The latest book by Gorodetsky is nearly useless.
The way in which G. interprets for example diary-entries of Dimitroff is absurd and completely misleading. Luckily these diaries have now been published in german language (Aufbau Verlag) so that everyone can read for himself what Dimitroff really wrote - in full - and not just the selective parts Gorodetsky presents.
Also, the way in which Gorodetsky presents the clearly offensive soviet force disposition in 1941 is a bit of remarkable absurdity.

Gorodetsky claims in one sentence to have corrected Suvorov's claims that Stalin was preparing an offensive against Germany. But how? Where is Gorodetsky showing that the numerous arguments of Suvorov are actually wrong?
The next bit of absurdity is that Gorodetsky writes that soviet doctrine was clearly offensive - but of course not in reality.
Another proof of Gorodetsky's fear to provide full documentation is that he doesen't provide the full text of the "Considerations..." from May 15th, 1941 where a preemtive strike against Germany was advocated by the General Staff. Gorodetsky claims that this document was written behind Stalin's back and that it has never been approved. Anyone who knows only a fraction about the great purges of Stalin in the Red Army can clearly see the bizarre absurdity of such a claim. Vassilievsky, Zhukov and Timoshenko would have ended in the hands of the NKVD and would have been executed had they written such a proposal against Stalin's intentions!

Gorodetsky knows that would he provide such important documents with their full text, the reader would reach quite different conclusions than claimed in the book. That's why Gorodetsky most of the time quotes documents that can't be checked by the readers.
One should rather read Joachim Hoffmann's "Stalin's war of extermination" or Albert Weeks forthcoming "Stalin's other war. Soviet Grand Strategy 1939-1941" because there one can find proper documentation and learn about Stalin's real intentions.

The Cold War gave birth to a myth that the Soviet Union was cunningly planning a strike against Germany in July 1941. As a result, some historians had been calling for justification of the invasion to Russia, which Nazi Germany started on June 22, 1941. The logic goes if Stalin was planning an aggression against Germany, Hitler had a right to a preemptive strike against Russia. The creators of the myth use a testimony of a defector from the Russian military intelligence by the name of V. Resun. Under a pen name "Suvorov" he wrote a book called "Icebreaker" where he presented a theory that Stalin in 1939-1941 was meticulously preparing a war against Germany. Therefore according to this theory Russia was an aggressor rather than the victim in 1941.

In "Grand Delusion" Israeli professor Gabriel Gorodetsky shows beyond reasonable doubt that Suvorov's arguments are ridiculous. He presents evidence that Stalin was not contemplating attack on Germany; but in fact was trying to avoid any confrontation with Germany while playing a compacted diplomatic game to limit Germany's political influence on the Balkans, particularly in Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. He shows Stalin's obsessions with the Turkish Straits and Bulgaria, which wasn't new, but was an old Imperial policy of Russia for many years. I was surprised to learn how much "tsarist" Stalin's foreign policy really was - there was very little in it related to the communist ideology or "class struggle" theory of Karl Marx.

The failure to understand Hitler's bellicose plans was a result of Stalin's misjudgment of power structure and decision-making process in Berlin. As an extremely suspicious person, Stalin mistrusted everyone, but looks like he believed misleading information presented to him by opponents of Hitler's policy such as Count Werner Von Schulenburg (German ambassador to Moscow, who became later a leading figure of anti-Hitler failed coup) and Ribbentrop. Stalin mistrusted equally both Churchill and Hitler and attributed all warning signals to England's efforts to drag Russia into war with Germany. Also Stalin didn't believe that Hitler would allow Wehrmacht to fight on two fronts. German double agents "Litseist" encouraged this false believe. The Germans succeeded in their sophisticated disinformation campaign, which coupled with Stalin's wishful thinking, led Russians to believe that Germany was not planning to invade Russia at least in the near future.

