Book Description
In Battle Cry Of Freedom, James M. McPherson presented a fascinating, concise general history of the defining American conflict. With What They Fought For, he focuses his considerable talents on what motivated the individual soldier to fight. In an exceptional and highly original Civil War analysis, McPherson draws on the letters and diaries of nearly one thousand Union and Confederate soldiers, giving voice to the very men who risked their lives in the conflict. His conclusion that most of them felt a keen sense of patriotic and ideological commitment counters the prevailing belief that Civil War soldiers had little or no idea of what they were lighting for. In their letters home and their diaries -- neither of which were subject to censorship -- these men were able to comment, in writing, on a wide variety of issues connected with their war experience. Their insights show how deeply felt and strongly held their convictions were and reveal far more careful thought on the ideological issues of the war than has previously been thought to be true. Living only eighty years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Civil War soldiers felt the legacy and responsibility entrusted to them by the Founding Fathers to to preserve fragile democracy -- be it through secession or union -- as something worth dying for. In What They Fought For, McPherson takes individual voices and places them in the great and terrible choir of a country divided against itself. The result is both an impressive scholarly tour de force and a lively, highly accessible account of the sentiments of both Northern and Southern soldiers during the national trauma of the Civil War.
Customer Reviews:
Just Bad.......2003-10-24
This book was deplorable. It was obvious Dr. McPherson started out with some preconcieved ideas of what he wanted to prove with this book, and then he proceeded to force the data to meet his theories. In addition, the logic he used was overtly flawed. This was one of the worst Civil War books I've ever read. What a waste from a really good author.
What made a Civil War soldier fight?.......2003-09-12
This is a different kind of book about the Civil War. Instead of discussing all the "official" reasons for the war--in other words, instead of examining why Lincoln and Davis said the war was being fought--and instead of looking at the causes of the war from a philosopher's or idealist's point of view, James McPherson examines what really made men fight. After reading thousands of letters and scores of diaries of simple soldiers, McPherson attempts to explain why the men who participated in the actual combat of the war were there.
His process is simple. He looks at a group of Confederate soldiers (just under 400) and another of Union soldiers (a little over 500) and tries to discover what made them tick. In the book (which was originally a series of lectures), he quotes from many of them, and cites such causes as preservation of the Union, abolition of slavery, and individual liberty as reasons for fighting. Certain classes of soldiers are either over or underrepresented by his study, but McPherson makes allowances for these, and attempts to hypothesize what his data mean on a larger scale.
The Result? Basically, McPherson's study is a refutation of the recent scholarly belief that the common man fights in war more in a spirit of comradery than for any other ideal. In other words, men become dependent on each other, and fight to save their own skin and that of their buddies. While this may have been true for the world wars and other conflicts, McPherson alleges it was not the case for the Civil War. And he makes his case pretty well. From his sample, it appears that a great deal of Civil War combatants were actually fighting for something, and believed in the cause for which they struggled. For this reason, this book is essential to any study of the war. McPherson has broken new ground with this study and helped us to better understand the human side of the Civil War.
The finest of its kind.......1999-09-28
James McPherson's stunning work on the ideology of Civil War soldiers is a fascinating look at the lives of the remarkable men who fought in that bloody conflict. Its value, however, lies not so much in the examination of that ideology but in the disclsure that these men in fact had an ideaology at all, which comes through with stunning clarity as you read their letters and diarys.
McPherson's little book (it can be read comfortably in one sitting) is actualy the precurser to his equaly fine FOR CAUSE AND COMRADES, and readers would do well to read the two as a pair. But for those who want to at least begin to understand "what men fought for" thy can start in no better place than in "WHAT THEY FOUGHT FOR"
WHAT THEY FOUGHT FOR discussed on internet newsgroup.......1996-09-13
James M. McPherson's book, WHAT THEY FOUGHT FOR was the
subject of a two week discussion with the author on the
internet newsgroup soc.history.war.us-civil-war in August
of 1996.
