Nigel HamiltonReseñas

Most leaders during a time of war have the advantage of leaving memoirs - Churchill's six volume History of World War II - to help us understand their reasons for the decisions they made. Franklin Roosevelt did not. Nigel Hamilton's three volume set attempts to do this on his behalf. Hamilton does not spend as much time on the events of the battles as many other works which makes this set less a history than a psychological biography. The Mantle of Command focuses on the political aspect of a sitting President during his unprecedented third term having to shift his way of thinking from mostly domestic issues as America is trying to pull itself out of the Great Depression to a focus on more international issues as America becomes "the arsenal of Democracy." It further shows the difficulty in the early part of the war to bring his top military leaders into line without totally alienating them. Until I read this volume, I was not aware how divided the Chiefs of Staff were in their planning or of their reluctance to accept Roosevelt's strategy. The leadership and political acumen Roosevelt shows is truly amazing.

Hamilton's writing style is perfect for most of today's readers. His narrative is highly organized, yet easy to follow. By not dwelling on the minute to minute details of battles but the general development of the war, he makes the history more personal to the average reader. This is the type of work that might cause a mildly curious person to want to learn more about Operation Torch and serve as a springboard to broaden their interest.

For those who want to see hard hitting accounts of battles this work may be disappointing. However, for those who want to see a person in a leadership position develop and broaden his leadership skills, this is an excellent work. This set of three definitely belongs on the shelves of the student of America's and the world's greatest war.

A worthy historical account, but also the most openly opinionated history text I have ever read. Admittedly, other historians may still offer their opinion by what they include or not include in their narratives, but they would have done it much more subtlety by letting the reader "jump" to the conclusion that the author may have made clear. In this case, the author quite often offers a conclusion, albeit with considerable prior evidence to back that conclusion up. I'm just not so used to the author being so blatant about it. However, all of this gets off the main point and advantage of this historical account on FDR that gives the book weight and value, this first in a trilogy is specifically about a president, namely Roosevelt, as the Commander-in-Chief of the United States, leading up to and throughout World War II. This book takes us into Pearl Harbor and to the landing of U.S. troops in North Africa in late 1942. I have already read a few individual accounts of World War II, but more comprehensively about the European and Pacific theaters of war via the first two volumes of Ian W. Toll's excellent Pacific War trilogy, which covered the eastern Pacific half of the the Pacific Theater, namely the naval half, as well as the first volume of Rick Atkinson's equally excellent Liberation Trilogy, which covers the European Theater of the war. With that two-sided background of the 1941-1942 war period from a military history perspective, it was easy for me to follow and assess for myself the White House-based, Commander-in-Chief part of the war. Frankly, I was impressed by this narrative of the first part of the war. The author gives great credence to FDR's skills at this point in time. The average reader will likely be more, not less, impressed by him as a president. Douglas MacArthur, unfortunately will not be. I had already read two other historical accounts of MacArthur, both from World War II and the Korean War that were far from flattering. This book introduced new material to me that makes me wonder why he was ever a general. (Think Donald Trump but without bone spurs.) On a different note, this author had what I would call a strange summary of the American landing in North Africa. To believe this author, the landing was all but child's play, while Rick Atkinson's account made it clear that was not the case. Perhaps, the degree to which this was a "walk in the park" is a product of how many American deaths is considered acceptable for a park walk. Regardless, I look forward to reading the other two volumes of this trilogy, but will be ready for critical assessment of the author's further accounts.

Sadly, this is only the first volume of a projected trilogy that never came to be, concluding as the protagonist wins election to the U.S. Congress in 1946, but before he takes his seat. After its appearance, the family and other keepers of the flame closed off any further access, so the author moved on to other projects. It’s interesting to read the book asking why this would be so, for reading it increased my admiration of Kennedy. I found it remarkable that such a charming, intelligent, courageous individual came from that family.
It must be conceded that the author repeats more than necessary what a dysfunctional family this was. Does the reader need to be reminded quite this often that “the Ambassador” was a tyrant and an isolationist, or that Rose primly refused to acknowledge what was going on in the lives of the children she abandoned to a series of nannies and boarding schools? This might explain why the author was shut off. Or perhaps it is his devotion to detailing one trait in which Jack did take after his father, his overactive sexual life of compulsion mixed with indifference toward his conquests. Then again, it might be his revelation of the lengths to which JFK’s Addison’s and venereal disease were covered up, not only in his lifetime, but long after his death. Since the protagonist is not even thirty when the book closes, he was clearly just getting up to speed. What more revelations were to come?
Hamilton does a good job untangling myth and reality in the PT 109 incident, and shows the uses to which it was put to launch JFK’s career. One might regret that the author devotes less attention to Kennedy’s political opinions than to other matters, but this leads to one of Hamilton’s contentions, an insight he shares with other observers: Kennedy relished the process of politics, but had a detachment from political stances. This, often seen as simultaneously his greatest strength and weakness as a politician, is traced by Hamilton to an emotional stunting for which his parents were to blame. Yet while it might be true that Kennedy did not care about domestic political issues, Hamilton traces his precocious awakening and grasp of international affairs. In part because of his father’s position, but also in no small measure to his own wit, initiative, and inquisitive nature, Kennedy personally met statesmen of the older generation, many of whom spotted his potential. Even here, though, Hamilton sees the psychology of Kennedy’s family of origin at work. One constant of Kennedy’s entire career was a resolute anti-communism. Hamilton suggests this was rooted in the ways Stalin reminded JFK of his father.
A big book, but despite some repetitiousness, a fascinating read. Recommended.

