I laughed so hard I was crying. It really made my day. I hope Fred will continue to write as I know there are many more stories to be told. He has a real knack for seeing the humor in what we experienced on a daily basis. He also sees why we became teachers, it was the kids...

I am spreading the word to my teacher friends that this is a must read.

My wife and I are both teachers and this book is a slice taken from our lives. I guess the same kids go to all the schools all over the world, because if we didn't meet these students and teachers ourselves, we heard about them in the teachers lounge or over dinner. Anderson finds the levity in these situations that we may have missed while under fire. Open this book on any page for humorous insights into the life of a high school teacher.

I laghed. I cried. I peed my pants. Seriously, A great book of short stories that take me back to the ways of high school.

I can call this novel a link among the science fiction novel's. It is full of fantastic events and very interesting. You can travel through the worlds from one galaxy to another, and take part in a war between the human kind and robots, one of the human dreams'. After Reading This book I ask this question again from myself: Is that true, Can robots disturb human's bright technology?

If you love the Berserker stories, then this is a very rare find. Especially if you love stories by Roger Zelazny or Larry Niven

Nathalie F Anderson is a great poet. Her language is rich, but unpretentious, full of meaning, but light and accessible. And, what is most important, her poems are most relevant. Buy this book, it's got a very reasonable price for all the treasures it contains.

Nathalie Anderson's beautifully-textured poems are a combination of fine writing, wry humor and serious subject matter.

As a writer, Fred Anderson is accessible and well researched. Sometimes history writing makes these two traits seem mutually exclusive, but not in his wonderful study of British and Colonial relations amidst the Seven Years War.

Anderson's main thesis is that the Seven Year's War (known more popularly as the French and Indian War) did not need to lead to the American Revolution, but was a significant and major turning point in its own right. The latter is fair enough, but I'm not sure that Anderson, despite his claims, is breaking really new ground with regard to not necessarily seeing the French and Indian War and our Revolution as a seemless progression to American Independence. His analysis at the end of the book as to why this was not necessarily so is pretty thin, although the coverage of the events themselves certainly let the reader understand that there were several possible break points where Parlimentary action or policy changes could have kept America as part of the British Empire at least past 1776.

What Anderson has done is written a thorough history of the conflict. He takes a wholistic approach and in fact focuses on war management and policy in more detail than the military campaigns. They do not necessarily get short shrift, but they are not evaluated in the kind of minute detail that military histories provide. This is appropriate. As Anderson shows, the conflict was as much driven by the chess game played in European capitals and between Parliment and the Colonial assemblies as it was by battlefield developments. The book reminded me of Middlekauf's "Glorious Revolution," a series in the Oxford history of the United States that gave great background and discussion to causes and English debate over our Revolution in additon to telling the story as written by our troops.

Anderson shows how the character of the relationship between England and the Colonies was much different while the French held Canada. France brillintly used its indian allies in ways the English never considered, treating them as co-equals and using them to harass the American frontier in order to protect their penetration into the Ohio Valley and Illinois country. While this menace existed, the colonists were united in desperately wanting British troop protection. The British-Franco rivalry, always upon a tinderbox during this time in Europe, only needed an incident to ignite it anew into war. That the incident was provided by troops under George Washington's command in Pennsylvania is a delicious irony of history.

The reslutling war was a struggle between French and English troops, between various Indian tribes allied to or caught in the middle of the combatants and between Parliment and the Colonial assemblies regarding funding and local support for the war. As history would show, the debates and various strategies employed by Parliment to secure colonial financial and manpower contributions to the effort would set the stage for the Stamp Act, Quatering Act and other post war Parlimentary initiated crises that paved the way for American Independence.

