Robert L. O'Connell

Well-researched and well-written, this is an engaging biography of William Tecumseh Sherman. Instead of a standard chronological biography, the author splits Sherman's biography into three uneven parts: (1) Sherman the military man; (2) Sherman's "boys" in the war; and (3) Sherman's personal life. The first part is the largest and, this is great, covers not just the Civil War but his pre-war career and his post-war stint as head of the army. The latter is often shunned, since Sherman was anti-Indian, as it conflicts with Sherman the Yankee War Hero image. His war-fighting strategy and tactics are explained and analyzed quite well. The second part is a bottom-up account of Sherman's men in wartime, how they operated, and how Sherman and they cohered into a fighting unit. Along with on-the-ground accounts of strategy and tactics with great significance on the March to the Sea, the March through the Carolinas, and post-war memory-making. The last part was revealing, showing Sherman the man. Including extra-marital affairs, his disdain of politicking, and his friendships. Good all around, though the author does get chatty and thinks he is so witty he can make Dad-joke-level type metaphors with analogies to modern, pop-cultured life. Calling Sherman Grant's "wingman" an ad nauseum number of times, for instance. Take this groaner: "a performance worthy of Daffy Duck (or, given the hair color, perhaps Woody Woodpecker)" (p. 86). Or comparing John Bell Hood to the Black Knight of Monty Python (p. 145). Or comparing West Point to surfing (pp. 15-16)? Huh? Off-putting and deserving of taking an otherwise interesting, informative account and knocking it down a star. Good maps, good images; dumb new end-noting system; no bibliography.… (mais)

Thus comes a history with more than 50 years between the last event and today. I'm not going to try to comment on O'Connell's perspective because it is confusing to me. At times, he speaks with admiration, then disparagement, then disappointment, then impatience. Ultimately, he calls the collection of Patton, MacArthur, Marshall, and Eisenhower perhaps the greatest combination of generals any nation has ever had. He delivers some radically different assessments of events and these, perhaps, come from the availability of new information. This is not a quick read requiring greater involvement than many previous books on the subject. There is no hero worship. He dwells on the successes as well as the actions less than successful.… (mais)

Solid, but unexceptional, history of battleships and their relationship to the United States Navy. The author, quite obviously (judging from the snarky title, at a minimum) is deeply skeptical of the value of battleships. The section on World War I in particular shows, to the author's mind, why the US investment in battleships was worthless. Likewise, the post-1945 descriptions, ditto. The author omits the experience during the war, where battleships played a crucial role, especially later in the war, protecting aircraft carriers and providing valuable landing support. (To a lesser extent, they did the same in the ETO.) A good chunk of the book covers history before the founding of the USN, which does show why the battleship was so iconic, but I think it is a stretch to show how this affected the USN. In short, not totally convinced by the author's arguments.… (mais)