To see a transcript of this discussion go to the web page
http://www.agoron.com/~furlanm/McPherson.html
Book Description
Our most prominent historian of the South takes on the most central question in American history. "An extremely good writer, [Ayers] is well worth reading…on the South and Southern history."—Stephen Sears, Boston Globe
The Southern past has proven to be fertile ground for great works of history. Peculiarities of tragic proportions—a system of slavery flourishing in a land of freedom, secession and Civil War tearing at a federal Union, deep poverty persisting in a nation of fast-paced development—have fed the imaginations of some of our most accomplished historians.
Foremost in their ranks today is Edward L. Ayers, author of the award-winning and ongoing study of the Civil War in the heart of America, the Valley of the Shadow Project. In wide-ranging essays on the Civil War, the New South, and the twentieth-century South, Ayers turns over the rich soil of Southern life to explore the sources of the nation's and his own history. The title essay, original here, distills his vast research and offers a fresh perspective on the nation's central historical event.
Customer Reviews:
Asking the hard questions.......2007-03-06
A few years ago I read Ayers' book, "In the Presence of Mine Enemies," and was deeply impressed by his learned refusal to bow to the prevailing orthodoxy of what this war was about. "What Caused the Civil War?" takes up that theme again, though in more compressed essays. In the one on "Worrying " about the War, Ayers takes us off the grand boulevard of easy explanation, and shows us the little side roads, crooked lanes and byways that we hadn't glimpsed before. Some of the reviewers complain that the title is misleading. It is, but only if you're looking for a ready-to-wear answer. If you're looking for something more intricate, that gets you actually thinking and appreciating how difficult the question really is, you could do far, far worse. Judged by that standard, the book earns 5 stars.
Interesting Academic Question.......2006-12-14
This book is interesting for academics only. It is a good discussion as to where civil war literature needs to go in the future. It is a reflection on why the southern perspective in the war has not been undertaken and it outlines Ayers efforts to develop this history further. The title DOES NOT REFELCT what is in the book. Overall though for academics of the civil war this really is a must read.
An excellent survey........2006-10-15
Historian Edward Ayers explores the South past and present in essays that blend his personal relationship to the South with a history of its culture and concerns. Don't expect a military history alone in WHAT CAUSED THE CIVIL WAR? REFLECTIONS ON THE SOUTH AND SOUTHERN HISTORY: chapters explore sentiments about the South both within and outside of it, argue its biggest problems are misconceptions held on all sides, and provide an excellent survey.
Diane C. Donovan
California Bookwatch
Confusing Title - Meandering Style.......2006-05-09
If you think you're going to find the answer in this book to what the title promised, then think again. Over the years, history of the Civil War, its causes and effects, has been "dumbed down" and simplified so that even a grade schooler can understand it. Slavery, of course, existed in this country since the late 1600's and indeed in several other countries throughout the world and didn't just "happen" in 1860 as many have been led to believe. And if this most bloody conflict, where 700,000 people perished, was solely about slavery, then why did every other country in the 19th Century where slavery existed, abolish it without firing a shot? A New York Times article from 1854 in describing slavery in this country, said this: "It was merely an incident of the real controversy....for possession of the Federal Government is what both North and South are striving for."
The author's meandering style throughout the book was entertaining, but did not fulfill anything except add pages to an already short book.
If you want to get an in-depth book on what this author tried to explain, then I would recommend, "The Coming of the Civil War" by Avery O. Craven which is well researched and explains in detail what Ayers' book could not.
You have to read carefully........2006-02-27
Ayers is in a tough spot. He works in the South and his reputation is in danger. He tries to have it both ways, but he does, here and there, reveal "What Caused the Civil War."
On page 132 he says, "No respected historian has argued for decades that the Civil War was fought over tariffs, that abolitionists were mere hypocrites, or that only constitutional concerns drove secession." So state's rights were not the cause.