Gorodetsky points out that the idea of a preventive war was embedded in the German (from Frederick the Great to Moltke) rather than the Russian military tradition. "Barbarossa" plan was devised to quickly crash Russia in quick 10-week war and to free Hitler's hands to complete his "mastery of Europe". Then he would take care of England without any distractions from the "Soviet Empire". It looked like everything was working just wonderful for Nazi Germany until June 22, 1941 - the beginning of the German invasion to Russia (which by the way started suddenly without any declaration or ultimatum). But it turned out that the Germans seriously underrated the opponent and seriously miscalculated the amount of the effort they would need to crush Russia. Sure, the German might was incredible, but so was German overconfidence. Hitler's disparaging attitude towards Russian "vermin" makes ridiculous the theory of preemptive strike. Gorodetsky shows that this attitude was widespread in the West - Sir Winston Churchill himself was prone to disparaging attitude towards Stalin and the Red Army.

But just before his attack on Russia Hitler was beating Stalin at his own game. Stalin's failure to prepare for the German onslaught, which cost many Russian lives, was a result of his own self-deception and wishful thinking. Although Stalin was very wily, I feel that he lacked formal education to think abstractly and deal with issues like, for example, proverbial German concept of "Drang nach Osten" or draw analogies from history. Although as a Georgian, he was obsessed with history of the Black sea and repercussions of potential German capture of the Turkish Straits. 150 years earlier the Grand Army of Napoleon stood looking across the English Channel - but there was nowhere for it to go - except to Russia. It seems to me again in June 1941 the same gravitational force was pulling 200 idle German divisions to the endless Russian steppes. Where else would these "drunk with success" armies go?

I really liked the book. This scholarly and dry book was not an easy read. But the amount of information looked at is enormous and the quality of analysis is good. Also for the first time the reliance is not only on the German and British sources, but also on the declassified Russian archives. The book de-romanticizes many myths and accounts, including well-known Churchill's history of WWII, which is "persuasive but excessively self-centered and therefore occasionally misleading interpretation of events". I highly recommend this book to everybody interested in reading a non-Disney history of WWII.

Winston Churchill's multi volume history of the Second World War was for many years influential. In talking about the period between the fall of France and the Invasion of the Soviet Union Churchill suggested that British Intelligence came to know of the German plans for Operation Barbarossa. Stalin was given a warning but he refused to head it. Churchill also saw the attack as inevitably flowing from the program which was outlined in Hitler's book Mein Kampf. As a result of Stalin's refusal to accept the warning the Germans were able to achieve enormous gains in the initial part of the invasion. This book is the most recent attempt to examine that period and to explain why Stalin acted as he did.

The book suggests that Hitler's decision to attack the Soviet Union was in fact not something which was cast in stone. Hitler and the German High Command also looked at alternate plans to end the war in Africa by the seizing of Gibraltar. Whilst this occurred Stalin seized a buffer zone in Romania and started to negotiate with Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. It would seem that it was the Soviet Policy in the Balkans which led the German leadership to decide on Barabarossa.

Stalin at all times is portrayed in the book as totally pragmatic in deciding foreign policy. The Soviets in fact had more complete spy networks than the British. Stalin made on fatal miscalculation and that related to his assessment of the power structure in Germany. He believed that the German leadership was split on whether an invasion of Russia should occur. He thought that it would be possible to negotiate and to gain time through some form of appeasement. The reality was that although some German figures such as Ribbentrop were against Barbarossa they had no real power. The German ambassador to the Soviet Union fanned these hopes. He in fact hoped that Germany would not invade and ended up joining the plot against Hitler in 1944.

Stalin realised when France fell that the Soviet Union was in great danger. Not only did Germany have the best army in Europe but the Red Army was in disarray. The purges meant that 70% of serving officers had only been in their positions for less than a year. There were substantial problems in supplying units with ammunition and fuel. The T 34 tank had just been put into production and deliveries were slow.

