Stinnett constructs a strong but circumstantial case that FDR knew in advance of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Copious footnotes refer back to the extensive research underlying his claims -- I don't know why another reviewer claimed the book is based on "discredited sources" when 90% of the footnotes are to declassified military documents obtained via FOIA.

The book does have a couple of weaknesses. First, the evidence as to FDR's knowledge is circumstantial. Clearly, Navy officers knew or had every reason to know that Pearl Harbor was to be attacked, and for whatever reason the Navy failed to warn Adm. Kimmel and in fact actively discouraged him from shoring up his defenses. Clearly, FDR's intention as of 1940 (at the latest) was to provoke Japan into attacking the US, giving him the excuse he needed to enter the war. What is not as clear is whether Roosevelt knew specifically of Pearl Harbor in advance. Stinnett builds a strong circumstantial case that FDR knew, but it's not a smoking gun.

Second, Stinnett lays out reams of documentary evidence, but he often fails to satisfactorily explain and interconnect the evidence to the reader. Compounding that problem is Stinnett's failure to tie all the evidence together in a closing chapter. Having read the book, I feel as if I were a juror who sat through 6 months of detailed testimony about a murder, but was denied hearing a closing argument from the prosecutor to "connect the dots". I know he's guilty, but I'm not exactly sure why.

Despite these weaknesses, Stinnett's work is a valuable contribution and gives enough evidence to justify the commonly-held belief that FDR, for better or worse, is responsible more than any other party for getting the US into WWII.

Mr. Stinnett's book contains valuable documentation showing that the U.S. had decrypted both diplomatic and military codes of Japan. As a result, Stinnett shows that FDR not only knew of the coming attack on Pearl, but he ensured its success by clearing the northern Pacific of U.S. Navy reconnaissance vessels. Further, he arranged communications so that Admiral Kimmel would not be informed of the approaching Japanese fleet -- thus setting him up to "take the fall" for the attack. That FDR would adopt such a course of action is not surprising when one considers his betrayal of his closest associates -- not least of whom was his own Vice President Wallace (in the 1944 election) in favor of Truman. Remember that he kept assuring Wallace even as he solicited Truman. Further, his attempts to ignore information about Stalin's actions in the Ukraine (starvation of 10 million) and to suppress information about the Katyn massacre of Polish soldiers by Stalin -- this time so that he would not alienate Polish-American voters -- bear further witness to his lack of character if a course of action would help him obtain a goal. Stinnett claims that FDR sought war against Germany and that he could do this by provoking war with Japan. This claim is supported in two ways: First, FDR was aware of an intercepted diplomatic message between the Japanese ambassador and Von Ribbentrop, the German foreign minister. In the message, Von Ribbentrop states that Germany would join Japan immediately if Japan went to war with the U.S. Furthermore, FDR's cabinet member, Harold Ickes has stated: "For a long time I've believed our best entrance into the war would be [via] Japan...which will inevitably lead to war against Germany." This clearly answers the objection of many -- and a correct one if one does not consider the agreement just described -- that Germany did not otherwise seek war with the U.S.
Furthermore and not surprisingly, many critics of this book who post at this site prefer to use illogical and emotional attacks instead of reason. For example, simply to call something a "conspiracy theory" is not enough to damn Mr. Stinnett's book. In children's circles, this is simply called "name-calling." In adult circles and in debate, this kind of thinking is usually dismissed for what it is -- as an example of either: (1) card stacking since it seeks to prevent consideration of "inconvenient" information or (2) an appeal to the gallery, which seeks to capitalize on the prejudices, ignorance, or preconceptions of the hearers without addressing Stinnett's content at all. This type of statement should immediately remove from serious consideration the opinion of those who offer it because a sneer is not an argument. It is the very same type of behavior used by the pope when he instructed Galileo Galilei to deny what he saw when he looked through his telescope and observed a number of celestial phenomena that did not correspond to the "approved" facts of the time. Critics of this book would -- at another time -- have insisted upon a flat earth.