On page 134 he says, "Southern white men did not fight for slavery; they fought for a new nation built on slavery." Here he is saying that the South took their divine right to enslave others for granted and they saw themselves carrying on a new nation built on that evil. Plus by saying that the white men did not fight for slavery, he gives the apologists a quote to use out of context in their blog arguments.
On page 142 he says, "What caused the Civil War? If you have to offer a one-word answer, go ahead and just say slavery." So the Civil War was fought over slavery. Can't be much plainer than that. He goes on to confuse things so that the apologists can salvage their positions, but the damage has been done.
Writing about the aftermath of the war he says on page 155, "The white South,a grieving survivor of its own history, played out stages of acceptance, rejection, and redefinition of defeat." Can there be any dispute about this? Many white southerners tell a masterfully revised story of the Civil War.
Still on the same subject he says in pages 155 and 156, "The defeated people understood themselves to be those whom God punished and tested because they best upheld his teaching and example. Defeat became moral purification. The cause for which they fought was blameless..." So the South was right all along, but they were being tested by God because God loves them for doing His bidding. Again Ayers is correct. The current South is extremely holier-than-thou. One would think that piety is the main ingredient in grits.
On page 156 he explains that a new strategy emerged, "If the white South could push back African-American advances, it could in a real sense still win the war." We know what happened then, it is called KKK and Jim Crow and political deals.
On pages 40 and 41 he says, "Polls show us that Americans from all over the country picture the South as looking backward." "... the South appears to be dominated by nostalgia and dullness." True, and true again.
"People have not merely made up this story from whole cloth. There can be no doubt that the South has been poorer than the rest of the country, less technologically advanced, more wedded to racial exploitation and segregation." He said it, I didn't. I can only agree with him because he said, "there can be no doubt."
On page 43 he says, "The South eagerly defines itself against the North, advertising itself as more earthy, more devoted to family values, more spiritual and then is furious to have things turned around, to hear itself called hick, phony, and superstitious. The South feeds the sense of difference and then resents the consequences of difference." This is easily proven. Simply take a position of doubt about the rightness of religion or southern institutions and duck. Fury follows.
So Dean Ayers is doing the best he can. He dribbles out a little bit of truth here and there while trying to stay below the searchlight.
Amazon.com
Warren Zimmermann was the American ambassador to Yugoslavia from 1989 to 1992, the period when the breakup of the Soviet empire caused the Balkans to slide into war. In this candid insider's account he recounts the failures of American and European diplomacy to prevent a catastrophe that was, according to Zimmerman, not only foreseeable but entirely preventable. The most chilling pages in this book depict Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, who looked the ambassador in the eye, puffed on his Italian cigarillos, and stated that "Serbia has nothing to do with Bosnia." Now, as U.S. troops prepare to pull out of Bosnia by the end of 1996, Zimmermann's memoir paints a bleak future for this war-torn corner of Eastern Europe.
Book Description
Yugoslavia's last American ambassador offers his personal, behind-the-scenes account of what happed to this doomed country and why. "The most concise and comprehensive answer to the central question, 'Why did this happen?'"--George Soros. of photos.
