This is definetly one of the best armor books I have read. It has action o'plenty with the M-1 Abrams having some fun with T-62's and various other tanks and APC's. If I have one complaint it's that you don't see enough of the "big picture", i.e., the high-level political occurences that cause World War III. But, that also serves to convey the sense of isolation felt by the characters throughout this fast-paced novel. A must-read for all military-techno-junkies

There are a number of reviews here that mention the lack of 'the big picture' and 'political depth'. True. That depth was offered up in 'Third World War : August 1985' by Sir John Hackett, a senior NATO general. Hackett's tale, written in 1977, was at the other extreme; too dry and impersonal. This is the book 'A reader from Alexandria, VA' refered to when he said the missile strikes were straight out of another WWIII novel. Coyle used Hackett's WWIII as the framework upon which to hang the story of a small combat unit, fleshing out the General's big picture with a view from gunsights. Read both books for the total story and a more complete understanding of Cold War military thinking.

Harold Coyles first book based on events from the book "The Third World War" By Sir John Hacket. This book does not deal with the politics of the war, it is just the combat thrill ride that you are looking for in a book of this type.

Looking back now, some of the technical ifo may be a bit dated, but it does not take away from the book in any way.

It is a nonstop combat action thriller, that is easily read, and not too technical for the novice, but still interesting for the more advanced reader.

After reading this book, I bought the rest of Harold Coyles' books at a yard sale just based on the quality of this one book.

They just don't write then like this any more.

In the late sixties I was listening to "Declaration" by the Fifth Dimension. My father overheard this, and, back in those days when lyrics were both intelligible and intelligent, became enraged. He stormed into my room and asked if I really believed what the singers were saying. He never did believe me when I told him that they were simply singing Jefferson's words. (The above really did happen. It's such a good story that I wouldn't blame you if you didn't believe it.)

If you really want to understand that "long chain of abuses and userpations" this book is a great place to start. I love to read history, but consider myself no expert. The author brings alive the men underneath the powdered wigs, and shows us the revolution through their eyes. We see Thomas Jefferson struggle with the contradictions of owning over two hundred slaves while writing of the self-evident equality of all men. We see the military genius of George Washington not just at Yorktown, but even more evident in his retreats from New York and New Jersy. The single minded Sam Adams comes alive, as he guides the reluctant Massachusets delegates toward independence

This book is well worth your time.

I consider Patriots a history book for people who don't like history. Rather than read like a typical dull, dry history book, this book reads more like a novel. Done in narrative style, we start at the early days of the revolution and learn that the people of the colonies were hardly in agreement over splitting from England.

We learn that Samuel Adams, known more today for the beer company bearing his name, was the key, early member of the faction that opposed Europe. As we go along, we meet the other well-known founding fathers: Hancock, Henry, Jefferson, Washington, John Adams, Paine, etc.

Very well-done.

As a lifelong history buff I thought I knew how the American Revolution began. I didn't, not until I read PATRIOTS, The Men Who Started the American Revolution. For the first time I was INSIDE the political actions, you might say the political conspiracy, that brought America to independence. Finally, and in full-color, I could see how Sam Adams sparked a handful of activists to struggle for years through all kinds of adversity to awaken the American People to their own rights, and to the need to defend them. Sam Adams, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, John Adams, George Washington and others come to life as human-beings and as "political animals" in this incredible pean to the power of the individual to change the world. This fascinatingly readable book takes all the boredom out of history. If you read only one book on the American Revolution in your whole life, make it this one.

The Ten Thousand returns author Harold Coyle to high-tech warfare since Bright Star. In it, the US with the cooperation of Russia confiscate nuclear weapons from a belligerent Ukraine. The weapons are then placed in Germany for safekeeping where a Chancellor sees the opportunity to steal them and threaten the world. Suddenly, Germany is not a good place for Americans to be in and they must fight their way and get the nukes back.

In this book, Coyle introduces even more women and in different aspects of the war. The infantry leader, medic, reporter/soldier's wife and the commander-in-chief. They are credited to giving a more humanizing effect on the male soldiers. It may not be realistic but it's definitely idealistic portrayal.

Most of the American characters are back. And for those who've read Coyle's previous books, it's a treat to see two Russian characters return. It's also interesting to see that a Russian finds himself in command of a group of American Rangers. The German characters could use some more depth however. None of them are very memorable unlike most non-American characters in previous books (except Bright Star). They're either against the war or are anti-American. I do wonder what Coyle thinks of the US military's future. In one chapter he mentions that the Airborne Division is being scrapped as part of the "new model Army". Yet, they are used in the book for a vital operation. A re-evaluation is sorely needed.

