Cannon was the leader of the genuine American revolutionists who continued Communism and didnot succumb to Stalin and the degeneration of the American Communist Party. This is the story of the founding, the struggle of American Communism before Stalinism turned the Communist Party into its opposite. Here too is much history of the IWW, the Socialist party, and the other fighters who came before. This is not nostalgia, but written by a fighter for other fighters to learn to use these experiences to continue Cannon's fight to change the world. . . . I discovered this book in the library 35 years ago when I was dismayed by how rotten American Stalinists of the Maoist and Moscow varieties were and thought I would abandon trying to change the world. This book inspired me with the genuine revolutionism that came before, and that fighters like Cannon continued the fight, I found worth giving my life to.

Of science-fiction novels, of cold-war novels, of serious American novels -- one of the very best. But then so is another Budrys novel, "Rogue Moon". "Who?" was made into a disappointing film; "Rogue Moon" awaits an animator perhaps not yet born. But both should be cherished first as books.

According to the book's forward, "a unique experiment was attempted" within the 84th Division. Its own historical section was formed as soon as the division went into combat and was "encouraged to go...to the source, to the men themselves, from the commanding general to any private, for the most complete, firsthand information on every action." For the most part the book succeeds quite well. The division's various battles are described in good if not graphic detail, ranging from the divisional level down to the company level. The only complaint I have is that individual soldiers are not mentioned by name very often. This is in contrast, for example, to Cornelius Ryan's excellent The Longest Day which tells the individual soldiers' stories quite well.

Nevertheless, this book is an excellent history of one particular division and also gives a good overview of the division's role in the war as a whole. It is generously endowed with photographs, maps, and original artwork. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in World War II history, and particularly to anyone who either served with the 84th Division or had a relative who did (as my father did).

You have my first review. I cannot improve upon it. P.A.D.

This was an excellent book. It appeared to be meticulously researched. Mr. Draper took the amazing personalities of the Iran-Contra affair and made them very human, but with little or no loss of credibility concerning the story that he told - an unusual feat these days. His book delivered no smoking gun of any kind, but it certainly pointed the finger at the President and the Vice President who were clearly willing to go as close to breaking the law as they could in order to pursue a controversial policy. The stand-out person in the tale is Oliver North - a classic example of a man who, with apparent earnestness and conviction concerning his own mission, can become an arrogant dangerous player when given real or associated power. Given the reader's subsequent knowledge of North's rise to political prominence and wealth, reading this account of his actions is an even more satisfying experience

I read this book in college and gave my copy to my history prof when I left school. If I had known how difficult it would be to try and get another copy, I might not have left it. (just kidding Proffessor Gill) This is perhaps the best book I have read since Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich as far as bringing a dense and complicated seiries of events together in an easily understandable, fascinating read. I followed the Iran-Contra "affair" very closely as it happened, and read many books on it before this; but only after reading this book did I feel as if I actually understood what went on. A keeper for anyone's non-fiction library.

This book is an excellent collection of important documents on the Iran-Contra affair. There is nothing like reading the documents for yourself, and not counting on someone else to interpret them for you

Draper's "A Struggle for Power" is misleading in it's subtitle. This book is not about the American revolution whatsoever. It is 500+ pages about every nit-picky detail leading up to the revolution, all of which can be summed up with this: The British and the American's knew before the war that war was inevitable. Well, no kidding. Is there anyone who would care to argue that the war suddenly came about the day the first shots were fired? I didn't think so. I bought this book hoping it would be an engaging book on the war itself. I was hoping it would bring this fascinating period of history to life in the style of Ambrose- this book was the complete opposite. Consider what Draper says at the end of the book when we have finally reached the war itself: "After Lexington and Concord, eight years of war, with many ups and downs, were necessary before the Americans were officially free from British rule. But they belong to the story of the war, not why and how it came about." I got pretty mad when I read that. Mr. Draper, if your book is not a story of war, why is your book subtitled, "The American Revolution"? A more apt title would be, "A Struggle for Power: A Way-too long Dictionary of Early American and British Filler I've Researched That Happened Before the Revolutionary War". My suggested title is more true to this book, but I suppose the actual title sells more copies.

