Sir Winston Churchill is one of the most thoroughly biographied people in history, so it's surprising to find a biography that really covers new ground. This one does.

Woodford is the London suburb that Churchill represented in Parliament during the most important decades of his sweeping career. And even while he was striding the world stage, he had responsibilities to the community that elected him. This is an intriguing, and at times surprisingly touching, view of the Great Man's relations with his constituency committee, the candidates who stood for office against him, and the men and women of Woodford.

Most touching is the story of Churchill's ultimate decision to leave Parliament, and the mixture of sadness and relief this occasioned in Woodford. They knew they were lucky to have him. So were we all.

A consice book of orthopedics with each chapter starting with history and physical examination for a part of the body followed by a classification of Orthopedic diseases and details. Information enough for Othopedic Students to pass rotation with a high mark.

This is a beautifully printed work with an eye-catching cover but from a historian's viewpoint, filled with information that just simply cannot be checked out. It is plainly evident that the author does not like his subject and this dislike is evident on every page. Churchill was a great, if often badly flawed, leader of wartime Britain and this book is not balanced in any sense at all. This is little more than a ... polemic. One ought, at the very least,to damn with faint praise.

Author Irving wrote a significant work on the Allied destruction of the undefended Saxon museum city of Dresden in 1945. It was well-researched and carefullly written. That was a long time ago and Irving, who has churned out many other books in the meantime, has never lived up to his initial promise. The Churchill books are thinly written and display the author's animosity towards his subject on every page. His works on Adolf Hitler and his people, on the other hand, glow with unfeigned appreciation and praise. A good historian, if he is worth the title, should write with objectivity and not to a preconceived idea. In all of Irving's books one can find signs of considerable research and this alone is their primary worth. Irving has been able, in years past, to locate and utilize many hitherto obscure diaries and letters. However, that having been said, what Irving does with this information is quite another matter. For a researcher and persons possessing in-depth knowledge of Irving's subject, these books, including the ones now under review, have considerable merit. For those newly arrived at the subject of 20th Century political history, the Irving books should be taken with much greater care. Irving initially denounced the notorious fake "Hitler Diaries" and then, seeing that they were being accepted by the British media, reversed himself and proclaimed them to be absolutely genuine. It has been said that Irving was the first person to call these documents fake and the last to authenticate them. The Churchill books have much of valuable technical interest in them but precious little objectivity.

This is the second part of Irving's Churchill 'biography'. It is fascinating reading, but tends not to be a easy a read as his first volume. The fact that Irving is not an admirer of his subject is clearly evident, but it seems that only people outside the UK have this uncritical mythic view of Churchill that certainly does not stand up to reality. Personally I find Irving's view of Churchill to be refreshng and probably the most truthful version of the man thats out there to be read. Churchill is painted as an intelligent, uncompromising and rather ruthless individual on one hand and sympathethic, understanding and somewhat noble gentleman on the other. This book is far more ballenced than the worthless and grovelling 'biography' that Martin Gilbert wrote.
Forget all the nonsense and hyperbole that surrounds Irving and his enforced labelling and read the book, in fact I would urge eveybody to read any Irving book and then make up your own mind and not be swayed by the biased opinions of other people.

Clinical Application of Neuromuscular Techniques is an alternative to Travell's Trigger Point Manual if you do not do TP injections. It has great pictures, well explained treatment techniques (if you are up to date with your anatomy and medical terms) and lots of references. The disadvantage are typos (the editor must have had a bad day and was unable to write the German words for the references right, but also some English words are off!) Parts of the text are repeated in the book twice, what I thought is unnecessary and only adds to the number of pages but not the quality of content.

Historians, if they are unusually lucky and popular, sometimes publish collections of essays between major monographs. David Cannadine is lucky enough to do this is two distinct genres. The first are the collection of reviews and journalism "The Pleasures of the Past," and "History in Our Time." The second are the collections of more scholarly essays "Aspects of Aristocracy," and this book. Unfortunately for the reader, this voume is the most disappointing of the four books.

Notwithstanding the title and the prominent photograph of Churchill on the cover page, this book is not really about Churchill, who is the subject of only three of the book's twelve essays. Already this book does not have the coherence that united "Aspects of Aristocracy," with its intimation of aristorcratic power and decline. What do we have? The book consists of three quartets of essays. The first one supposedly deals with Churchill, but the first essay is really a history of Parliament, and the second discusses Churchill along with Margaret Thatcher and Joseph Chamberlain. The third essay is more informative, as it deals with Churchill's ambiguous relationship with the monarchy, and its actual unimiginative rulers. The fourth essay is even better, as it discusses both the strengths of Churchill's remarkable oratory, but also its weaknesses, such as its lack of nuance or pitch, so that Hitler and Gandhi appear to be equally dangerous to Britain. The next quartet is less interesting. The essays on the decline and fall of the Chamberlain dynasty in Birmingham and the success of Stanley Baldwin's emollient pseudo-rural imagery tell nothing particularly new. An essay on Josiah Wedgewood tells how he wanted to produced a history of parliament, ignored all the historians, and got a work of limited historical value or accuracy. The chapter on correspondence between two historians, one English, one American, which led to a letter of somewhat limited importance being sent to FDR, seems like filler.