Customer Reviews:
An emotional impression of history........2007-07-24
The book is an interesting document mostly because it gives the reader an insight into the attitude of USA and partially the rest of western countries towards former Yugoslav nations and the Yugoslav union in general. The author who has served as an American ambassador in the critical years of the late federation gives us views that reveal the stench and dirt of international politics that disregard peoples rights, freedoms and relativises democratic principles in the "fear" of "bigger evil". His attitude towards the people of Yugoslavia, particulary in describing the life and personal contacts in yugoslavia is patronising to say at least. He emotionaly describes the great idea that stood behind a formation of a southern slavic state ignoring the problems the union had in the early beginings. He gives the reader short history of Yugoslavia forgetting some important facts, glorifies Yugoslav version of communism and ignores the human right abuse that the league of communists was responsible for. He puts confidence into certain "enlightned" communists whose belief in yugoslavia he liked not taking into consideration the situation in which the citizens of parts of yugoslavia were in - by ignoring the democratic aspirations and dissmissing them as nationalistic. He shows understanding to the reasons why people were dissatisfied with the state of federation but he favours the "strong hand", the communists to deal with the hot situation. In one sentence he puts blame on the late communist dictator Tito for holding the lid on what he calls "nationalism" and not dealing with it in the next sentence he likes the Slovenian and Croatian communists for having the same Titoistic ideals. He favours the elites (communists) to have better judgement without the mandate of the people against the newly emerging democratic forces that came from the people by uncritically dissmising them as "nationalists". He moralises about and regrets the lack of readiness for sacrifice in republics that were bullied by the biggest republic of the union. The view that is common in politicians and public servants is also present in Warren Zimmerman. His idea of elites leading the "volk", the "plebs" is shown in his theory that yugoslavia was broken from the "elites" down. The view is understandable considering this view may be closer to the truth in the US democracy that has a huge mass of people and a relatively small elite at the top level that concentrates and searcher for interests to represent but it is not the case in smaller countries where things tend to be more transparent and ties between people are closer (in a land of 22 millions you know "someone who knows someone who is married to someone else who is the prime minister)
Mr. Zimmerman in his historic overview omits a key fact. The beginning of Yugoslavia isn't the kingdom of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs but the State of Slovens, CRoats and Serbs. The detail may have seemed unimportant to the author but is key in understanding the tensions that were present in Yguoslavia untill it's end. Before this short lived state Slovenes and Croats were a part of Austro-Hungarian empire. Slovenes lived largely in one duchy of the Austrian part of the monarchy, most of what is now Croatia belonged to Hungarian part. Croats had more authonomy and even had their own king which was subordinate to the hungarian monarchs. Pan- slavistic movement in the Austro-Hunmgarian monarchy was strong because of the German rising nationalism which was culturaly and economically agressive towards the Slavic nations in the joint monarchy. Czechs, Poles, Croats, Slovenses and Serbs living in Austria-Hungary (Vojvodina, Bosnia, border with bosnia parts of Croatia) were in favour of decentralisation of the monarchy and recognition of their national rights and cultures specifics like language, school curriculum etc to prevent melting into one big German identity. This is also something that Mr. Zimmermann doesn't quite understand since the american view favour the "melting pot" ideology (that may be working in american case but coulkd never work in europe, not even EU). After WW1 and the apparent fall of Austria-Hungary the Slovenes, Croats and the reluctant fragmented serbs in of the former monarchy joined in a State of SHS. This country was not recognised by the West or by the East. Both imperailistic powers had their own ideas how to trade with eachother. Italians that changed sides in ww1 had apetites for Slovenian land, serbs (kingdom of serbia that nbot so long ago fought independence from turks) had apetites for Bosnia and Croatia to unite all serbs in one kingdom. The new State of SHS signed formed on 29th october 1918. Encouraged by the west and russia talks began with Kindom of Serbia to join both countries into a union. Kingdom of Serbia had diametrally opposite ideas than the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. The State of SHS wanted a federation, Kindom of Serbia insisted on serbian ruled monarchy. Nevertheless a treaty was signed to unify the two entities as a federation, but Serbia withdrew it's signature since they got signals from the WW1 winning allies and Russia that they favour a stronger role of Serbs in the Balkans. State of SHS was internationally unrecognised and forced into renewed negotiations how to unify the two states. International pressure helped to form a new state called Kingdom of Serbs, CRoats and Slovenes. The ruling monarcy was Serbian. The new Kingdom of SHS had major problems starting to function since the country had low support with the people that thought they escaped the German opressing power only to fall under another that considered them as war loot. The elections into the union parliament brought further problems and the Kingdom couldn't start to function because of different views of how the state should look - be a Serbo-centralised country or a decentralised union of Southern slavs as was the innitial idea behind the State of SHS. The fate was sealed with the Serbian monarchs actions that lead to a monarchic dictatorship (jan. the 6. dictatorship) in 1929 that "consolidated" the state changed it's name to Kingdom of Yugoslavia which was supposed to be a compromise: Yugoslavism was to be the new identity instead of Serb or Croat or Slovene. The problem was that this Yugoslavism was entirely serbian in character only the name was different.