Stinnett's "Day of Deceit" is, without a doubt, the most important book ever written about World War II. His spectacular research effort, in the now declassified intelligence files preceding Pearl Harbor, reveals an evil that corrupts Washington to this day. Every premise, every assumption, every statement by military and political leaders-nearly every "fact"- about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor are now proven to be lies. Stinnett proves that FDR and other leaders were actually tracking the Japanese fleet across the Pacific- right up to the moment of attack. They were fully aware the purpose of the fleet was to attack Pearl Harbor. It is a stunning tale of horror and betrayal that cost the lives of more than 2000 soldiers who perished on Hawaii. Worse yet, tens of thousands of American soldiers and sailors would perish as POWS under the Japanese. They died as a direct result of FDR's deliberate plan to place our military in harm's way- then deliberately hiding the Japanese plans to attack. Their lives were sacrificed for FDR's political agenda to force America into war on behalf of England.

Stinnett should be awarded every accolade for his yeoman work. He has cracked open the door for the truth to emerge.

The millions of working class Americans who immediately felt the relief of FDR's new deal policies don't need a "conservative perspective" on the subject. This is a dry and compromised narrative that was written only to supply a contrary viewpoint with little regard to actual fact.

Professor Best produces an array of primary sources to demonstrate that Roosevelt--by his persistent hostility to business--retarded recovery from the Great Depression throughout the 1930s. He uses poll data, quotations from the diaries and correspondence of Morgenthau and others, and newspaper reports to weave together a chilling but well documented account of how FDR retarded recovery and then further blamed businessmen when the economy stalled. Roosevelt, according to the documents, was astonishingly irrational and egotistical in philosophy, but very clever in using federal dollars to gain votes and perpetuate himself in office. This is a five star book.

It's 1961 and cold as Christmas in the Rocky Mountains. Beautiful restaurateur Charming Delano has always lived like she wanted and to hell with the consequences, so why has she allowed herself to be arrested for a murder she clearly did not commit? Long-time friend, Professor Homer Negretti, is determined to find out, whether Charming wants his help or no.

College student (by way of the GI Bill) Eddie Meeker is the professor's easy-going legman and the novel's narrator. In the time-honored tradition of sideman to ecccentric master sleuth, Eddie is the one who gets to have all the adventures while the ice-coffee drinking Prof sits back and deducts. Eddie's a likable guy, and the reader is drawn along, puzzled but game (as is Eddie), trying to second-guess the game of cerebral chess Negretti plays with a ruthless killer.

First time novelist James Albert shows a knack for natural dialog and characterization, as well as a shrewd eye for detail: "A turn to the left into a gentle hollow dipped the light beam down across an aluminum-sided trailer house that was tucked into a grove of cottonwood trees, leafless for the winter. As I coasted to a stop, we were greeted by the warm light of burning kerosene shining from the windows into the sleet-misted night."

Dark and moody as shadows on a winter mountainside, CHARMING DELANO is a product of the traditional murder mystery school; an entertaining debut.

This is not a bad book, but is a breezy and non-scholarly look at the most important President of the 20th century. Miller's research is haphazard and he puts too much weight on witnesses who were unreliable and discredited by better historians. Miller grossly exaggerates the extent of FDR's womanizing in the 1910's and bases his assumptions on a witness who is a proven liar. A more methodical writer would have avoided this mistake.

Similarly, his take on the FDR-Eleanor relationship is also wide of the mark and inaccurate. His anti-Eleanor bias is evident and he makes several misstatements of fact. Blanche Wiesen-Cook's recent two-volume Eleanor books are the better and definitive treatment.

If you are serious about FDR, you will rely upon the superior books on him by Kenneth Davis, Geoffrey Ward and Frank Freidel.

Gellman passionately advances the notion that Hull's undersecretary, the notorious homosexual and wealthy Harvard man, Sumner Welles was responsible for everything usually credited to Hull, such as the founding of the United Nations. Welles was pro-Israel as is Gellman. Gellman dismisses Hull as being anti-semitic even though Hull's wife was of Jewish heritage.

A very biased account of an important period in American history which ignores all evidence counter to the author's position.

This collection of letters written by Eleanor Roosevelt from 1943-1962 documents this remarkable woman's service to mankind, and the bottomless well of compassion and love that was at the center of her being.

Of particular interest is her unusual and unfulfilled romantic attachment to two men: the author, Joseph P. Lash, and a doctor she met on a trip to Switzerland, Dr. David Gurewitsch.

The letters reveal her devotion to her children, who were a source of frequent disappointment and frustration. They also are a testament to her unbelievable energy. Mrs. Roosevelt's travel schedule, even in her final years, would be a challenge to the youngest and heartiest of globetrotters.