Stalin hoped that if Germany was to invade Yugoslavia it would set back their time table by a month and delay the invasion of the Soviet Union by a year. Instead the crushing of Yugoslavia only took a few days. Stalin was eager for his army to remain passive and that it not provoke the Germans. He in turn hoped to stall events whilst Soviet factories cranked out munitions and tanks to try to get the Red Army in shape. When the warning came from Churchill to Stalin he was aware of the German preparations. It was viewed by the Russians however as an attempt to embroil them in the war rather than anything else.

In recent years some revisionists have suggested that there was some chance that the Soviets might attack Germany first. The book shows that this could not have happened. Zhukov raised the issue but Stalin was not keen because of the state of the Army. Zhulov himself later suggested that if a spoiling attack had taken place the Germans would have defeated it easily captured Moscow in 1941. A first class book which explains the moves prior to the German Soviet War.

I bought the book in March 1998...and sincerly it isn't as good as it looks.......

The bad surprise of this book is a lot of errors like typographical, wrong named or wrong wrote corners of circuits (more than a half at Interlagos !), some inexact text information, wrong lap record (Monaco 97 in a wet race !).A excess of photos of some cars (Ferrari and Sauber !), and some lacklustre and out of focus photos (start at Spain). Facts flinged at random in the circuits drawings. It is missing a datasheet with a annual summary of the winners, speed, fast lap, pole position; also the former circuits drawings (in small picture) to show the modifications through the years. The beautiful 2 page circuits drawings, some photos of the past and a fair price it is not enough to avoid the disappointment with this book, which it is not in the same high level of the other books of the celebrated author.

I must admit that I am relatively new to F1 racing. In 2001, I saw most of the races, and part of the way into the season, I bought this book to use as a reference as I watched the races live on TV. I am VERY glad I did because it enhanced my viewing greatly.

It was nice to open the book up to the Hockenheim page, for example, to see the chicanes, the long straightaways, the S-curve into the stadium section, etc. TV coverage might have one graphic that shows the whole circuit, but with the book beside me on the couch, I can refer to it throughout the race.

I like how the tracks are laid out on the pages. The tracks are colorful, they detail general speeds at various points on the track, and they feature a footnote about a famous incident or two over the years.

I know that there are more comprehensive books out there about the F1 circuits, but for a guy just getting into the sport, the book was PERFECT for me.

Interesting, but nothing I haven't seen before. People (which I think mostly are ...) who believe in the story of Anna Anderson being the Grand Duchess wouldn't like this book. I'm quite sure about these DNA tests, but then again, one would be better off buying The Final Chapter by Massie which explains everything and I mean everything (except for a few things scientists forgot, like Tatiana being the missing daughter). As for knowing of the visit in 1916? Letters to his wife and from are all about being at the front. Ernst was not in Russia, although it is common knowledge Nicholas wanted to settle the war at the Hague.

I thought the book was excellent. I am 12 years old and have been very interested in the Romanovs since the age of 11. (I'm turning 13) I thought the book was so good I finished it in a day! I personally believe that Anastasia didn't survive, though I wish had, she didn't. The only thing I can say about Anna Anderson is that she must have been smart and lucky to be able to fool the people she did. With the information in the book I came to the conclusion that Miss Anderson wasn't her since she refused to do the tests and that there pretty much seemed to have given it away. The real Anastasia wouldn't have refused for giving DNA tests because she was the REAL Anastasia. So I think Anna Anderson was sly yet smart, but wasn't the real Anastasia. I suggest this book to any one who is interested in the Romanovs.

It seems that the only evidence that supports the fact that Anna Anderson was not Anastasia was the DNA tests.

Too many people have chosen to forget the evidence that supports Anna Anderson's claim to be Anastasia.

The intimate knowledge she had of the Grand Duke Ernest of Hesse visit to Russia in 1916, the fact that she had the same problem with her feet as Anastasia, and of course the fact she could speak English, German and French and understand Russian, this would have to be a remarkable feet for a poor Polish factory worker.

It seems to be forgotten that in 1977 a prominent forensic expert, idetified Anna Anderson to be either Anastasia or an identical twin.