Along the way we meet wonderful characters. An early George Washington in search of glory and wealth via militia command. The indominable William Pitt, parlimentarian master and stragegic visionary whose management of the war effort led to a stunning military victory and close colonial cooperation with the mother country. Lord Grenville, who followed Pitt and in a short time reversed the policies that had brought the colonies close to Parliment and accepting of Pitt's imperial order. George III who in a pique of personality sacked Pitt for no other reason than to placate opposition forces that had gathered around him while he was waiting for a vacancy on the throne.

All in all, its a big story that is well written, lucid and engaging. For a big book, it has short paragraphs, which help keep the pace moving along nicely. For anyone interested in the French and Indian War and the evolving nature of American identity as well as the path toward Revolution, this is a good choice.

...most of us would agree, was the American Revolution. After reading this excellent book by Fred Anderson don't be surprised to find yourself thinking otherwise. Certainly you will come away with a new appreciation for the Seven Years War or the French and Indian War as our forefathers called it. The book begins in 1754 in western Pennsylvania with a skirmish between French troops and land hungry colonists led by a young Virginian named George Washington. It is a story about five cultures (English, English colonials, French, French settlers and Native Americans) and the war they fought for control of the vast territory of the Ohio Valley. Anderson tells us it is "a story of violent imperial competition that resulted first in a decisive victory and then in a troubled attempt by metropolitan authorities to construct a new British empire along lines that would permit them to exercise effective control over colonies and conquests alike. It is not, therefore, a story that has the birth of the an American republic anywhere in view." Anderson brings his narrative to a close in 1766, long before the revolution. There are 2 areas where the book shines, bringing new insight into our pre-revolutionary history.

1. HISTORY AND CULTURE OF THE INDIAN TRIBES. One of the cultures Anderson focuses on - Native Americans - we all know, is not one homogenous culture at all. The author is brilliant in showing how the internecine history of the eastern tribes brought about the emergence of the Iroquois nation as the dominant tribe in the northern Ohio Valley area. Tribes such as Mingos, Delaware, and Shawnee were almost subservient client states of the Iroquois and this made it very difficult for both the English and the French to negotiate alliances with the Indians. Also, what becomes very clear is that the use of Indians as scouts, mercenaries, and troops was a contributing cause to the atmosphere of "fear and misunderstanding, miscalculation and mischance". This was due to the totally different norms under which Indians fought; rules of battle that neither French nor British practiced nor understood. Anderson explains the massacre following the surrender of Fort William Henry in this light. "The only rewards that the Indians -whether Christian or heathen- had expected were plunder, trophies to prove their prowess in battle, and captives to adopt or sacrifice as replacements for dead warriors or perhaps hold for ransom. When it became clear that the man whom they had called 'Father' [Montcalm] intended to do what no real father would and deprive them of of the reward they had earned, most of the warriors decided merely to take what they had come for, and then to leave". Misunderstanding leading to butchery; the immediate consequences of it being that the English and colonials would never again trust Montcalm. It was not only the French though; such incidents had happened before with Indians in the service of the English. The Indians themselves saw Montcalm's interference in their plundering as cause for concern; "never again would Indian allies flock to the French colors". The circle of mistrust was now complete.

2. NO LINK WITH THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. Perhaps the greater contribution of the book is the 'not quite revisionist' but certainly an alternative view of the events of the period. In the years 1758-1760, following an English victory and with the demise of New France, Anderson sees a change in the relationship between Britain and her colonies. The British government he says became convinced "that the only rational way to deal with the American colonists was to exert control from Whitehall." Anderson portrays the Stamp Act, the Townshend Act and even the Tea Act as means by Britain to exert local control. He is convincing with his argument that the reactions by the colonists to these acts "did not reflect a movement toward revolution so much as an effort to define the nature of the imperial relationship". Despite the focus of the book on the period between 1754-1766, Anderson makes one of the most powerful statements of the whole book regarding the decade prior to the revolution. "Between 1766 and 1775 lay a decade-long effort to deal with the legacies of a great war and a prodigal victory - an effort that instead of solutions generated a constitutional stalemate. Until the shots rang out on that bright spring morning [April 19, 1775 at Concord, Massachusetts], the Britsh empire had remained a transatlantic political community made up of subjects who, despite their differences, questioned neither their common allegiance to the Crown nor their common British identity".

