Read it. MacArthur effed up Korea as badly as one could imagine. Snatched “treaty” from the jaws of victory
What book(s) are you currently reading?
- Thread starter john4psu
- Start date
MacArthur effed up a lot of things in a couple of wars that got a lot of soldiers killed.
Hey could you do me a favor and check to see if Colonel Godwin Ordway is in the index of the Halberstam book? Thanks. (His daughter Clare married my mother’s brother and his son Rick was a great friend to me. Rick and his brother were fourth-generation West Point. In his biography Willie Mays mentioned how Rick Ordway struck him out on three pitches in a pre-season game in 1955. “Welcome to West Point!”)
Hoffman and Kunze. I don't do original research but love going through my old textbooks. This is the 2nd edition, 1971. I used this book my first semester at Tennessee, 1980. The math department at Maryland, telling us what we needed to know for the Qualifying Exams, said we had to know everything in this book. This is one of the two bona fide classics in Mathematics, which everyone knows, the other being Ahlfors’ Complex Analysis, 3rd edition.
Last edited:
Just finished the book Presidents of War (Beschloss). Long read at nearly 800 pages but incredibly good. Dives super deep into details of each President's performance during all meaningful "wars" from Maddison (1812) to LBJ (Vietnam). I highly recommend it, especially to a history black belt like Tom McAndrew.
Under Two Flags. It’s a history of the two Navys which fought against each other during the Civil War. Its well researched and eloquently written by Professor William Fowler. This is my fourth Fowler book and each is great. I had the opportunity to meet the author on a transatlantic cruise and attended several of his lectures onboard. You hang on every word.
Amazon product ASIN 0028646851
Reading for the 3rd time....excellently researched and well put together.
Reading for the 3rd time....excellently researched and well put together.
Read it. Generally enjoyed it, more the theme than anything, but had a few criticisms. He critiqued LBJ’s handling of the Vietnam War accurately and in painstaking detail. While seemingly glossing over a lot of what FDR did during WWII.
LBJ was totally unequipped to prosecute a war effort, but any poor decision he made pales in comparison to FDR interning American citizens without trial or Wilson resegragating the military. Part of the issue is that Beschloss’s area of expertise is the Kennedy’s and LBJ, but the book left me a little disappointed. Had he put the level of research and analysis into all of the conflicts that he did into Vietnam and the Mexican War, it would have been a far more impressive book.
Fair analysis... LBJ comes off looking worse than I even imagined. And yes FDR does not get same critical analysis. I found the insight on Spanish and Mexican wars really interesting. Also didn't know how much Truman really abused the presidency and how much distain he had for Congress.
Won WW2 in the Pacific. Did a fabulous job turning Japan into a functional, peaceful, reliable Democracy (one of the most underrated jobs in modern times). And he advocated a stronger hand against China when the USA had the much stronger hand. How good does that look today? Very.
Last edited:
Agree completely.
Mc Arthurs work in Japan was nothing if not unfldetrated.
He loudly, and publicly, advocated for the use of atomic weapons against China during Korean conflict. That would have certainly brought the Soviets into the conflict and resulted in a third world war. So there's that...
Its on my list....."the untold civil war" was my last read...its just a collection of mater of fact stuff...some significant some not. Like 2 brothers fighting on opposite sides holding hands while they were dieing on the same battlefield. And the story of "old Abe".....its very interesting
I finished SHOE DOG, Phil Knight's memoir and the story of Nike. Here's a passage related to JVP:
At the end of the book, Phil looks back over the years and reflects on his regrets......
"It's easy to laugh those off. Other regrets go deeper. Not phoning Hiraku Iwano after he quit. Not getting Bo Jackson renewed in 1996. Joe Paterno."
It was also interesting to read that Dick Harter, the basketball coach of the Oregon Ducks in the 70's (before he became the PSU coach), wouldn't allow the hoops team to wear Nike's until he got his money, $2,500 at that time.
At the end of the book, Phil looks back over the years and reflects on his regrets......
"It's easy to laugh those off. Other regrets go deeper. Not phoning Hiraku Iwano after he quit. Not getting Bo Jackson renewed in 1996. Joe Paterno."
It was also interesting to read that Dick Harter, the basketball coach of the Oregon Ducks in the 70's (before he became the PSU coach), wouldn't allow the hoops team to wear Nike's until he got his money, $2,500 at that time.