This lenghty overview is just one of the things the author of the book doesn't even consider in idolising the idea of Yugoslavia. It is important because it shows that the country was not formed narturaly but with pressure from outside and with agresion of one side against the other. The author even states that there was nothing artificial in creation of Yugoslavia - Yes there were tendencies to unite southern slavs but on different basis. And yes - there were benefits even in this union but recent history has showed that each of the "yugoslav destroyers" (except of course Serbs) that supposedly had only benefits from the union made evfen greater succdess in much shortet time than when they were parts of the union. Slovenia is a relatively succesful small country that despite Zimmermans remarks that it produced second rate products that could only be sold in a closed market of the rest of Yugoslavia and would not survive in international economical arena is today the riches an most succesful country of the new members of European Union. Croatia is despite the bloody war that was waged against it still relatively succesful and on a good road to becoming a full member of the EU.
The text of the book would be a welcome material for anyone studying international affairs, history or history of the region. It would be especially welcome as a part of a compendium of different views on the matter.
Wow.......2004-06-17
Origins of Catastrophe is a book for everyone who likes to see how Yugoslavia was broken up before it even existed. Warren Zimmerman - a former Yugoslavian U.S. Ambasador writes frankly and in details on all his encounters with the Yugoslavian beasts that lived in Serbia's parliament.
When it comes to Kosovars long sufferings from serbs, he talks as if he were an Albanian but when it comes to Kosova's history he talks as if he were a Milosevic! He failed to mention Edith Durham's journals on Balkans in which she clearly explains that it was the Slavs who settled where Albanians always were at around 600 AD - but he doesn't failed to mention Rebecca West's 1184 pages book - more than half of them full of lies.
This book was published in 1996 and the serbs which Zimmerman blamed and praised in his book - revealed their true selves only after the 1999 Kosova War - so I am pretty sure that Warren Zimmerman now has an even harsher view on serbs and more sympathetic views when it comes to Kosova's independence which is inevitable. Slow or fast, it is getting downloaded!
After all this book became another treasure on my home library.
A memoir, NOT history........2003-02-17
This book should be read not just as a memoir, but as a memoir of a man with a guilty conscience. Many people hold Zimmerman responsible for sabotaging the 'Lisbon accord' a peaceful solution to the Bosnian situation brokered by the President of Portugal in March 1992. It was Zimmerman's 'hero,' former Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic, who mysteriously broke the accord and forced the Serbs to declare a independent state. Zimmerman spends much of the book trying to justify Izetbegovic's (and his own) actions.
Ivetbegovic it is worth noting was linked to the Bosnian-version of the Hitler youth in the 1940's and in the 1980's published a work, Islamic Declaration, a fundamentalist Islamic tract based largely on the teachings of Ayatollha Khomeni. How he became the darling of the Clinton administration is one of the great mysteries of modern diplomacy. Zimmerman fails to mention these salient facts about Izetbegovic and shows his gross ignorance of history in several other glaring omissions and errors. Most telling, while he admits the role of Croatian and Muslim fascists in the Holocaust in Yugoslavia, he numbers the victims at 'tens of thousands.' Holocaust reference detail between 600,000-1,000,000 Serbs died in the camps (along with the Jewish and Roma victims).
For those who assume I have some innate bias, I am not a Serbian, nor do I have personal connection to the region. I simply shudder, however, at the thought of Zimmerman?s work being taken as *serious* history. It is worth reading but deserves the highest degree of scepticism.