Overall, Harold Coyle has another winner.

Harold Coyle, a master of military fiction, has created yet another vivid and all too possible scenario: A reunited Germany with a fanatically anti-American chancellor has seized control of nuclear weapons, and intends not only to threaten Germany's neighbors but to humiliate the American army in the process. Not only does Germany intend to keep the nukes, but he intends to disarm the American Forces in Germany and send them home in disgrace. So, the commanding general of the American army in Germany decides to march through Germany to the sea, taking on anyone who stands in their way. Several characters from Coyle's previous books are back, including the irrepressible captain Nancy Kozak and the unforgettable Scott Dixon, as well as Ed Lewis, the former National Guardsman now congressman, and General "Big Al" Malin (all five foot three inches of him). Moving skillfully from the battlefields of the inner chambers of power within the two opposing governments to the actual battlefields on the plains of Germany, the triumphs, tragedies, and horrors of sustained modern armored combat are described in vivid and sometimes graphic detail. This book does an excellent job of putting a human face to a tale of modern warfare.

Most days, I don't think Harold Coyle could write his way through a Dick & Jane story.

But this time... wow. Taking some ancient Greek history and twisting it into a modern plot, Coyle has written one fine military page-turner. I dare ya not to laugh out loud when a German officer states, "My position has become untenable..."

Great stuff.

The story of the first female to be assigned as a Mechanized Infantry Platoon Leader. She is thrust into action in a war with Mexico and proves that women have what it takes to be in combat arms.

Harold Coyle is one of the followers-on of Tom Clancy. He's done a series of reasonably well-recieved books based on modern potential conflicts. What sets him apart is that one of his main characters in several of the books is female, and she's relatively believable. He's made it so that it's concievable that a woman could be a good officer at the infantry level, which is an accomplishment.
However, Coyle has taken a different tack the last several years. He's been writing historical novels, and though in some ways they're good, he's gotten away from his strenghts. He did two novels on the Civil War (Look Away and Until the End) which rested on a tenuous and predictable plot device: one brother winds up in the Confederate army, the other in the Union one...it was a bit much.
Here, he ventures into the French and Indian wars. He has four main characters, a British officer, a Scotsman who's been transported as a prisoner to Virginia and earned his freedom there, a French artillery officer who is a follower of Rousseau and Voltaire, and an American Indian, who's allied with the French because it gives him a chance to kill whites. The plot device used to connect the characters is that two of them met at Culloden in 1745 (the British officer and the Scotsman). This only sort of works; there's no reason for the other two people to be in the story at all. They see each other on the battlefield (the Frenchman and the Indian have a conflict going on, over when it's reasonable to kill prisoners), but other than that there's no interaction at all between the characters. So the story meanders along, not really anything more than an excuse to hang a recounting of the French and Indian war onto several plot devices. Don't get me wrong: I have no objection to the history itself, it's just that the wooden love scenes in the middle sort of detract from the overall effect. There are parts of the war that get much treatment, because the characters are there, and other parts that get scant or no treatment, because they aren't... Lastly, you're left hanging, waiting for the Revolutionary war sequel, knowing that the colonials will be rebels, wondering what the British officer will do (he marries a wealthy New Yorker towards the end of the book), and wondering completely what's happening to the Indians. It's been four years, and Coyle's written other books, which are modern again. Maybe the sequel was going to be more of the same, and the publisher told him to return to what he's good at.

While I enjoyed this book much more than Coyle's Civil War books - perhaps because I knew less of this history so was not as critical - I still feel that he is not totally comfortable with historical fiction. Apart from some obvious anachronisms, what seems most strained in this book is Coyle's effort to present fully rounded and believable native American characters. Unfortunately, as drawn, these characters have the stilted 'noble redman' quality that American Indians are frequently stereotyped with - even the 'bad' ones.

Still, Coyle's story is entertaining and his characters are, for the most part, engaging. I would have preferred more follow through - a more clear rounding out of the story so that one had some sense of what had happened to all the main characters. It seemed like a lot was left unresolved (so there can be a sequel?).

In any event, as Coyle continues down the path of historical fiction, each book seems to be better than the one before.

As a native of Pittsburgh and a very distant relative of British General John Forbes, I'm fascinated by the French and Indian War. Coyle sure makes the period come alive. The only better account is Eckert's "Wilderness Empire". For all you non-Pittsburghers, did you know that the field of Braddock's Defeat is thought to be where the Edgar Thompson Steel Works are today? That Three Rivers Stadium is the site where the Indians had such intense sport with their British and Colonial prisoners? Thanks Harold for making this often neglected period come alive. Keep up the great writing and I'll keep buying. Paperback, of course.

