Cotton Bowl Days" is the story of the EARLY Dallas Cowboys, well before the franchise became known as "Americas Team". We read how they suffered as an expansion team during those early seasons in the distinctly unglamorous, blue collar, beloved, inner city Cotton Bowl. Cowboy fans will remember the guys from the early days: Billy Howton, Don McIlhenny, L.G. Dupre and a "messenger quarterback" system featuring veteran Eddie Le Baron and, fresh from the SMU campus, Don Meredith. Of particular interest is the early 60s battle between the NFL Cowboys and the AFL Dallas Texans (now the Kansas City Chiefs) for the limited supply of local football fans. We suffer as the new franchise struggles. It proceeds to suffer the double edged sword blessing of attaining success in the late 60s, only to lose 2 NFL Championship Games to the Green Bay Packers, 2 Eastern Division Titles to the Cleveland Browns, and Super Bowl 5 to the Baltimore Colts. In the course of the 1971 season, the franchise moves to the distinctly more upscale Texas Stadium- with prices to match- and finally wins a big one, Super Bowl 6. "CBD" ends here, with the albatross of "losers" removed. The author, a Dallas native, is plainly dismissive of yuppified Texas Stadium and its, unrowdy, sedate, suburban fans. They probably drank white wine instead of Lone Star! Any New Yorker who remembers the old Madison Square Garden on 8th Avenue will identify. "CBD" is fine as far as it goes, but contains a few weak points: There are too many tales of the Eisenberg family. The narrative often has the feel of newspaper clippings accurately and timely researched but coldly strung together. I would have enjoyed reading where more of the early guys are today. Eisenberg's failure to secure an interview with Don Meredith, or to even mention his Monday Night Football Days, is a huge minus. The author also fails to cover the arrest of receiver Bob Hayes. What happened to him in the joint? Does the author care? Could one write of the Kennedy Administration and leave out Jackie and Robert? This reviewer could still honestly recommend "CBD" to a limited audience of football junkies, those who crave sports tales from the 60s, and most natives of "Big D". For them, there is much tradition between the pages of "CBD". Others should think twice. The author, now a Baltimore native, may have proven that you can't go home again. His forthcoming history on the Baltimore Orioles may be more to his calling.

I was never a Dallas Cowboys fan. I'm too young to remember the 1960s and the Cowboys playing in the Cotton Bowl. The superior, upper-crust image they took on after moving to the posh and expensive Texas Stadium in 1971 is what brought on the America's Team moniker, and which has caused so many fans to hate the Cowboys. But I wish I'd been around in the '60s because the 'Boys of those years were a team of real men, a blue-collar, hard-scrabble, hard-luck team.

Eisenberg does an excellent job detailing the formation and early years of the Dallas Cowboys. I especially found interesting the three-year inner-city battle against the AFL's Texans, as well as the impact of JFK's assassination to the psyche of the city. His interviews with former players and fans also gives a good feel of what the team and the fans experienced.

Eisenberg does focus a bit too much on his own personal and family experiences, in my opinion, which hurts the flow and continuity of the story, but that's the only knock I have against the book. It's definitely recommended reading for fans of football during the Golden Age of pro football when players and fans could relate to each other so much better than today.

Hard as it is for me, Mr. Cowboy-hater, to admit it, this was an absolute joy to read. Much of the book comes across as Eisenberg's autobiography, but his writing skill and journalist's eye combine to provide a wonderful insight into the Cowboys-and the NFL-of the 1960s, as well as what it was like to be a fan.

For those who mourn the passing of pro football's greatest decade, and weep over what the game has now become, this is an easy book to warm to, one of the best I have ever read.

This book sorely lacks sufficient documentation to support the writer's theories. Nothing new about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy is offered. Nothing here to challenge the reader. Don't waste your money.

I thank the author of this book for reminding the American public that the Warren Commission was not truthful in its report. I agree with the author that the assassination was an inside job by someone who knows about the motorcade plans. This is a good interesting book to read. I like it very much. It is much better book than the Oliver Stone JFK movie. This book should be made into a movie so that everyone who don't read it knows about it.

I have read many books about the Kennedy assasination, and this is one of the best! Be sure to read it.

Most books that speak about the beginning of World War I parcel out the blame among several different countries, on both sides of the conflict. The author of this book is pretty unambiguous: the fault is entirely that of the German Empire. Once he gets down to the peace treaty, he does tend to apportion blame for its ultimate failure in several directions, not the least among them the United States, for its indifference to Europe and its insistence upon being paid back every penny lent during the conflict. The book covers a lot of territory, and its broad scope tends to limit its coverage to any one particular region, which leaves the average reader wishing for more information, particularly about the fighting in Poland and the eastern portions of Europe. Also, this book is badly in need of a good proofreader, for there were many sentences which contained too many words, and then there were some that were missing words. This tended to distract the reader, and I found it extremely annoying. All in all, the work is well done, and gives some different insight into a conference that changed the course of history, unfortunately for the worst, rahter than for the better.