The book does have weaknesses. The author seems to make the assumption that the reader is either familiar with his earlier books about the Roosevelts, or has some other source of knowledge about Mrs. Roosevelt's relationships to the persons to whom she writes in A World of Love.

More background information about the recipients of the letters is needed throughout, and this is particularly true in the case of Mrs. Roosevelt's relationship to Mr. Lash and his wife, Trude. Also, the two should be included in the picture sections of the book. Perhaps the fact that they are not is a sign of the author's modesty but, nevertheless, it is a definite oversight.

A World of Love is a worthwhile read for any admirer of one of history's most dynamic and selfless women. But this book could have been a world better if the narrative had included more information about the people who were fortunate enough to attract Eleanor Roosevelt's attention and affection.

After a week using this book (and its Oklahoma sibling) we were very disappointed. The *content* of the book is, in general, very good, interesting and readable. The problem is with the layout. The author jumps about, geographically, so that you don't really know how close (or far) a place is. It's the same with the Oklahoma book. I will undoubtedly buy other books in this series when we are visiting other states, but next time I will spend some hours highlighting the place name on each page.

I do like tbhe concept of these books, and the information was useful, but the books are not "geographically intuitive"!
More maps, or just better layout, would improve these books a lot.

In Arkansas, we found several other guidebooks more usable and user-friendly, notably "Arkansas Roadsides" by Bill Earngey, "A Roadside History of Arkansas" by Paulson, and the "AAA TourBook for AR, KS, MO and OK". The best local information came from Arkansas State Parks in their brilliant series of leaflets!

I gave this book 2 out of five stars because it is informational. But the problem I found when looking at restaurants and places to stay that were in my area of the state I found many things were not right, such as spellings of names of restaurants. Also, she listed one place as only a restaurant and it is also a place to go for a weekend get away that is very neat. I only wonder about the rest of the information. It is fun to look at but I wouldn't use it as a guide when I travel to any of the places, lord knows I would probably be trying to get some place that did not exist as she had spelled it and look like a completely "dumb" tourist.

As with any guide, some information may have changed since the last edition. However, I thoroughly enjoyed the path this guide led me on. I discoved an Arkansas I never imagined! Restaurants were on the money! Accomodation recommendations exceeded my expectations! I felt the content was honest, objective, adequately descriptive and thorough. My only real complaint was the Cave City Motor Lodge recommendation. The book should be updated in regards to it being barely open for business and the "restoration" is rather slow in coming. We looked at the few guides available for Arkansas and we still think this one is best.

Arthur Schlessinger theorized that every thirty years, the political pendulum swings between the left and right wings. No surprise then, that nearly 60 years after his death, there has been a slew of books slamming Franklin Delano Roosevelt's wartime leadership. No surprise, either, is that this book is published by University of Missouri press, since Robert Ferrell goes out of his way to all but directly state that Missourian Harry Truman saved the world from the sick and incompetent FDR.

Ferrell's thesis is that FDR's poor health made him largely ineffective during his last year. His doctors had recommended four-hour work days. Ferrell fails to note that FDR largely ignored his doctors mandates, and continued to submit himself to a punishing schedule which included exhausting summit trips, numerous press conferences, and a re-election campaign. He arbuably worked harder that the physically healthier George W. Bush, and may have worked himself literally to death.

Ferrell's credibilty is obliterated by the ridiculous statement that FDR was nearly as incapacitated as was Woodrow Wilson in 1920. Wilson was a near vegetable following his stroke. But anyone who has read the minutes of the Yalta conference--which I doubt Ferrell has--will realize that despite his physical condition, FDR remained mentally sharp.

There is no denying that FDR was in poor physical shape during his last 15 months in office. He suffered from congestive heart failure and high blood pressure. Ferrell also presents the theory, neither denying nor endorsing it, that FDR may have had melanoma and/or stomach cancer, but there is no evidence for that. What were the root causes of FDR's decline? Common sense points to diet and excercise. FDR's diet during the white house years left much to be desired. For example, the President breakfasted every morning on scrambled eggs and bacon. Of course, in the 1940s far less was known about the dangers of cholesterol that today. Despite his paralysis, FDR tried to remains physically active and healthy by swimming daily. (His correspondence with Daisy Suckley indicates that he was mildly preoccupied with his weight, and he tended to "yo-yo" in weight during his first two terms in office.) As the war made greater demands on his time, he abandoned his excercise routine, which was accompanied by weight gain, loss of upper body muscle tone, and increasing blood pressure.

