this author and our government demonstrate against law abiding citizens who speak out on any number of public policy issues.
1913376
This is a comment on the desctiption under "Editorial Reviews", the second review under "From Publishers Weekly".

It's quite interesting, this review "From Publishers Weekly".  A simple Google search for "Reed Business Information" yields a link and description as follows:

"Formerly Cahner's, Reed Business Information publishes 135 B2B trade magazines covering industries such as construction, science, Web development, ..."

It is simple and undeniable that as a pro trade business magazine it behooves you to make such statements as you did in your review.  It's a nice two stage pot shot at deunking the book in it's near entirety but you have exposed yourself.  The two obvious pot shots being ... "The story as presented is implausible to say the least," sets the first stake followed by the second grand statement "the yarn he spins is ultimately unconvincing, except perhaps to conspiracy buffs".

Stick to reading the drudgereport.com and mire in your own deception and fear us radicals, the real patriots, for we live by the truth which always wants to make itself known.

Radicals: "Radical" is from the Latin word "radix," which means root.  Radicals are activists who look for the roots of the social, economic, and political wrongs in society and demand immediate and sweeping changes to remedy them.

Amazon.com, I am confused and concerned as to why you allowed such a review to be posted.  It is highly unconstructive and a blunt display of right wing propaganda.
4273604
The battle is joined, and take that Ann Coulter. Of course the right wing fanatics will not read this because they live by the adage: "Don't confuse me with the facts, I've already made up my mind."
  Conason occasionally overstates the case, but his conclusions are right on. Even as the right wing is attempting to steal another election (re-election) in California, and the Bush leaguers seem to have been caught in yet another lie (EPA reports ordered changed concerning 9/11 ground zero health risks)the right wing will continue to do its fancy footwork. Had the Clinton administration tried even one lie as horrifying as Bush's book of lies, impeachment would be well on they way through Congress, but when your team controls the game, you can cheat with impunity.
  The debate after this book is out there for a while longer will probably be loud and devisive, but hopefully it will convince more people to visit the polls in 2004 - something the Republicans discourage with enthusiasm.