Five stars to Gregor Dallas! He has written one of the best history books on WW1 that I have read at any time and with a particular interest in WW1 this mean I have read many. It is eminently comparable to Massie's "Dreadnought" in depth and readability. Come to think of it, the one complements the other since there can be no better introduction to the origins of WW1 and no better narrative of the transition from war to peace.
I read Dallas' "The Final Act" which relates the end of the Napoleonic Wars and the transition to peace through the Congress of Vienna in 1815. Thus, his latest book treats the same process after the "War to End all Wars" and where appropriate he draws useful parallels. The difference between the two transitions is striking: after 1815, Europe remained peaceful for almost exactly 100 years, except for the altercation between France and the newly formed Germany of Bismarck in 1870, but after 1918 the peace lasted just over 20 years before another world war.
The seeds of WW2 were sown during the peace process which began with the armistice of November 11, 1918. The entry of the United States into WW1 came at a late hour and by the time US military intervention began to have any effect the war was virtually over. Indeed, we learn that the refusal of Pershing to integrate the US Expeditionary force into the allied command had two consequences. One was Pershing's naïve belief he could do what the allies could not by making mass frontal attacks. Both the British and French had taken years to learn this was not the way to win a war, but in the typical NIH syndrome that we seem to suffer from, Pershing refused to listen. Thus he made three attempts to break through the German lines and failed miserably each time, incurring horrendous losses quite on a par with anything the allied command had inflicted on their own forces. Meantime, both the British and French were forging ahead: Clemenceau expressed his frustration on two occasions at the slowness of Pershing to effect a contribution in accordance with the plan. Finally, on the 4th attempt, Pershing broke through, but by then the German flanks were in great danger from the allies on each side. Only in the last week of the war did the US army make a significant contribution, but Wilson took little time to announce it was America that won the war!
The book relates the formulation of Wilson's 14 points, written with his friend Colonel House (who was not a colonel at all!) without consulting either his cabinet or the Congress. He then sent the 14 points to the German government without informing the allies. This contrasts with Lloyd George, the British premier, who was careful not only to keep his cabinet informed, but also parliament, so that when he did make his policy speech, it was with the support of the elected representatives. A lesson of democracy, indeed, when compared to Wilson's method! Clemenceau equally was careful to keep all those that mattered informed of his thoughts and intentions.
Wilson's misplaced and naïve idealism in the end cost the allies a good deal as Dallas demonstrates. Wilson was never able to comprehend the French concern about the future and its imperative to prevent Germany from making war again. The British understood this very well, but placed themselves in the middle. The question of German reparations for the extensive damage they caused was a common aim of the allies, but Wilson did not really want to see Germany stuck with reparations, though in the end he accepted the principle he did not foresee enforcing any payments. In short, the intervention of Wilson directly lead to WW2 far more than any so-called 'appeasement' by Chamberlain or the French. While all parties concentrated on Germany's western borders, no one bothered too much about what was going on in Poland, nor for that matter in Germany itself. Thus the myth of the non-defeat of the German Army was allowed to fester and to lay the blame, later, on the Versailles Treaty not to mention 'appeasement'.
Reading other critiques on this site, I find the claim of errors by one critic nonsensical and, moreover, the allegation is unsupported by evidence. I also note the typos are not as frequent as alleged, but even more important, I wonder what typos have to do with the substance of the work? I accept the truth is hard for many of us to swallow, brought up on the usual myths of US hubris, but the critics should say so and not use subterfuge to denigrate a serious, excellent book.
This is an important book, because it overturns accepted ideas, places a perspective on the aftermath of WW1 not found, to my knowledge, elsewhere. It is thus not only a rattling well told story, but also a work of scholarship.

'1918' is a grand book about the end of the most significant war of our times, It aiso illustrates how making peace can do more harm for future generations than the war itself.

The peace was negotiated until 1926; the Treaty of Versailles- June, 1919- was first on the agenda so Europe could contain Germany as soon as possible- at least on the Western Front. The war in the East was germany's problem for a while. However, the treaty was just the beginning of how the Paris Conference played a role in changing the whole world.

Nearly every country on Earth was held in the balance after the war that was to end all wars; four empires died their timely deaths, leaving behind the debris of centuries. All wanted what they believed was rightfully theirs: self determination.