The last quartet is most useful. True, the chapter on the National Trust is somewhat disappointing. Cannadine describes it as it moves from a group with liberal and radical origins to a pilar of the establishment whose main purpose is to allow indebted aristocrats to keep their country houses by opening them to the public. I cannot help but point out that the late Raphael Samuel's "Theatres of Memory," was much more stimulating about this topic. The other three chapters are much better. Cannadine discusses the success of Gilbert and Sullivan in the context of its rather conservative, chauvinistic and increasingly unsatirical style, while benefiting from the invention of traditions in the last quarter of the 19th century. Cannadine also produces a useful chapter on the decline of Noel Coward, whining endlessly about the decline of the empire and the end of the welfare as his talent dribbled away on sentimental pieces. (It is alarming that Cannadine quotes so much, and that none of it is funny.) Finally there is Cannadine's fine essay on Ian Fleiming and James Bond, which is better than Alexander Cockburn's essay in "Corruptions of Empire" and much better than recent commentaries by Christopher Hitchens and Anthony Lane, and really shows how childish the whole James Bond phenonemon is. Cannadine is excellent on the double side of Fleming/Bond: on the one side "apolitically" conservative, xenophobic, chivalric and so patriotic as to laud British cooking above all others. On the other side both Fleming and his creation are promiscuous, they drink and they gamble and they show an alarming infatuation with consumer goods.

Ultimately though, this is a disappointing volume. Many of his reviews and articles in the past were unusually vigorous and vital in pointing out the flaws and mediocrity of the British royal family. So it is most disturbing to find on the chapter of parliament that Cannadine thinks it would be too radical for the Prime Minister to give "the speech from the throne," let alone call for an actual republic. Likewise, the chapter on Stanley Baldwin does not really dissect the Uriah Heep like quality of the way Baldwin promoted his reputation for moral conduct. The fact that Baldwin and Chamberlain were the worst British prime ministers of the 20th century, that they nearly led Britain to defeat in the one war that it could not afford to lose, does not really get sufficient emphasis, or disgust, from Cannadine. Finally on the chapter on Joseph Chamberlain, Churchill and Thatcher and the prospect of British decline, Cannadine produces a workmanlike effort on their failed attempts. But in closing when he states that the relative decline was not so bad, he shows a weakness of many British historians. Whether what happened was inevitable or not is a complex questions. But even if nothing could have been changed, much of the recent work on Germany, Russia, Israel, Spain or the United States is based on the belief that things SHOULD have been better. There is no such feeling in most Briitsh historiography, and one suspects that here realism is confused with complacency and quietism. It is disturbing indeed, that Cannadine cannot discern the difference.

Well Onslaught will perhaps forever be Marvel's most controversial storyline. I only gave this chapter three stars because it focuses on the Hulk's side of the war with the mad mutant. Peter David tried as much as he could, to make the Hulk chapter of the Onslaught war, interesting and he mostly succeeds. The Hulk takes part in the battle, but he somewhat regards this whole affair as a waste of his time. I wonder if that's how Peter thought of it too?

it is very serious boo

For someone looking for very light reading on Ike and Churchill, this may be an appropriate choice. I could envision a high school history teacher assigning this to 16-18 year old students. It is generally enjoyable but it certainly isn't thorough or definitive. It can't be compared to masterpiece works of history,... This, indeed, is "history lite."

But what is supremely disappointing about this book is its factual errors. For instance, at one point in the book Mr. Humes writes of Ike and Churchill meeting in '59, apparently AFTER their respective political tenures were completed, with Ike lamenting JFK's handling of the Bay of Pigs and Berlin Wall crises, and Churchill disparaging Anthny Eden's tenure as PM of Great Britain. But they certainly DID NOT have this discussion in '59. Ike's Presidency lasted until January '61 and our setbacks in Cuba and Berlin didn't happen until later in 1961-62. How could Humes, or more importantly the editor, get this wrong? At another point in the book, he dates the Suez Crisis to 1959 - it happened in October 1956! Earlier he writes of the tragic death of Ike's son at age 3. Hume identifies the baby as Dwight David. His actual name was Doud Dwight, his first name being Mamie's maiden name. He dates Wilson's entry into WWI in 1916. It was 1917, after the 1916 election wherein Wilson campaigned on the "He Kept Us Out Of War" slogan.

If it weren't for these inexcusable factual errors, I could endorse this as light summertime reading for the casual historian... I'm also surprised that David Eisenhower wrote a forward to the book (well done) and that Bill Buckley provided a jacket-cover recommendation. These guys obviously didn't read it - they surely would have noticed the aggravating factual errors I found.

Finally, while I'm an Ike fan and believe he's one of America's finest leaders of the 20th century - both as General and President - I think Humes gives too much credit with the suggestion that he "saved the world" along with Churchill... Professor Humes would be advised to remember,... that other heroes ... deserve lots of credit...

Not only is this the most boring book on the market but it is absolutely ridiculous. Historical facts are completely incorrect,(...)Worst of all, the grammar and vocabulary used in the book are just plain aweful. I have no idea how this book ever got published. Please go get your eyebrows waxed before reading this sad, painful garbage.

I have to agree with the other two reviewers. This is one of the silliest books that I have ever read. The grammar and syntax in this book are lamentable and it is extremely boring. This truly is some of the worst writing I've ever read. My advice is to run from any book that this man has the audacity to publish. Hardly a scholar and nowhere near being a writer, this author should truly give up!!

For as long as I can remember, I have had an interest in the biographies of great statesmen. I wanted to read about the lives of the men that have changed the world and understand what made them unique, what gave them the ability to be such influential historical figures. But reading about the bare-bones facts of a person's life does not reveal their inner motives; it does not tell the reader what forces drove these men to lead such influential lives. It was not until I read Rintala's book about the friendship between Churchill and Lloyd George that I discovered the missing link: combining psychology with biography. Not only does this book give the reader a fascinating perspective into the relationship between these two men, it tells the reader what forces shaped their personalities. I would recommend this book to anyone who is seriously interested in understanding the lives of two of the most powerful people of the 20th century. If you think you know the lives of Lloyd George or Winston Churchill by reading other biographies, your understanding of these two men will not be complete until you have read this book.