Treat yourself to this thoroughly enjoyable and well written history; it is sure to be a work that is referred to for some time to come.

Fred Anderson's book, "Crucible of War" is a wonderfully written and comprehensive work about pre-revolutionary America. In its great depth and majestic sweep it ties together the politics within Britain, the warfare on the Continent, the struggle with the French in North American, the problems the American colonists had vis-a-vis the British, and the importance of the Ohio Country and the Indians livng there. Anderson is deeply learned, writes with great detail and balance, and with a clarity of vision. He provides us with deep insight into the social, political, and cultural confrontations, not only between these groups, but among themselves. He also gives us an understanding of the geographic dimensions of the struggle and how these affected the outcome. All in all, this is a grand synthesis in the classic tradition.

Anderson's thesis is that the war's progression "set in motion the forces that created a hollow British empire" with problems that could not be solved by decisions made in London. Understanding this makes our understanding of the origins of the American Revolution more complete. This book is a must read for anyone seriously interested in pre-revolutionary America.

The title refers to Fred Cuny, a Texan who spent little time worrying about his own life and instead was obsessed with saving the lives of refugees and war victims around the world. Cuny began as an outsider in the international relief community, but his innovative ideas eventually overcame his brash attitude to revolutionize the profession.

International war correspondent Scott Anderson has written an interesting biography of a modern hero. The first half of the book is spent on Cuny's life up until he went to Chechnya. This half of the book reads a little slow at times but is filled with interesting stories on Cuny's exploits in international relief efforts around the world.

The second half of the book focuses on Cuny's invovlement with the brutal war in Chechnya, which Cuny called "the scariest place in the world." As a man who was always in search of a bigger adventure, Cuny was drawn to Chechnya even though most other relief workers avoided the war zone.

Anderson does well explaining the brutality and uncertainty of the war. He documents Cuny's frustration with the Clinton administration's unquestionable support of Yeltsin and willful ignorance of the Chechen debacle. But Anderson is at his best recounting the unprecendented man hunt for Cuny and his companions after their disappearance; Anderson even probably risked his life to retrace Cuny's steps in his last fateful days.

If you are looking for a real-life mystery or are interested in international relations or relief work, this book is for you. After you've finished, be sure to check out the PBS special [URL] that has brought even more to light after the book was published. But first read The Man Who Tried to Save the World for its indispensable background on an incredible contemporary: Fred Cuny.

I first heard Fred Cuny being interviewed on NPR in 1995 about the Chechen war. I was surprised how vivid an impression he made on me based on a short radio interview, his charisma and intelligence came right through. I was very pleased to see Mr. Anderson's book on Cuny's life and tragic disappearance. The book is extremely well researched and written. It paints a picture of man who in a time of manufactured heroes was an authentic, larger than life personality who cared deeply for others and helped save thousands of lives. Mr. Anderson does a fine job of showing us a very complex man who suffered from contradictions, self-doubt and emotional need and who lived his life on an ambitiously epic scale. Besides being an excellent biography, the book also does a fine job of outlining some of the complex forces driving and sustaining the Chechen conflict. Reading the book, you can feel the confusion and frustration experienced by both Fred Cuny and the author as they dig deeper into a brutal, often thoughtless war that Westerners may simply not be equipped to understand. The story of Mr. Anderson's journey to Chechnya to research Cuny's case reads like an espionage thriller. An interesting facet of the book for me were passages near the end when Mr. Anderson would repeat and revise scenarios he had constructed in previous chapters concerning the events surrounding Cuny's last mission. You can almost feel his anger and utter frustration as he attempts to navigate and make sense of the circular and conflicting knot of theories, lies, half-truths, misinformation, omissions, and myths surrounding the events of Cuny's final days. This is a book that succeeds on multiple levels. Highly recommended.