The Great War did what Napoleon failed to do: it ended the Age of Empire. Prior to the war, European Empires ruled the world through their colonies, money and weapons.
But the 1918 armistice and the peace worked out in Paris ended that age of domination. The men meting out peace created countries, changed borders, gave promises of independence. They shaped the world- and its problems- we live in today.

Although the USA was not in the trenches for long, it had the biggest hand to play- because the United States was the only major player left with any money.
Therefore, Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations theory and Fourteen Points (he really had nothing but a theory to offer) had to be accepted first so Europe could get funding to
contain Germany.
France insisted any peace plan had to keep Germany far from its borders. France's self interest was a demilitarized Germany. France, the victim of Germany, did not win here.

Soon enough, Germany wanted to punish France- For the Germans believed it did not lose the war. They thought France, backed by the USA, decided to blame its losses on them.
It is a fallacy France let Germany roll over them during WWII. It was a mere 20 years earlier French soil was soaked with the blood of millions of Europeans, most of them Frenchmen.
When Hitler invaded, France wanted to keep the orphans of the Great War from the fate of their fathers.

Chamberlain, blamed for Hitler's land grab, was in the same position. England was not ready to fight again. By letting Hitler take the Sudetenland, hopes were high that was as far as he would go. The area was mostly German anyway (and intensely anti-semetic). A more perceptive negotiator would have seen Hitler was determined to even the score over WWI. But so many turned a blind eye, since no one wanted another war.

Signs of The Great War can be found all over Europe; very few were untouched by its impact. No country anticipated a brutal war that would go into a stalemate within months. Not one country believed the battle could last four years.

Dallas spells all this out in a book that I could not stop reading. He takes on each country, its current status as of 1918, and its war and peace interests. Dallas is honest; he uses the leaders' personalities as part of the process- because that's how the peace was finally made.

'1918' is a must read for many reasons, especially anyone interested in how Europe was forced to cut the roots to its empires.
The book shows how a war that could have been fought longer finally ended, with France finally achieving victory over its invader. it also shows the perils of peace. Haste fomented resentment; haste laid the ground work for the next brutal war- only 20 years later.

'1918' is also a fascinating read for those curious how we got to where we are today. One example: Iraq became a country created by the Paris Conference.
History haunts us all.

Kinky is at his irreverent best here in a scrap book style book that generally talks about Texas, but wanders onto other topics without any particular reason. If you can't laugh at this book you can't laugh at all.

This book is great! Also check out Everything Texans Need To Know About The Other 49 States (Brook & Julie Syers)...

This is a great book. Very funny! Also check out Everything Texans Need To Know About The Other 49 States by Brook & Julie Syers.

I have a lot of problems with this book. Aside from the fact that the "mystery" is a cheat, the "hero" is a drunk, who cheated on his wife, a woman who has put up with his abuse for 20 years. Nonetheless, SHE'S the bad guy for forcing him into rehab and saving his life, not to mention, the horrible sin of adultery on a husband that has been buried in a bottle for years (You see, adultery is only a sin when the WIFE does it, not the husband). But don't worry - she gets hers.

And as a reward for being the jackass that he is, our "hero" is rewarded with the instant "movie type love at first sight" from a blond with big... well, you know. Who just happens to be rich! Wow! She cheated a former lover out of millions! Boy, we've got a couple of heroes to root for here, guys! Obviously, Mr. Swindle has a problem with women who don't let a guy get away with abusing their trust.

The wife is disposed of so that the hero and his new girl (who besides being blond and buxom, is a "total woman" type who let's big strong MAN run the show - she is every adolescent male's fantasy) can live happily ever after. I think that this is the last Howard Swindle, misogynist, book I will buy, thanks.

Jeb Quilin is a cop with a problem: drinking. Forced into rehab by his captain and Sarah his wife, Jeb works the program in order to get back to the job. However, when fellow "inmates" are murdered, the job is following Jeb. The twists and turns of the story capture your attention. This is a book you won't put down. Jeb is a complex character who deserves another book; many other books. I hope the author won't abandon Jeb. I'd love to read more. He's a character with flaws and strengths. I look forward to many more books following his up and downs. They should be wonderful.

Wasn't sure at the beginning but all of a sudden I was hooked. I didn't even see it coming! It's just what you want to happen when reading a book. The characters are likable and the storyline interesting. The book is set in Dallas and Swindle's descriptions of the city make you feel like you are there. I would say all in all a good first outting for Swindle. I am already looking for the next. I hope he takes Jeb along on the next ride. I feel like I know him now. This will make a great beach book!!!!