As for the DNA results, consider this. Even today the Romanov family are one of the most powerful familys that exsist in the world today. For them to cover up the actual results of the test so as to save face, would be a simple task. And why would they want to do this? Because the Romanovs doe not want the world to know the truth, and that is that they new Anna Anderson was the Grand Dutchess Annastasia but denied her, her title and her inheritence for pure greed.

Tim Moore is a travel-writer wanna-be; a man who desperately wants to write a book but has nothing to write about. The premise of this book showed great promise: drive across continental Europe in an attention-magnet of a car and see what happens. But the writer totally wimps out! At every turn and destination he minimizes the contact the European public has with his Rolls-Royce - out of wimpy fear that the RR hood ornament or hubcaps may be stolen - by leaving it safely at the periphery of the great places he visits and taking public transportation to the city centers. The result is a travel log no more interesting to experience than Aunt Ethel's slide show of her weekend trip to Detroit. The travel writer delights in relating the sometimes funny, sometimes awful, but always interesting things that happen during great adventures. All Moore can do is relate the funny and awful things that happen due to his own chronic incompetence and stupid decisions. Memo to Tim: relating the strange things you experience due to your own idiocy as you watch Europe go by from the driver's seat of a worn out Rolls-Royce isn't adventure writing. It's pathetic. My advise for people interested in reading good travel writing: look to Tim Cahil, Bill Bryson, David Sedaris, Paul Thoreaux, etc.

Grand Tour is an unusual work for Tim Moore - in addition to his usual generous helpings of laughter, he also serves the reader a fair amount of information and some poignancy.

I think the alterations in Moore's usual style arise from his subject, Thomas Coryate, whose 1608 trip through the Continent inaugurated the British tradition of the grand tour (Coryate also introduced the fork, the umbrella, and the travel narrative to his native land). Coryate was a serious and pompous traveler who couldn't resist copying down every engraving and measuring every column he encountered. Moore responds by doing some actual research and interrupting his usual hysterical rants with actual facts.

Unfortunately, Moore hasn't quite mastered seamless blending of information and narrative, and as a result this book is a bit slower and denser than his other two books. And although Moore manages to evoke quite a bit of sympathy and sadness for Coryate, he never seems totally comfortable with more serious writing. The result is a somewhat uneven book that takes a while to get moving.

But Moore finally hits his stride while writing about Venice, and Grand Tour takes off. The last half of the book is laugh-out-loud funny, a marvelously fun romp that makes the whole book worth reading. And Moore throws in a few unusual extras on top of the laughs; he conveys a clear picture of the Europe of 1608 as well as the Europe of today, and an even clearer picture of Thomas Coryate. Though much of the book had me rolling with laughter, I finished with a lump in my throat for the man Moore calls "poor old Tom."

All in all, Grand Tour is well worth buying. However, if you haven't read any Tim Moore, this book probably isn't the best place to start - try Frost on My Moustache or French Revolutions first.

Simply the best, quirkiest, and most amusing travel writing I have read (with apologies to Bill Bryson and Peter Mayle). Amusing travel experiences may be common, but Tim Moore has a unique and enviable ability to catalogue and narrate them in hilarious detail. His research into the Grand Tour memoirs of Coryate and others provides a complementary and edifying dimension. My experience with this book has moved Frost on My Moustache to the top of my reading list.