I’m reading the Jimmy Develano autobiography on the beach this week. Honestly, I’ve gotten through his time with the Islanders and have lost interest. I might be done.
just finished The Trouble with Peace, the latest in the First Law books by Joe Abercrombie, the final book in the series comes out this September
If you are into fantasy at all I highly recommend Abercrombie
If you are into fantasy at all I highly recommend Abercrombie
That certainly is a possibility - but not the only one. The bottom line is that we are currently facing an existential threat from Red China that pales next to anything that the Soviets had in the 1950s. So there’s that…
Gywnne is one heck of a writer…Rebel Cry will literally make you think you think you can time travel. The portrait he paints of Jackson is piercing. Probably the best piece of writing that I have been exposed (I read 95+% non-fiction)
So you would have supported use of atomic weapons in China in 1952. Wow, so you're irrational in two different threads.
No Doubt. Ive read Empire of the summer moon...excellent book. I tend to prefer Robertson when dealing with Jackson and R.E Lee only because he is considered the expert on the 2 and had 60 years of research under his belt on the subject. We are talking about a historian that was so well respected that he helped plan the Funeral of JFK...and Modeled it after Lincoln's.
There's an alternate history series by Harry Turtledove based on that premise. "The Hot War".
Tom, have you gotten around to reading, "Autumn of the Black Snake: The Creation of the U.S. Army and the Invasion That Opened the West"? If so, I am curious of your take on its representation of Washington and his family's involvement with The Ohio Company, and what effect the Proclamation of 1763, had on the movement toward independence by the influential members of that enterprise. Also, my impression from the book was that England via the referenced proclamation was seeking a stable relationship with the Native American communities. Indeed, the circumstances and intrigues associated with the creation of our country are very complex.
I've seen Lindsay Chervinsky give online presentations about her book several times, and was looking forward to reading her book. I completed it a couple of days ago.
Chervinsky is the nice combination of a good historian and a good writer.
The President's cabinet is something that all Americans have heard of. Most of us likely assume that it's been an institution since the start of the US. Alas, as with most things involving the founding of America, the story is a tad more complicated than what people assume.
At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the delegates considered the creation of a cabinet several times, and rejected it. The delegates were familiar with cabinets in the British government, and felt that these unelected bodies had corrupted both the government and the monarch of Britain, and really did not want to see something like that occur in the United States.
Basically, the Constitution left it that the President could request written replies from his Secretaries, or he could consult with the Senate for their opinion.
Washington attempted to work under these guidelines, but found them to be of limited value. The first time he went to the Senate, he supplied them in advance all the background material he thought was needed to reach a decision. And after presenting the issue, and requesting their opinion, no Senators responded, and eventually one suggested that they form a committee to consider the President's questions, and meet with him again in a week. Washington was in disbelief at how ineffective this process was, and contemplating not returning for the follow-up meeting. He did eventually agree to return, but that meeting also did not offer much resolution to the situation the country was facing, so Washington decided to never again waste his time through that process.
He also attempted to follow the Constitution's guidelines on receiving written input from his Secretaries, but process proved less than satisfactory to Washington.
Two years into his first term, he assembled all of his Secretaries for a meeting, and thus was held the first Cabinet meeting.
Chervinsky spent almost half of the book reviewing Washington's background, to establish what Washington was comfortable with as Commander of the patriot army (where he would hold meetings with his leading officers before every battle), and his frustrations with the early American government under the Articles of Confederation. It probably is a little longer than is needed to establish Washington's patterns and preferences, but it's also pretty effective.
The second half of the book deals with Washington's Cabinet in both his first and second terms. I found this part of the book to be more interesting, in part because there wasn't much in the first half that I hadn't read in several other books.
I do recommend the book, and would give it somewhere between a 3.75 and 4.00 on a 5-point scale.
Never said that. It’s a much more nuanced than that “use them vs don’t use them.” Truman (in Japan) and Eisenhower (with Korea) demonstrated as much.
My bottom line is that McArthur, while controversial, was a great leader and the USA and world has much to be appreciative of his skills. Outside of his military leadership, what he did in post-WW2 Japan alone is phenomenal.
With regards to Korea, all I am stating is that - in hindsight - McArthur’s approach in seeking absolute victory over China must be re-examined in light of the what has transpired since (10s of millions slaughtered in China + the looming threat of an increasingly powerful Communist China + whatever is still happening with C-19 vis-a-vis China).
China has the ability to threaten our very way of life beyond anything the Soviet a Union ever could have dreamed.
If that is irrational, place me firmly in that camp.
To understand what we were up against in the Korean War (which really was a a war against Red China), strongly suggest “On Desperate Ground” by Hampton Sides…the fanaticism and disregard for human life by China is breathtaking.
We owe those US Servicemen there a huge expression of gratitude…and it does cause you to think about “what if” scenarios.
And just terrific storytelling by Sides.
I saw a few reviews of the book when it was released, and consider getting it, but have not done so, and have not read it.