Breezy biographies of the presidents from FDR to Bush, parsed into formative years, public career and personal ethics. Not as much Suetonius as "Lives of the Saints," except they aren't. Occasional lapses in detail (Gerald Ford played for the Michigan State Wolverines?) but the author's choice of broad strokes is the attraction. My father read chapters of the manuscript for the author's brother.

Nothing you don't already know.

5554. Commander in Chief FDR's Battle With Churchill, 1943 by Nigel Hamilton (read 30 Apr 2018) This is the second volume in the author's study of FDR as commander in chief of the American effort in World War II. It shows that he was usually right and that Churchill was often wrong, but fortunately FDR's views usually prevailed. The book spends a lot of time telling of somewhat trivial events but is a good account showing the difficulties that went into the planning. Churchill was hard to get on board for the invasion of France, he wanting to go to the Balkans or stay with Italy as ,the major place to fight. Fortunately FDR was able to get our generals to agree that the Normandy invasion should be powerfully pushed, I am not sure it was necessary to read this but it is a good review of the time. I think Rick Atkinson's books do a better job of telling of the actual fighting but this book covers the planning better than Atkinson'.s books do,½

5553. The Mantle of Command FDR at War 1941-1942, by Nigel Hamilton (read 26 Apr 2018) This is a 2014 book, the first of two volumes, studying FDR's course as commander-in-chief of the United States during World War Two. The author is English born but lives in the u.S. His book aims to do justice to FDR's role in leading the U.S. military in World War II. It never fails to show FDR in the best light, and denigrates Churchill and British forces during the years 1941 and 1942. He says General Marshall and Secretary Stimson and other American military were eager to launch a cross-Channel invasion of France in 1942, which the author says would have been disastrous and miht have enabled Hitler to win he war. He says FDR was in favor of invading North Africa and pushed for that course against U.S. military men and the British--and that Marshall and Stimson almost mutinied when FDR insisted on that invasion. The book has footnotes which lead me to think that Hamilton relied on few sources and was eager to support his view of FDR being right. I am not sure that Hamilton doesn't let his thesis of FDR being right and most others being wrong color his objectivity, eager though I am to believe what he says. The book gives a view of the momentous months of 1941 and 1942 which is quite different from other accounts I have read.½

Excellent review of Mongomery's battles during WW2. A meticulous planner and an outstanding trainer, Monty was one of the best battlefield commanders during WW2. The only personal quality that exceeded his leaderships skills was his self-perceived image of himself as the only allied general capable of winning the war. Hamilton aptly documents and displays these qualities in this easy to read battle history.

Excellent review and analysis of FDR's transition into a wartime commander in chief and leader of the nations united against the Axis. His breadth of vision and understanding of the roles that logistics, planning, and training must play in the creation of the military means needed; are quite beyond those of his generals and his allies, even Winston Churchill. His charm, tact, and perseverance are severely challenged by the tunnel vision and parochial last war thinking of Marshall, King and Secretary of War Stimson. The British, after two years of trying had yet to win a land battle and the Americans, had yet to fight one but each was adamant that they had the solution. Roosevelt, correctly, discerned that the Brits were too weak and the Yanks were nowhere near ready nor able. The learnings, about logistics from Guadalcanal as well as the leadership and training deficiencies during the Kasserine Pass Battle, were unfortunate demonstrations of his foresight.½

An analytical and well-written look at the decision-making process for the Allies as the US builds momentum and assumes the leadership role. Two of history's most important war leaders, Churchill and Roosevelt support and challenge each other as they build the teams and global strategies for final victory. England was out of men, yet expected that their longer experience should lead the Allies end game and re-establish the British Empire to its former glory. FDR, rightfully, demands that US generals will lead the way and makes the right choice in Eisenhower. Hamilton provides an interesting counterpoint to the Allied perspective with apt excerpts from Goebbels diary.½

A perfectly nice little book that was not at all what I was looking for. These are tidbits about what makes a good biography, with examples. I was hoping for some more tangible advice, which I suppose really differs based in who you're writing about. Anyhow, this was fine.½

Perhaps the best recommendation for this book is that the Kennedy family refused to cooperate with the author's intention to follow up this account of the early life of John Kennedy with the story of his years in politics. Hagiographic it's not, but it's profoundly good biography and history.