To begin with, academically speaking, I totally agree with the lengthy review from Alberta, Canada. Anyone wanting to read this book should first read and digest that review. It's hard for most academics to write across disciplinary lines, and a lone historian just isn't qualified to tackle a subject that encompasses sociology, gender studies, gay studies, queer theory, cultural anthropology, psychology, et al. At least in my humble opinion...

What I'd like to comment on isn't the validity of Hitler's homo or hetero-sexuality. The idea that Hitler might have been homosexual or bisexual is not new, and while nothing in this book convinces me, I don't dispute the possibility that Hitler was homosexual, certainly not for fear of what it "says" about gay folks today. (With the heterosexuality of such monsters as Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Pinochet, Hussein, and bin Laden well documented, anyone who equates evil with gayness based on this book needs to go back to the third grade and retrieve their critical thinking skills.)

The issue I would like to raise is this -- simply, "the gaze." Did the author of this book consider the environment he released this book into? Did he stop to think about the audience, and how his words might be perceived, interpreted, and used? Some would say it isn't the job of a historian to be concerned about such matters. Just tell the story and let the chips fall where they may. So why doesn't he tell the whole story?

One can read "Hidden Hitler" cover to cover and gain virtually no understanding of the Nazi persecution of homosexuals, nor any understanding of homophobia in Nazi/Germanic culture. Without this context, the book comes across at times as superficial and sensationalistic. And sometimes I just had to wonder if these glaring omissions didn't indicate the presence of a hidden agenda operating somewhere in the author's mind.

Admittedly some aspects of Machtan's thesis are tentative and in need of verification. But it's a subject that hitherto has received little treatment and that only in a sensationalistic manner. Machtan brings to his study a serious and dispassionate tone. The homosexual aspect of Nazism, especially in the Stormtroops, is well known, but little else has been said of it in regards to the party as a whole. Having read about Hitler and Nazism for two decades I can say that Machtan's study fills in a lot of gaps. The Roehm putsch and Night of the Long Knives makes much more sense. Liberals will not be happy with the fact that Machtan reveals that the Nazis did not target homosexuals per se (as many high ranking party members were homosexual so long as they were discrete). Rather the Nazi's anti-homosexual campaign was a hypocritical excuse to further clamp down on political opponents rather than combat immorality. Even if Machtan's argument for Hitler's homosexuality is not absolutely conclusive (he was certainly dysfunctional and a misogynist ), there can be little doubt that the future German fuehrer came from a bohemian background, and that ideologically the Nazis grew out of the pro-homosexual Wandervogel movement which emulated the Spartan ideal in more ways than one. Many of Hitler's close friends and mentors were undoubtedly homosexual. It is a very readable and thought-provoking study.

With the literally thousands of books and articles about Hitler that have appeared over the last half century, it is nothing short of remarkable that no one has ever thought to examine the wealth of documentary evidence suggesting that Hitler was homosexual, or to analyze the impact his sexuality may have had on some of his actions. Machtan's well-researched book should open a whole arena in the Hitler studies.
Obviously this book has upset many. It's thesis seems particularly offensive to many gay people, afraid that the revelation of Hitler's possible homosexuality will lead to a simple equation that Hitler was evil because he was gay.
But Machtan is careful not only to avoid such simplistic reductionism, but to point out instead the immense damage Hitler did to gay people in Germany in his apparent attempts to cover up his history of homosexuality and destroy those who knew about it. As a result, Machtan throws a whole new light on the homophobia of the Nazis, the destruction of the SA, the persecution of Magnus Hirschfeld and the roundup of gay Germans.
This book is a bit dry at times, and loaded with footnotes. But that's no vice in a work of such a potentially sensational nature. Machten avoids prurient sensationalism and outrageous or unsubstantiated claims, preferring to quietly focus on the conclusions that can be culled from the admittedly murky sources.
All told, a major contribution, well researched and thoughtfully rendered.

Gubernick has written a very concise biography of Huntingdon Hartford, the heir to the A&P fortune. A man who had it all and squandered it. The prose is lively and the story is interesting, but one wishes the author had spent more time getting us inside Hartford's head. The result is that we learn a great deal about WHAT he did, but very little about WHY he did it. Not a bad book to kill an afternoon with but nonetheless a book that falls short of its potential.