I *love* amazon.com, and am an avid patron --- and of course I realize that (like Oliver Cromwell, who had to *order* the artist to be truthful and thorough when painting his portrait) this great site *has* more than a few warts, but they are seldom painted, and I keep coming back to the site. Well, wart-wise, this book has got to be one of the *biggest* blemishes amazon.com has...especially for real Romanov buffs! The text is sadly, embarassingly mundane, and quite obviously s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-s to make what's written into a dull book of the "commercial quickie" variety; in fact, the book reads as though someone has taken some short (very short) essays turned in by Late Tsarist Russia 101 students, laid them out on a carpet, and figured out how to cobble them together and say "Look, folks! A book!" The early material covered (i.e., birth through Bolshevik Revolution) is very complex, has been done oh! these many times (and much better, by the way) and in this book, reads poorly as a bad sledge trying to cross the frozen Neva, and is just about as dull due to the skimpy, surface writing; the condensation of *years* of tumult into a few brief, brittle chapters. The majority of the book --- dealing with Xenia and her close *and* her extended family's lives post-Revolution --- is a bit more interesting (but unfortunately 90% of that interest comes not from any treatment of Xenia's real *self*, not from her fleshing-out as a woman with thoughts and emotions and social and political interests and efforts of her own, not from the effects *she* may have had on anything or anyone, but from the lives of the men and women who surround *her*.) There is no real Xenia in this book, only her surrounding context, and she moves through these pages like a hollow rag doll. You'll find a few photos --- if you're as unfortunate as I am, and actually buy this book --- but even here, some of the photos are nearly identical to each other, and set a page or two apart, or even on the *same* page. Given the padded, poorly written, poorly researched contents of this book, the price is outrageous...

For me, the upshot is a re-reading of `A Lifelong Passion: Nicholas And Alexandra'. Now even in the 20 years of letters that are mostly by Nicholas and Alexandra to each other, there are numerous letters/excerpts from and to Xenia in `A Lifelong Passion' which give a *much* better idea and feel of "Xenia" than *this* bland lollipop of a book! And meanwhile, I'll just go on waiting for someone to come along and write Xenia's *real* biography...

This book is the first full length biography of Tsar Nicholas II's sister Xenia. Xenia is less well known than her brothers Nicholas and Michael or her younger sister Olga, whose biography/memoir The Last Grand Duchess by Ian Vorres, was published in 1964 and recently republished in paperback. Part of the reason for this is that Xenia was the "good girl" of the Romanov family. She married young to her cousin Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich and raised a family that included one daughter and six rambunctious boys. She was not a rebel like Olga or Michael, both of whom had very public marital difficulties and tended to be embarrassments to the Tsar before the Revolution. Nor was she in the spotlight like the Tsar and his family, so that her life was exhaustively chronicled. She and her husband Sandro married for love, later fell out of love and conducted discreet affairs with others, and in general lived quiet lives. During the Revolution they escaped to their palace in the Crimea where they lived until rescued in 1919. From then on Xenia lived quietly, mainly on the charity of her cousin King George V of England, until her death in 1960. She seems primarily to be of interest because she was the Tsar's sister and the mother-in-law of Prince Felix Yussoupov, one of Rasputin's murderers.

This book tends to be a bit dull because there is very little first hand information that come directly from Xenia. We never get the full names of her lover or lovers, for example. Much of what we are told is extrapolated, for instance we are told that Xenia was shocked by Rasputin, but there seems to be no evidence that she ever met him! (Olga's memories of Rasputin are among the most compelling sections of The Last Grand Duchess). Because there seems to be so little real information about Xenia's own personality, the authors spend an inordinate amount of time on unnecessary details, like for example, who her visitors were on her birthdays and what they wrote to her in letters (Few of Xenia's own letters seem to have been located and used.)

So this is a fairly interesting book with some new details about Xenia's life and family, but by reading it you are not going to feel that you knew her or have any real sense of what she was like as a person.

Grand Duchess Xenia is usually a shadowy figure in most books about the Romanovs. She usually gets a mention as Nicholas 2nd'sister and will appear in some of the family portraits, along with a mention that she spent the years after the revolution in a grace and favour flat in London. Past this information is usually scanty.

This is the first full biography of Xenia's life. The first section dealing with her life as a member of the imperial family in Russia is not terribly enlightening. This is probably a reflection of lack of documentation available, and the fact that Xenia was naturally a shy and retiring person.

Where this book comes into it's own and provides masses of new information is in dealing with Xenia (and the Royal families) experience in the Russian revolution and in her life in exile after the revolution. Xenia became the hub of a large family and the focal point of many émigrés in her long exile and this book brings that into focus at last.

This book also has a pile of new Romanov illustrations, though sadly missing any of Xenia in all her court finery, we do get to see photos her large extended family at last.