Bernard Law Montgomery was not a sociable fellow. His life was severely restricted to the infantry officer track in an army much more amenable to amiable cavalrymen. But he believed! Eventually, he moved up, and then the Great War came to an end. He was back in the peacetime army, and endured that. But, as part of the BEF of 1940, he shone, and post-Dunkirk, he participated in the major re-building of Britain's army. This is the first of Hamilton's voluminous bio.½

I'm not a big Montgomery fan, but this is the definitive work. Volume two 1942 -44., covers his actual command of a major army, and describes the Montgomery system and how it worked out, first against a relatively static opponent, and then in one of the seriously frustrating pursuits of the conflict. No one looked particularly good against Rommel, but he was the filter for defining the top team.
For the historian, Montgomery poses one big over-hanging question. Did he train up and define the WWII British Army and use it to its fullest potential? Or, was he a great trainer, whose actual use of his instrument revealed an inability to release junior commanders to save time and lives by innovation? That's where the question will always lie. Sadly, Military art requires that someone die, and reruns are not really possible.½

Bernard Law Montgomery is not an attractive character as a man. He was a competent soldier, and history has left us with many tantalising "What Ifs?", as regards as to possible alternative men to have headed the Commonwealth forces in the European Theatre in WWII. That said, this is the definitive account of his life, Volume III. It covers the glory years.½

Interesting premise: viewing presidents from Eisenhower onwards with focus on personality as well as achievements, in the style of Suetonius. Falls a bit flat in some areas, but is eloquent in others. One wonders if this book will survive into the distant future and be thought of and used as a source as Suetonius is now?

An excellent continuation of his first volume,The Making of a Soldier, Master of the Battlefield documents quite extensively WW2 in Western Europe from the end in Africa, through Sicily, Italy and D Day until the Normandy breakout which finished the Germans in France. He aptly elucidates the Allied leadership dilemmas, decisions, disasters and triumphs while shedding appropriate and validated insights into this greatly flawed command hierarchy.
And excellent parallel read would be Rick Atkinson's, hopefully soon to be completed trilogy

Monty, or Bernard, as Hamilton refers to him was paranoid maybe even schizophrenic but was one of the best senior field commanders that the Allies had during WW2. His mental attributes were a likely result of the union of his muzzy-minded liberal bishop father and his stern fault-finding mother. He was arrogant, mean-spirited, and utterly ruthless in sacking or managing the transfer of the many incompetents that filled the British officer corps at the start of the war. Monty manipulated shamelessly to get and keep the best of many bad lots as his staff and commanders, Balancing these useful but unpleasant traits, he truly revered and supported the common soldier and worked diligently to ensure their well-being.
Montgomery developed rigorous training schedules based upon expected battle scenarios and was not promoted to serious field command until Churchill ran out of other options. Churchill was a great political leader but his frequent and not often successful forays into command choices and tactical decisions seriously compromised British military success at the beginning of the war. The BEF, Singapore, and his early CIGS selections were a string of disasters that he and GB barely survived. Hamilton documents Montgomery's rise to command meticulously and extensively with many detailed operational and battle reports. Monty was not a nice person, neither was Patton but they won battles with low casualty rates; capabilities not ofter found in most Allied generals.½

Hmmmmm, The first ten biographies were good, not great mind you, once Hamilton got to Clinton though the book was sloppy and full of unnecessary feeling. For example all his opponents are frequently referred to as "right wing fanatics" and he tries to link Gingrich (not the most sympathetic of men) to the Oklahoma City bombing. The condescending tone he uses in his treatment of Bush was more embarrassing for Hamilton than Bush. Overall I would have to say this is a very poor book and this is due to the disappointing two chapters.

This is a cracking book. I complained at the end of ,'An American Journey', that Mr. Hamilton had pursued the sexual scandals too far: this was not a mistake that continued into this book. Hamilton, skilfully, takes the reader through Clinton's first term as President in a manner that is neither patronising, or assumes too much knowledge of American politics.

Again, quoting my remarks after reading the first of these books, I hoped that I would end up with an understanding of the 'big ideas' of the Clinton Presidency: I did.