Draper's extensive research on the subject of pre-revolutionary history is to be commended, but no author could possibly have written a more boring book even if they tried. I can see how scholors on revolutionary history would be facsinated by all the drab in this book, but I gained virtually no new knowledge of American history than what I learned in elementary school. (British taxation, American resistance, the boston tea party, Paul reveare) Draper never decribes events, but only quotes endless information from old english pamphletts. If a true account of the Revolutionary War is what you are looking for, you will at least be enterertained by watching and picking apart "The Patriot" with Mel Gibson or inquiring about the mascot at a New England Patriots football game. As a history buff, I think that's pretty sad.

I liked this book. It was an in-depth work of the economics and politics of the pre-revolutionary period in America. It wiped away the ideals that we all learned in third grade and it made it real. Of course money was behind the war...isn't it always? But it's something that's not said, out of "respect" to our founding fathers.

The book wasn't always the easiest read...there were many excerpts that were written in Old English. But it was very interesting and compelling. It's not your everyday elementary school book on history. I appreciated that.

This is an example of history at its best, in my eyes. Too often, people are tempted to view an event in a vacuum, without examining the causes of the event in question. Beyond that, they more frequently fail to place the event in context with the currents of history.

Certainly nobody can accuse Draper of such a thing. The book begins as the 7-Years War is coming to an end, and controversy rages in Great Britain as to what territories the British are going to claim from France as spoils. This is hardly unusual; conventional history holds that the American Revolution was a direct result of the 7-years War, and efforts by the British government to recoup some of the massive expenditures made during the war. Draper could simply have left it at that, and shown how relations between Britain and the colonies deteriorated over the next decade until the colonist finally revolted.

However, Draper correctly sees that both the controversies of the 1760's and the ultimate revolution in the 1770's are merely symptons of a larger and more severe malady that plagued the British imperial system for nearly a century prior to the American Revolution, namely how the colonies, which were growing more populous and prosperous with each generation, could remain subject to Great Britain. As the colonies grew stronger, how could they be expected to follow dictates of a country that was no longer superior to them in power? He examines the history, as it unfolds from generation to generation, of the balance of power between Britain and its colonies.

Draper does an excellent job of this. To me, this is history at its most magnificent, as the reader sees the forces of history moving through time, with each event or trend influencing successive events and trends. The examination of the writings and speeches of various leaders and thinkers show that it was apparent that a power struggle between Britain and the colonies, in one form or another, was inevitable. Many people on both sides of the Atlantic could see this even in the late 17th century.

Draper also examines how some people attempted, ultimately without success, to avoid the inevitable, through a variety of schemes and proposals. People could see what ultimately would be the result, but tried nonetheless to reach an arrangement that would keep the colonies from breaking away from the mother country. The currents of history proved to be too strong, however, and events moved along towards their inevitable conclusion.

Also fascinating was to see the evolution of the colonists' perception of themselves and how they related to Britain. At the beginning of the 1760's, there was hardly a colonist that could conceive (or admit the truth to himself) of outright independence from Britain. With each succeeding event, the colonists' thinking evolves, and once loyal subjects ultimately become revolutionaries. By contrast, some individuals such as John Dickinson, begin ahead of the revolutionary curve, but because their positions do not evolve, they ultimately are left behind and are perceived almost as counter-revolutionaries.

On the British side, Draper examines the British government's approach towards the increasingly threatening colonies. The policy of Robert Walpole from the 1720's to the early 1740's was simply not to press the issue of Parliamentary primacy. Better to let a future generation make a mistake with the colonies than us, appears to have been the reasoning. By the 1760's, the issues were becoming harder to avoid, but at that time Britain had the misfortune to be ruled by a series of unstable and short-lived governments. Without a coherent and measured colonial policy, the various British governments succeeded only in hastening the inevitable.

Draper quite skillfully weaves together a multitude of historical forces as they unfold, as he moves back and forth across the Atlantic, and down through the succeeding generations. Some readers have found this book to be boring. I have to admit that it took me three tries to make it through the book; however, I have read it three times since then and do not understand how I could have been bogged down. Draper's writing is certainly readable enough.

If you are looking for a Stephen Ambrose-style of history, with lots of narrative, then keep on looking, because this book will be far too cerebral for you. However, if you enjoy a good intellectual examination of history at its conceptual level, I enthusiastically recommend this book.