This book is actually a UK publication, and can be bought cheaper at amazon.co.uk

If you are interested in the life of the Romanov survivors after the revolution this a book worth buying.

As a scientist familiar with quantum theory, but not a physicist, this book was very frustrating to read. I felt satisfied neither as a layman or a physical chemist. The book quoted several key concepts of superstring theory but did not really explain them in a way that I felt gave me more than a very superficial overview of the field. The digression into twistors was made at a point where more space could have fruitfully been spent adding flesh to the concepts presented early in the book.

The book starts of good and in chapter 7 he breaks of completely from superstrings and starts talking about some new unheard of idea of things called twisters. This would not be bad but twisters are supposed to replace spiners. Spiners to the uninformed are just a very small part of superstring theory.An example is writing a book on a 1998 Corvette and writing about the car for 6 chapers, then the other chapters are about the plug wires. Very Disapointing. If you want to read about some real superstring theory buy any book by Michio Kaku, much, much better books. They actually stick to what they say their about.

This book is non-technical -- it has almost no equations, but is well-illustrated. Just having finished it, I feel it gave a good sense of the major issues involved in this still highly speculative and uncertain field. Readable summary of the state-of-the-art in 1988. Author condescends nicely to the reader: he takes pains to repeat over and over, in slightly varying words, the technical points; this made book wordy; but it was a good strategy since, w/o equations, these esoteric ideas come across vaguely at best. Repetition allows at least "ear knowledge" of the jargon. Please don't expect much more at this level.

Like another reviewer, I was not happy with one-third of the book being devoted to twistors, since these strike this outsider as higher on mathematical elegance than on physical content. I will not fault Peat, however, for doing this since: A) due to his friendship with the Penrose Twistor group he is specially qualified to popularise this subject, and B) the Twistor program, a child of Penrose's brain, is rich in guiding principles, and provides therefore a healthy antidote to the superstrings, which grew up higgeldy-piggeldy by a sequence of "accidental" discoveries -- "It seems to work, but, heck, we don't really know why." Twistors have been less a matter of trial and error. At least they work well for massless particles. (Sidelight: In a blackboard discussion w/ Penrose at Cal Tech that I chanced to overhear about 25 yrs. ago, Feynman told Penrose that no one had succeeded in making massless fields cohere together so as to act like massive fields.)

It's so sad that a recognized leader of an international church can so publicly mutilate the words of God and go virtually unchecked. I found errors and blatant misinterpretations on virtually every page of this book. It was so distressing to me that I could not finish it.

The problems began even before the first page... in the very TITLE itself. "A marvelous Work and a Wonder", a reference to Isaiah 29:14, is claimed by the author to be a prophecy pointing to Joseph Smith. However, Mat 15:7-8 clearly indicates that this exact same prophecy is specifically fulfilled in Jesus Christ, God in the flesh.

The abominable butchering of God's word continues non-stop throughout the first few chapters, and I'm quite certain it continues on throughout... If you are going to read this book, make sure to check out every reference and read each one IN FULL CONTEXT. The overwhelming errors will be plainly apparent.

This book was given to me by a former Mormon missionary that I worked with. He and I had been discussing Mormonism versus Christianity. Rather than debating many of the strange Mormon doctrines that have been taught over its 200 year history, I decided to stay with one subject: historical validity of the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith called the Book of Mormon the foundation of the Mormon faith and the cornerstone of their religion. He said that a man could get closer to God by obeying its precepts above any other book on earth. Smith also claimed that it was the most correct of any book on the earth. I challanged my Mormon friend to find my one evidence for the Book of Mormon to be taken as historically acurate. Mind you, I did not ask him to prove to me its theological content but only its historical content for if its historical content cannot be proven, why believe what it says theologically? He brought me this book. I read it in three days, marked it up pretty good, and brought it back to my Mormon friend. My conclusions: the LDS Church still is serching for historical evidence for the Book of Mormon. I have here in front of me a copy of a statement put out by both the Smithsonian Institute and the LDS leaders. The Smithsonian letter denies the content of the book of Mormon as being historical and views the material as only religious in nature with no archeological evidence to support its claims. The LDS leaders, in reply, ask "Why question what the Lord has decided to keep hidden?" I for one question. I question all things (1 Thess. 5:21). I am not a Christian because I have prayed and feel its right, I am a Christian because of historical evidence to support the claims of the Bible (2 Peter 1:16-21). Christianity alone is the only religion based not on the teachings of Jesus as much as on the historical evidence of Jesus' death and resurrection. Buy this book. Read it. Study it. But don't believe something simply because someone tells you its true. I believe I can fly btu that does not mean its true. My subjective truth will hit objective reality when I test it. Do that with Christianity, Mormonism, Islam, etc. You will find Jesus to be true (John 14:6).