When I first started reading this book, I thought it was pretty good. But as the book started developing more, specifically the secondary characters which was the somewhat detailed relationship between two MEN, I was completely turned off by the whole thing. I agree with another reviewer, this book belongs in the trash.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. The romance of both the main and sub-characters was very entertaining. I did not put this book down once I started it and I finished it in one night.

This book had 2 great plots- the main plot was about Luke marrying Cat for his inheritance and Cat marrying Luke because she fell in love with him at first sight. She had to hide it from him because Luke was not interested in love but everyone else guessed it almost from the beginning. Luke was protective about Cat and lusted after her but he started to develop feelings that scared him. Of course there is a twist- Luke was engaged to Cat's step-sister before she ran away with her high school sweetheart. But when she comes back, and is interested in Luke, the drama begins.

The second plot (which became more interesting than the main plot) was about Cat's best friend (Jack) and Luke's best friend (Keith). Jack is gay and Keith starts to question his own sexuality when he finds himself drawn to him.

Both romances were sweet and romantic. There was a lot of humor in the book and of course real-life is a lot more complicated but that is not why we read these books!

I am an experienced reader of history. Mr. Dallas' work is indeed meticulously documented, but that very meticulosity renders his story line exceedingly difficult to follow. Most of the book attempts to help the reader understand the antecedents of Waterloo through the Congress of Vienna. The account of the Congress was disjointed. Characters were introduced with little context.

The description of Waterloo itself seemed to me to be a very short leap preceeded by far too long a run.

I just didn't like the book. It did not capture my interest and drag me to the end . . . it was a tough slog.

Congress of Vienna is always obscured by the Battle of Waterloo, probably the most overrated of all events in world's history. The diplomatic conference held in Austrian capital few months earlier, although less spectacular than Napoleon's last battle, had more lasting impact on the future of Europe. While political and diplomatic intrigues might not arouse readers' imagination with same intensity as the drama that unfolded in Belgian battlefields, book by Gregor Dallas actually turns out to be not only very informative but also a very exciting and entertaining read. Mr. Dallas approaches this subject by putting the Congress in the broader context of early 19th Century Europe and treating the conference as nothing more than a chapter in the story that began with Napoleon's abdication in Spring of 1814. Diplomatic drama that occurred in Vienna is accompanied with short biographies of all major participants, as well as numerous vignettes, anecdotes and accounts of economic, social and political conditions in major European capitals. The well-known protagonists of these events - Alexander, Metternich, Castlereagh, Talleyrand and Napoleon - are portrayed with great deal of detail, but even the minor or less known characters receive the same treatment. Love life of European elite is given the same attention as the diplomatic intrigues, and in many ways reader, as well as the characters, can't make a clear distinction between the two. In segments that deal with British internal politics reader might even find some interesting parallels with most recent events in Britain, thus making this book much closer to the modern audience than its subject might indicate. Because of all that, this book is not only very informative, but also very entertaining and exciting. However, at times a reader might get impression that British politics and British personalities receive too much attention at the expense of rest of Europe. I was also somewhat disappointed when I didn't find the actual text of the treaty. However, despite those minor flaws this book is a must-read for anyone interested in early 19th Century Europe or foundations of modern diplomacy.

Though the abdication, exile, return and ultimate fall of Napoleon is well covered by a vast range of both popular and scholarly histories, less is available to the general reader on the political and diplomatic manoeuvrings of 1814-15, usually under the generic title of "The Congress of Vienna." This colourful historical narrative, which is enlivened with countless vignettes and anecdotes, brings the whole period to life. While Napoleon, for once, is a mainly background figure, albeit a menacing one, three larger than life characters dominate the story - Metternich, Tallyrand and Alexander I - but it is to Mr.Dallas's credit that he breathes life and interest into the fourth main player, Castlereagh, a much less charismatic personality. The secondary cast includes Britain's Prince Regent, France's Louis XVIII, the monarchs of Prussia and Austria, Wellington and Blucher, Austria's spy-network (with the ace spy still today identified only as "**"" ),a host of mistresses and courtesans (often closely related, despite differing political affiliations) and a plethora of diplomats, while the walk-ons range from Ludwig van Beethoven to minor Austrian civil servants. A surprise is the extent to which the gouty and corpulent Louis XVIII, briefly returned from his travels, only to be sent packing again within months, emerges as curiously attractive and sympathetic. As in his splendid biography of Clemanceau, Mr.Dallas excels in breathing life and interest into bygone crises - notably, in this case, the near collision between Austria, Priussia and Russia over the fate of Saxon. A particular triumph of the book is the extent to which the climax of Waterloo is not allowed to dominate the narrative to the detriment of less well-known events. For the general reader interested in the Napoleon period this book is indeed a treat - highly recommended.