I would apologise to Mr. Hamilton for only awarding part one three and a half stars. When the two books are dovetailed, the effect is a thorough understanding of Bill Clinton the man, and the President.

OK, to start, I am only at the half way point of this substantial biography of Bill Clinton (there is still part two - 'Mastering the Presidency' to go so, anything that I say might be blown out of the water in another seven hundred pages time.

Two hundred pages in to this work, I was wondering how to give this seven, never mind six stars: the portrait of the young Clinton is riveting and something of which I had no idea. I was totally hooked.

The old Bill got the less the book impacted. One would have to have been living upon a different planet not to know about his womanising problems. I accept that this is an important part of the man's make up but, where I was disappointed, was that it seemed to become the only part that Mr. Hamilton wished to discuss. The fact that there is more to Clinton than this, is self evident to an English supporter of the Labour Party. It is widely acknowledged that Clinton was a mentor to Tony Blair and the whole concept of New Labour and yet, Hamilton implies that Clinton was after power with almost no thought of policies. Indeed, were I not to know which party Clinton represented, there is little in this book that would have enabled me to decide. Clinton's work for black and under represented groups is mentioned only as asides to the sexual misdemeanour's.

The main fault with this biography is the antithesis of that of most biographies: you know the sort of thing, a paragraph on early life, two on life outside the arena in which the subject is famed and page after page about the bit of his, or her life that one already knew. The book is saved by the authoritative and well researched nature of the pronouncements.½

Unterschiedlicher könnten die Charaktere kaum sein, die in diesem Band dargestellt werden, von Franklin D. Roosevelt bis zu George W. Bush. Und dabei ist es nahezu erschütternd, wieviel Macht diesen Personen zukommt, und in welchem Ausmaß sie diese auch für ihre eigenen Interessen nutzen. Dass dabei in Hochmut die Verbindung zur Realität verloren gehen kann, ist wohl nachvollziehbar, aber nicht minder verwerflich.
Der Autor macht bei seinen Ausführungen kein Hehl aus seiner eigenen politischen Ausrichtung. Dies mag ihm als voreingenommen zur Last gelegt werden, doch ist es erfrischend, wenn manche Begebenheit mit pointierter Klarheit Ausdruck verschafft wird.
Ein sehr gutes Buch.

Although it is not Nigel Hamilton's fault, his Clinton biography suffers from the fact that there is a limit to the kind of sources a researcher has access to. Most of the story's key characters have yet to write their memoirs. A lot of official documents will remain classified for years to come. So it rarely gets really juicy. We are never flies on the wall. It is a good read though and we do get a good idea of how Clinton failed miserably in the first year or so simply by not running a tight ship; Clinton's indecision during the all important transition period is well described. Once in the White House he failed to control his wife Hillary who had come barging in demanding the vice president Al Gore's office - great stuff!! It was only when the Democrats lost the congressional elections in 1992 that Clinton finally gained the initiative and in turn defeated the Gingrich revolution. I look forward to the third volume of Hamilton's Clinton trilogy.

A Potomac book has done it again with “Montgomery” by Nigel Hamilton, a seemingly Lilliputian but superb military history for the dramatic and dynamic Bernard Montgomery. Before reading this extended composition on Montgomery I knew very little about the man and even less regarding his deciding role in WWII battles for North Africa, D-Day and beyond. The wealth and depth of information regarding Montgomery’s command status, flaws and all, was impressively packed into such a short volume. Mr. Hamilton portrays Montgomery as a vigorous, animated and innovative commander but somewhat of a misfit and rather catty individual who harmed his reputation and career from the outset. I will definitely be scanning the shelves for more of these gems including Mr. Hamilton’s own extensive biography of Montgomery and Montgomery’s own controversial “Memoirs.”

2397 The Brothers Mann: The Lives of Heinrich and Thomas Mann 1871-1950 and 1875-1955, by Nigel Hamilton (read 20 Jul 1991) This is a 1979 dual biography. Thomas was born 6 June 1875 in Lubeck, Germany, and died 12 Aug 1955 in Zurich, Switzerland. I found this book very interesting--Thomas was very pro-German in World War One, whereas Heinrich was not. They both were very much against Hitler. Their lives are full of drama and I am tempted to read more of their work--though I am sure I would find much of it 'heavy going' indeed--as I certainly did The Magic Mountain. I know that heavy German prose, so I am not sure I should read their stuff. But this has been an excellent biography--though I always found Thomas more interesting than Heinrich. Heinrich had a chaotic domestic life, and was more sympathetic to red socialism than was Thomas. Thomas became an American citizen during World War II, but left this country to live in Switzerland in the early 1950's.