I read A Marvelous Work and a Wonder several years after joining the church. I really wish I had the opportunity sooner. It should certainly be recommended to every investigator or new convert. While Richards does not delve into as great of depths as, say, Talmage or Nibley, this book is perfect for starters. It is a quick and easy read with many scripture references. Basically this book outlines basic LDS doctrines and supplies a scriptural basis (mostly Biblical) to support the claims. I found it very inspiring and an essential background for anyone considering a mission.

There really isn't much to say about Chief Justice Rehnquist's book. _Grand Inquests_ is an inquiry into the impeachments of Justice Chase and President Johnson but the inquiry is done without any real depth or serious historical research. It's a bland recounting of basic facts of the cases that, as Richard Bernstein has already pointed out, ignores most of the relevant studies of this subject. Basically Rehnquist presents a great deal of the immediate detail but fails to place the events firmly in the context of the times. Also he regularly adds in completely irrelevant material, such as in the discussion of Chase's actions as a trial judge he cites his experience in litigation during the 1950s and 60s, which can have practically no bearing on the subject of the trial procedures of 1800. If you're looking for a long winded presentation of the details of individual charges and descriptions of testimony heard by the Senate during these trials than you may enjoy this book. Otherwise any competent constitutional history can provide just as good a discussion in only about ten pages.

I reviewed this book for the JOURNAL OF AMERICAN HISTORY when it first appeared, and nothing that has happened in the seven years since 1992 has changed my mind. Chief Justice Rehnquist writes clearly and well, but his research and historical perspective are sadly outdated. For example, he accepts the hoary myth that there was no good reason at all to consider Andrew Johnson an appropriate target for impeachment, despite Michael Les Benedict, THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL OF ANDREW JOHNSON (New York: W. W. Norton, 1973), a fine study showing that Johnson deliberately violated many Congressional civil-rights and Reconstruction statutes validly enacted over his veto, that he also sought to gut efforts to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, and that ultimately he deliberately provoked the 1868 attempt to remove him from office. Moreover, Rehnquist's analysis of the impeachment and trial of Justice Samuel Chase fails to situate it in the context of the previous year's impeachment, conviction, and removal of U.S. District Judge John Pickering, or the larger battle between Jeffersonian Republicans and Federalists over the control of the nation's judiciary -- a context without which the Chase impeachment is all but impossible to understand. Readers seeking light on this subject should consult Richard E. Ellis, THE JEFFERSONIAN CRISIS: COURTS AND POLITICS IN THE YOUNG REPUBLIC (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971; Norton paperback, 1973).

Chief Justice Rehnquist's book extols executive and judicial independence -- unexceptional and unexceptionable positions, to be sure -- but he also implicitly denounces the actions of democratically-elected legislatures -- a position more open to question, even as it is consistent with much of his constitutional jurisprudence as shown in Sue Davis, JUSTICE REHNQUIST AND THE CONSTITUTION (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988).