Diplomatic, but not afraid to point fingers.......2002-12-29
A memoir by the man who was US Ambassador to Yugoslavia during 1989-1992. Zimmerman, declaring that "Yugoslavia was destroyed from the top down," focuses especially upon how the political leaders there tore their country apart. He also blames the Serbian Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church in Croatia for their "disgraceful role by exacerbating racial tensions." Zimmerman criticizes Western Europe (and especially the British and French governments) for their early lack of concern as Yugoslav unity became imperiled.
A good introduction to the Fall of Jugoslavija.......2002-11-07
Despite the obvious biases and shortfalls to be expected in a book written by a former US Ambassador to Yugoslavia, the book is informative and useful in piecing together the complicated chain of events taking place simultaneously in the seperate Republics as the Federation crumbled.
The book does tend to minimize the role of the US and NATO forces and focus more on the domestic events driven by local power figures but all in all I would say that the author does an admirable job of writing a relatively short, concise book about a very complex story without losing too many of the vital facts.
This may not be the "definitive" book on the collapse of Jugoslavija but for the average reader it is certainly a good foundation from which to delve deeper.
Book Description
In "What Causes War?" Greg Cashman provides a new synthesis of a rapidly expanding field. His analysis of international conflict starts at the level of individual psychology and proceeds through levels of rational decision making to large-scale theories of international systems. Cashman covers topics such as human aggression and psychological explanations for war; governmental decision making; the state and international conflict; and stimulus-response and game theories and their relation to arms races and deterrence. As the first such analysis published in years, this book will be invaluable for classroom use and will provide a substantial addition to the existing literature.
Customer Reviews:
Heroic effort, but simplistic and biassed........2005-04-26
My copy of this book was published in 1993, but the 1999 edition available on Amazon appears to be the same book, a reissue, not a revision.
Prof. Cashman has performed the heroic task of creating a textbook accessible to undergraduates on a subject that continues to perplex the Henry Kissingers and Robert McNamaras of the world. He is honest enough to say in his summary chapter that he does not know the answer to the question he poses, nor does anyone else. In the process of coming to that conclusion, he provides an excellent survey of the various theoretical approaches to the problem of the causation of war, an accomplishment for which he gets 5 stars.
However, I have some significant criticisms of this book, which seems to be a standard text for undergraduate courses on warfare. My concerns are Prof. Cashman's tendency toward simplistic thinking and, for want of a better term, his "liberal" bias. By "liberal", I mean a belief that human beings are basically good natured creatures who will behave nicely if left unmolested by politicians and capitalist expoiters. This is the view espoused by Rousseau and by those thinkers on the Left who have followed in Rousseau's footsteps.
His belief that "the central imperative of our times is therefore to avoid wars of mass destruction; all other goals suffer in comparison" is not espoused by several other nation-states with which we share Planet Earth, not to mention the practitioners of terror. This leaves him in the end unprepared to follow the logic of his own research and study: If "one theme of this book is that if we can understand the causes of war, we should be better able to prevent their occurance", then Prof. Cashman should be able to come up with a better ending to his book than an exhortion to national leaders to "Do the right thing." Winston Churchill would no doubt have appreciated that insight during The Battle of Britain, but he might have wanted a little more detail as to how to determine just exactly what IS the "right thing". But Prof. Cashman admits that he can't tell us, so why does he get our hopes up in the first place?
Another concern is that Prof. Cashman frequently engages in evasive rhetorical tactics by grossly mischaracterizing the position of those with whom he disagrees. For example, he states:
"Those who believe that the fundamental cause of war is that humans are naturally aggressive take the position that all men (and women) are the same."
This is a caricature of the argument he opposes, not a fair statement of it, as would be obvious to anyone who has read Thucydides, Machiavelli, Calvin, Hobbes, Freud, and the framers of the American Constitution, not to mention numerous modern philosophers and historians and of course the sociobiologists. By resorting to such a caricature he undercuts the validity of his criticism and gravely weakens his overall argument.