This is a true mystery story about the disappearance of American relief worker (and spy?) Fred Cuny in the cloak-and-dagger environment of Chechnya during the Russian assault in 1995. The book is comparable in many ways to Into Thin Air, although the subject matters are completely unrelated. In both books, the authors themselves took enormous personal risks in getting their stories. Both are true tales of action and adventure incorporating a lot of interesting background information, which is skillfuly woven into the narrative withour slowing down the story. Both read like novels (although they're better written than the vast majority of novels). But Mr. Anderson's book, in the end, is more engrossing and more important. I picked it up on a Friday evening and finished in the early hours of the following Sunday morning; I just couldn't stop until I was done. The book has everything--exotic locales, well-described; bizarre and mysterious personalities; and the constant tension of danger and suspense. Most admirably, Mr. Anderson lays out all of the known facts about Fred Cuny's disappearance, and in the end offers his own conclusion(which is plausible but not airtight), but fully equips the reader to consider the alternative possibilities for him or herself. This is the kind of book that you will devour and then stuff into the Christmas stockings of your friends and family. P.S. In case Mr. Anderson reads this: Why did you attach so much weight in your analysis to the purported fact that the military commander of the Chechens was a "good friend" of Fred Cuny? This "fact" seems to be based on nothing but Cuny's own impression that they hit it off during his first trip in February. But in the environment you have so ably described, where nothing is as it seems and everyone seems to harbor a hidden agenda, Cuny's belief could have been wishful thinking. And if he was wrong, there is no real reason to foist the blame so high up the chain. Great book!

Fred Anderson did a marvelous job with this book..... it's a "big" book but the chapters are short and to the point......well written..... Fred puts in "Tid-a-bits" of information that you will not find in ordinary history books and tid-a-bits are what makes history interesting.

Anderson gives a detailed account of the conditions and day to day activities of the provincial regiments in the Seven Year's War. Using stastics and detailed diaries from the participants, Anderson shows the effects of the war on both the local economies and personal lives of the men who, thirteen years later, would take up arms against Britian in the War of Independence.

The unanimity planning process is a unique way of making people act on a RATIONAL basis to solve societal problems. Normal human emotional stances(wanting to have my own way) are encouraged to bring out the underlying fears and concerns. Every person in the group is tactfully forced to join the discussions.The book describes successful applications in diverse situations.

I have successfully used this process three times. When faced with intractable positions of the regulatory agency and my staff, the unanimity process resulted in amzing concurrence on mission statements, goals and objectives. The frame work plan was very effectively implemented.

Any one faced with developing an IMPLEMENTABLE action plan (for improving education, economic development, water, waste water or solid waste management, telecommunications, siting facilities etc) should read this book if they want to avoid the usual and ever present pitfalls. It is also well written and easy to read.

While the quality of the book seems good, the organization is unusual for a history book. It should be emphasized that this is a reference book set up like an encyclopedia on people, battles, and wars (listed alphabetically). It is NOT set up chronologically!

This book is NOT a chronological book of American military history, but rather an encyclopedic reference with thousands of entries. No pictures- ... It covers topics including: all the major wars, battles, bios on military leaders, warfare methods, a survey of combat weapons and military hardware, political acts by Congress and treaties, overviews of the military structure and services. It features contributions by notaries like Stephen E. Ambrose and John Keegan... its coverage priorities are odd. The political-correctness bent comes out every now and then in this book...

The Oxford Companion to American Military History has been awarded the Distinguished Reference Book Award by the Society for Military History in 2001. It has been the subject of several long and highly favorable reviews including those by Russell Weigley in the January 2001 issue of the "Journal of Military History," by Hew Strachan in the February 16, 2001 issue of "TLS, the London Times Literary Supplement," and by Vince Rinehart in April 9, 2000 issue of "The Washington Post's Book World."