Dallas remains among the least-studied of American cities, especially by historians. And most accounts read as if they were commissioned by civic boosters. The result has been the myth of Dallas as the city that works for everyone. In "And Justice For All," Roy H. Williams and Kevin J. Shay pick up where other historians left off. They argue that whites have made local government work for themselves while systematically excluding African-Americans and other minorities. The result, they write, has been a "political system of apartheid." Mr. Williams, one of the plaintiffs in a landmark voting rights lawsuit, and Mr. Shay, a Dallas journalist, back up their argument with facts culled from lawsuits, interviews, city-commissioned studies and articles from white- and black-owned newspapers. "And Justice For All" is a good start at providing a history of Dallas for everyone. It is an important work.

"And Justice For All" is a good addition to the collection on Dallas history. It will make people think.

Roy and Kevin rip the covers off the beauty queen we call Dallas and expose her ugly scars of racism, bigotry, cronyism, and greed. Those who profess to embrace truth cannot remain sedate and silent after reading the often petrifying story of power. This is must reading for all students and their parents.

It is clear in this book that Golenbock is not a big fan of Landry and Schramm. There are too many quotes from malcontent ex-players like Pete Gent so the book is way out of balance. The book provides very little insight from Schramm and Landry themselves about many contentious conflicts between the players, management, and the coaching staff. Golenbock is very derogatory towards Landry for being "controlling" but yet takes quite a positive view towards Jimmy Johnson for doing the exact same thing. Players who were team players, did their jobs, and were respectful are characterized as 'afraid of Landry'. Those who were disruptive and disrespectful are characterized as 'courageous'.

I bought this book to get an inside view of how the Cowboys became the pre-eminent sports franchise in America. What a I got was a book that spent way too much time exploring every gripe from every drugged out players about Landry and Schramm. There are some really good quotes in this book so it does not deserve the worst rating. The concept of this book is a really good one, but all in all it comes off as a lot griping and moaning rather than objective analysis.

An excellent book. Golenbock's style of having the players say what happened while he sets the outline is one of the reasons I love this book. The insights the players give about Landry and Schramm are eye-opening. The palyers themselves in the early 1970's didn't want to be called "America's Team", they thought it was too arrogent (and they were right). Schramm was the one who liked it. That's just one of the many insignts you get from this book along with the aspects of racism, the salary disputes, and how the social evironment changed and the players evovled. The only drawback is if you are a current Cowboys fan and only care about the last few years, you're going to be dissapointed because about 75% of this book deals with the first two decades.

Any one who is a true football fan should read this book. It is realistic, surprising and sometimes shocking in its revelations of the inner feelings of the players during the early years of the Dallas Cowboys. It is written without taking sides; relating the men, their emotions and their relationships with fellow players in factual, graphic terms. You cannot read this and feel the same way you did before about America's Team. The only parts missing are the Cowboys who didn't want to tell their side such as "Dandy Don". These missing voices create a silence in the telling of the whole story. Still, one can relate to the events and emotions that shaped the Cowboys and that generation of Americans. 4.5 STARS

There's a laid-back mood that characterises this book and courtesy Swanson's unique style ,it's quite infectious.

Although it was a tad bit exaggerated, I absolutely loved the character of Teddy Deuce.But this book never hit the heights of being "thoroughly enjoyable" or absorbing and it was dissapointingly easy to put it down to do something else whenever I felt like it.

It also ended a bit abruptly- i'm not quite sure whether or not that was the idea- and that didn't rub off right on me.

Ultimately it was better than mediocre but WAY off excellent.

Meet Jack, the kind of detective character you'll enjoy coming back to time and time again. Jack is real, the setting is real and the plot if wholly believable. Nothing plastic, or insincere. If you like the genre, you'll really like Jack.

This book is great, even better when you consider it is the author's 1st published work. Like my title states, fans of Carl Hiassen will probably like this book. Further proof is that Hiaasen himself compliments the book on the front cover.

"Big Town" shares Hiaasen trademarks: eccentric but believable characters, a brisk pace, snappy dialogue, and more twists than a pretzel factory. To my astonishment, I may even like this Swanson book BETTER than most of Hiaasen's work for one main reason: ambiguity. In most Hiaasen books, the good guys and bad guys are pretty clear cut while in Big Town I did not know literally until the last page who was zooming who.

It is a real shame Swanson's earlier books are out of print. As I have discovered, they are definitely worth seeking out.