I was motivated to write this review by the thought that Prof. Cashman has the question wrong. It's obvious to all but the most extreme believer in the "tabula rasa" that war is caused by human misbehavior of great variety and ingenuity. The real question is: What causes peace? And are we capable of finding a better answer than that of the Roman Vegetius: "Si vis pacem, para bellum": "If you would have peace, prepare for war"?
So far, the realistic answer is "No".
Should we continue to look for a better answer? Yes, but not at the price of making ourselves vulnerable to attack.
As a wise person once said, "The only thing worse than a war won is a war lost."
What Causes War?.......2000-05-17
Dr. Cashman's book provides the most complete analysis of the various theories regarding the causes of war. Considering the magnitude of the topic the book is very concise and truly offers a thorough "review of the literature" as the author phrases it. The reader need not be a student of political science or have a degree in the field to follow the language used in the volume. From the Nature v. Nurture debate to Groupthink the book provides an examination of the theories of various schools of thought on what causes war. I recommend this work to anyone interested in the subject!
It's like having one of Dr. Cashman's lectures in book form.......1998-06-09
With this book, I have the added advantage of knowing the author personally. In his book, Dr. Cashman does exactly what he states in the introduction--gives students of Political Science a 'review of the literature' in the causes of international conflict. It is an altogether servicable text that I found extremely helpful in his class. The book reflects his deep knowledge of his specialty of international relations, and his ability to present the material in an organized and methodical fashion. There are really no deep revelations in this book, becasue thats not really the point. It is a book designed to keep students taking these kinds of courses sane by providing them with one major text, and allowing for new and supplemental information to be added. I highly recommend it.
Product Description
Originally published in 1863. 20 pages. This volume is produced from digital images from the Cornell University Library Samuel J. May Anti-Slavery Collection
Average customer rating:
|
Criminal Violence: What Direction Now for The War On Crime?
Manufacturer: Mcgraw-Hill College
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
 Criminology
| Crime & Criminals
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Sociology
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Violence in Society
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
ASIN: 0070510814 |
Average customer rating:
|
The lake history stories
Louis Paul Benezet
Manufacturer: Scott, Foresman
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Unknown Binding
World War I
| Military
| History
| Subjects
| Books
General
| World War II
| Military
| History
| Subjects
| Books
ASIN: B00085K8OK |
Average customer rating:
|
What France is fighting for
Frederic R Coudert
Manufacturer: s.n
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Unknown Binding
World War I
| Military
| History
| Subjects
| Books
General
| World War II
| Military
| History
| Subjects
| Books
ASIN: B0008665KA |
Books:
- 1776
- A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier
- Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army
- Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons
- Chief of Station, Congo: Fighting the Cold War in a Hot Zone
- Chief of Station, Congo: Fighting the Cold War in a Hot Zone
- Cold War Submarines: The Design and Construction of U.S. and Soviet Submarines, 1945-2001
- Corps Commanders of the Bulge: Six American Generals and Victory in the Ardennes (Modern War Studies)
- Davis and Lee at War (Modern War Studies)
- Decimation: X-Men - The Day After (House of M)
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- The Blind Side: Evolution of a Game
- Hot Number
- Amphibian Monitoring in Latin America: A Protocol Manual
- Cockpit: An Illustrated History of World War II Aircraft Interiors
- Fodor's Washington, D.C. 2007: with Mount Vernon, Old Town Alexandria & Annapolis
- Josef Albers: To Open Eyes: The Bauhaus, Black Mountain College, and Yale
- Hallowed Bones
- An Album of Maya Architecture
- Building Type Basics for Places of Worship
- Pentose Metabolism in Bacteria
Myne Owne Ground: Race and Freedom on Virginia's Eastern Shore, 1640-1676
AN IMPERFECT GOD: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America
Soul by Soul: Life Inside the Antebellum Slave Market
Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War (Nation Divided: New Studies in Civil War History)
For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War