Ultimately, perhaps, readers may value this book for its potential illumination of the presiding officer over the Senate's trial of President Clinton, but it adds little or nothing to our understanding of the history and law of the impeachment process. -- Richard B. Bernstein, Adjunct Professor of Law, New York Law School

It's obvious to the reader that Chief Justice Rehnquist has a good command of the subject he is discussing, which are the political and the historical implications of two very important impeachment decisions in the U.S. My only criticism was really that the book delves into a lot of history and one begins to wonder why, but then the relavence to the impeachments is made clearer as the reader progresses through the book. History enthusiasts may find it somewhat redundant in that respect, but the conclusions are well drawn and the American political system is shown for what it has always been- alive with partisanship and designed, through the constitution, to put at least a small roadblock to allowing one branch of government or party from completely dominating.

The biggest drawback of this book is its sometimes florid prose which detracts from the history itself. The Grand Canyon is such a great American cliche that reading about it seems trite, but Pyne manages to breathe quite a lot of life into it. He attempts to bring all of European intellectual history to bear on the history of the Canyon. He describes 3 Ages of Exploration and the principal ideas and explorers of each--he describes in some detail the burgeoning geologic knowledge of the late 1800's and devotes as much space to the human representation of the Canyon in art, relating Canyon art to European art movements. He describes the advent of commercialism, of the ecology movement and its principal spokespersons, and of the Canyon in music. He describes how the 3rd Great Age of Exploration--space exploration--has resulted in the canyon being reduced in geologic importance because of the advent of new theories of planetary history, discovered through plate tectonics and impact craters.

This book is a great intellectual history of a subject that tends to be considered so trite as to be mundane. In the course of the 20th Century the wonders of the Grand Canyon have been so often noted that they have become a cliche of commercialism. Pyne takes us back to the Spanish explorers and helps us to understand why their intellectual powers were inadequate to interpret the meaning of the Canyon when they first encountered it. Pyne describes 3 great ages of exploration, and devotes considerable space to the explanation of the geology of the canyon, first discovered in the late 1800's by John Wesley Powell and his associates. He also makes frequent reference to the human representation of the Canyon in art; he considers this, it would appear, to be as significant as its geology. He relates this art to the modernistic movements in Europe. He describes the advent of commercialism and of the ecology movement by men like Joseph Wood Krutch, who wanted the Canyon maintained in its pristine state for the enjoyment of all. He describes how the Canyon has become less important in scientific circles with the advent of the theory of plate tectonics and of crater impact zones, of space exploration.

Pyne puts the Grand Canyon in the context of world history with numerous references to the "First, Second, and Third Ages Of Discovery", the first represented by Coronado, the second represented by Powell, the third represented by space exploration, and with numerous references to geology, (somewhat surprisingly) to art, and to nature writing. This book details the extensive geologic exploration of the canyon in the late 1800's, the art it produced, and the effects of European trends in art on the Canyon art, and the changing view of the canyon as a result of space exploration and environmentalism. A lucid and compelling work.

Mr. Friedman's first book, "Reasonable Doubt" was quite promising, but his second one, "Inadmissable Evidence" turned out to be a blabbling torture, yet regretfully even further, the "Grand Jury", his 3rd book, has become so frustatively bored when you tried to read along. At first, it looked quite interesting and promising, but then, it lost its steam in the later pages of the first part. I've struggle a lot trying to read on, but became so mad against those main and/or supporting characters. You know what I did finally? I tore up the paperback in half and threw it to the bedside floor! A total 690 pages blah, blah, blah, and it should be shrunk at least 250 pages, and then, it might become more readable and not so frustrated.

I thought this book was very well written. I'll admit, I was attracted by the author, not the synopsis. Drug wars and international intrigue are not something I usually read about but this book kept me entertained and wanting to read more throughout.

I enjoyed every minute of this read! The book pulled me into another world, and coming "back," I have to say the journey was MARVELOUS - great plot, interesting characters (not the always-bright and boringly-beautiful types of other books I've read, but real people). The unexpected plus was that I learned a lot along the way - about grand juries, China and Hong Kong, etc. Now that I've read INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE and REASONABLE DOUBT, though (Mr. Friedman's other books), I should know to expect such finesse from this author!