Washington's involvement in The Ohio Company, and his coveting of Native American lands both personally and for the nascent United States, is brilliantly examined in The Indian World of George Washington: The First President, the First Americans, and the Birth of the Nation, by Colin G. Calloway. I'm pretty sure I posted my review of that book earlier in this thread.
The Proclamation of 1763 attempted to end violence on the frontier lands, and to ensure peace with the Native Americans, by restricting colonists from settling west of the Appalachian Mountains. Unfortunately, many colonists, and many crown officials (governors that made money by selling land in the colonies) opposed the Proclamation, as it limited where they could settle/where they could sell land.
I totally concur with the last sentence in your post.
The story of Cookie Crisp and Con-yerd
"I went out to talk to Mr. Thompson. I mean... I lost it! I told him everything; about Lijah, the Parkers laughing, my haters, my angry visions - everything! He told me to stop responding to those names; they aren't my name"
"I went out to talk to Mr. Thompson. I mean... I lost it! I told him everything; about Lijah, the Parkers laughing, my haters, my angry visions - everything! He told me to stop responding to those names; they aren't my name"
Last edited:
The story of Cookie Crisp and Con-yerd
"I went out to talk to Mr. Thompson. I mean... I lost it! I told him everything; about Lijah, the Parkers laughing, my haters, my angry visions - everything! He told me to stop responding to those names; they aren't my name"
Post Eem up Lil Chuck-sky, post eem up then do ya Kim John Oon dance on eem
Just finished:
Published in 1983 and 1993, respectively. In the first book Gribben contents himself with discussing, in addition to the standard Copenhagen Interpretation, Everett's Many Worlds interpretation, which he had a soft spot for. (I myself consider the Many Worlds interpretation to be nuts.) Edit: Many worlds is the formal name for the concept of parallel universes, which just about everyone has heard of.
The second book goes into Cramer's Transactional interpretation in what I think is a satisfactory and convincing manner. Gribben did a good job describing the mathematics that show the time-reversing properties of Schrodinger’s equation. He also discusses Paul Davies' The Ghost in the Atom, which is made up of Davies' interviews with ten or so distinguished experts in quantum physics, encompassing more than a handful of different interpretations, each of whom are convinced they are right and anyone who doesn't agree doesn't know what they're talking about. That was an interesting thing to ponder.
en.wikipedia.org
Published in 1983 and 1993, respectively. In the first book Gribben contents himself with discussing, in addition to the standard Copenhagen Interpretation, Everett's Many Worlds interpretation, which he had a soft spot for. (I myself consider the Many Worlds interpretation to be nuts.) Edit: Many worlds is the formal name for the concept of parallel universes, which just about everyone has heard of.
The second book goes into Cramer's Transactional interpretation in what I think is a satisfactory and convincing manner. Gribben did a good job describing the mathematics that show the time-reversing properties of Schrodinger’s equation. He also discusses Paul Davies' The Ghost in the Atom, which is made up of Davies' interviews with ten or so distinguished experts in quantum physics, encompassing more than a handful of different interpretations, each of whom are convinced they are right and anyone who doesn't agree doesn't know what they're talking about. That was an interesting thing to ponder.
Transactional interpretation - Wikipedia
Last edited:
LionJim,
I just finished "The Making of the Atomic Bomb," and decided to read this, for the second time.
During the summer I usually do multiple novels by a single writer; I'm at this point undecided between Thomas Hardy and Richard Russo. Probably will do Hardy; it's been a while since I've read Jude the Obscure.
You may like The Strangest Man, a biography of Paul Dirac:
The Strangest Man
by Graham Farmelo. It covers not only the obligator details of his life, and is filled with stories of his renowned reserved manner of speech, but it goes into great detail of how he approached physics during the birth of qantum mechanics and his central part in it. His approach was based on the belief that at the deepet level of physical reality, the underlying mathematics must be intrinsically beautiful. He hated many approaches to quantum field theory that he thought ugly, especially the way they got rid of those pesky infinities that crop up and are waved away by "renormalization".
After many undergraduate and graduate courses in quantum theory that didn't make sense, I locked myself in my room one summer and for over a month, eight hours a day, I slowly worked through his book The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. It was so elegant, concise, clear, and (yes) beautiful. When I finlshed it, I finally understood what all those teachers and textbooks were trying to say. Reading The Strangest Man made me go back and look up some of his early papers from 1925 through 1930. He was truly one of the greatest physicists of the 20th Centry, and many of his ideas that fell neglected (e.g., magnetic monopoles, the apparent absence of which was the original reason why cosmologists came up with the idea of a short period of cosmic inflation just after the Big Bang) may yet prove fruitful. He argued that if there was even one magnetic monopole in the universe, that would demand that the basic unit of electric charge must be quantized. What a mind!
Boys in the Boat: re Univ. of Washington 8 man crew and their journey to the Olympics.