There is no doubt, also, that FDR husbanded his strength during his last year. He concentrated his work on two overriding goals: 1) Allied victory in World War II, with the greatest possible speed, and the smallest possible loss of Allied soldiers (four of whom were his own sons). 2) The creation of the United Nations as a means of preventing a Third World War, which FDR knew humanity would not survive.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was successful on both counts.

I couldn't help but contrast this book with the Bishop book, 'FDR's Last Year'. This writer paints FDR as someone and something far different than I've read in many, many other books. He most certainly was ill, he had poor medical care, and possibly he deceived the nation about his true condition. However, he also provided the nation with reassuring leadership and contributed to our war effort literally until his death. This book is poorly organized, but worse, is mean-spirited. Definitely a 'pass'.

Some have written that Ferrell's work is sloppy and depressing. I disagree. Ferrell does an excellent job of showing 21st Century readers just how different this country was 50 years ago. That the entire country could look at Roosevelt during his last run for office - and know that he was a dying man - and not know it at the same time, is amazing. This is the same country that couldn't deal directly with a President in a wheel chair. The country knew it, but didn't know it, all at the same time. How different was the relationship between the press and the White House!

The purpose of this book is not simply to drive home the point that Roosevelt was a dying man when he ran for a fourth term. The point of this book is about collective denial. The fact that most of the country suffered from it, used it, and both benefitted from it in some ways, and paid for it in others. Collective denial isn't much different from individual denial. It is a powerful mechanism that existed not only in the relationship between FDR and the country, but between FDR and himself. It also is the mechanism that allowed the United States to fight WWII to "make the world safe for democracy," while at the same time the country was somehow unaware of its own racist, anti-democratic values. Ferrell's book should be read within the context of the times, so that it may shed light on ours.

I find "Kansas Off the Beaten Path" (5th edition) to be an interesting guide to Kansas sights and attractions, but it seems to be loaded with inaccuracies.

Page 4 - "The term Huron is not really the name of a Native American Tribe..." Wrong - there is a Huron tribe.

Page 7 - "The Great Mall of the Great Plains - Kansas City" This is in Olathe - not Kansas City.

Page 38 - "Wealthy old Marblecrest Street has a panoramic view of the Marmaton River valley..." Marblecrest is neither wealthy nor old, and very little of it overlooks the river valley.

Page 38 - "The Good Ol' Days...is a celebration of life from the 1840s through today...." It is the recreation of an 1899 Street Fair.

Page 39 - "The Bourbon County Fair takes place the fourth week in July..." If you come then, you will miss it.

Page 41 - "Hollister Wildlife Area, 8 miles southwest of Fort Scott on Highway 69...." It's several miles off Highway 69.

Page 42 - "...Darnaby's Berry Farm and Country House...." It has been closed for several years.

Page 51 - The account of the Civil War battle: "...a total massacre of the Fort Scott troops." This is incorrect.

Page 130 - The account of Squaw's Den Battleground: "Their escape took them through eastern Kansas...." their route was in western Kansas.

This could be a really good guide to out-of-the-way attractions in Kansas, but I could not trust its accuracy. If there are as many mistakes in the rest of the book as in the portion with which I am familiar, I question its value. A book in its 5th edition should have those inaccuracies corrected. The authors need to recheck some of their information.

The book is interesting, but seems to have a number of inaccuracies. i.e., the location of the Branding Iron Restaurant (p. 45), the military bridge, "...one of only two remaining structures..."(p. 43)[the bridge was dismantled many years ago (maybe 20 years); "Wealthy old Marblecrest Street .." (p. 42), [I guess this is Marblecrest Drive; I would not call Marblecrest Drive wealthy or old]; the Battle of Mine Creek, "...fought near Trading Post..."(p. 42) [Mine Creek Battlefield is several miles from Trading Post; it is about two miles from Pleasanton.]

I find the book interesting, but with these inaccuracies in the areas with which I am familiar would cause me to be afraid to trust the book for areas in which I am not familiar.

This work is essentially a college textbook on the subject. While the author writes rather in considerable detail,the treatment is superficial despite some interesting observations re FDR & the issues of Pearl Harbor & Yalta. The book is laced with many photographs,some original. However,minor errors abound in the printing & the reference on page 49 concerning a photo taken from the film,"To Be or Not To Be" is totally erroneous in identifying Shemp Howard as the actor who played Hitler in the film. It was character actor Tom Dugan!