This book is fast paced and well written. The entire alternate history theme is believable, and could easily have been the real history.

The lead character is a bit of a stretch, but you will love the good guys in red-white and blue, and hate the bad guys who wear black on black.

The technology possibilities were very well thought out. This is especially true of the final chapters when historical names you will know are discussing what must be done in "1946".

Where's the sequel?

Once you get into 1945, you won't want to put it down as the stakes raise, the action keeps rising and the plot thickens in a story that might have become history. The United States emerges from World War II the victors over Japan and the far east, however the United States never battled Germany, who now controls Europe and has its eye on Soviet Union, or maybe they now have the US in their sites as they left as the only two remaining super powers.

The characters in the story are a little one sided but still very good. Twist and turning sub plots and action they engage in easily make up any shortfalls in the charatchers though for it and make the novel interesting and exciting. The only downside is that the sequel for the book has yet to be written and may never be. However, don't let it stop you from reading 1945 for its stand alone value.

What makes the book interesting is that for the most part is its use of real historical characters, political and military, of the time, a few are made up as needed, but for the most part, it helps make the novel seem highly real.

It's 1945, but it could have been our future...

Looking for something to read, I found thisbook, and from front to back, enjoyed the technical aspects immensely. I've spent many years studying some of the german weapons from the close of the war. Their systems and theories resulted in a significant number of our jet designs and rocket programs of the 50's and 60's. I'm really not concerned about who writes a book it if is well written. Being ex-military myself, and having done work on German capabilities in WWII, the raid on Oak Ridge is quite plausable, and in fact, would have had a high chance of success, had such a thing happened. Some of the intelligence reports I've read and other documents I've researched are more fantastic than what is in this book. I was hoping that this would be a 2 or 3 book serial novel, however, I am saddened by the fact that there isn't a sequel to it and we're left hanging with anticipation. We rebuked the NAZI's for burning books and suppressing free press/speech. I don't like Gingrich much, but I am not so closed minded to not read anything of fiction by him or anyone else. Perhaps maybe in reality, we are not much different from the NAZI's when we do this???

This is a poorly written book on the important subject of race in politics. Carter spends the entire book blaming conservatives' exploitation of race for their recent resurgence. In many examples, he is outright wrong(such as his analysis of the Willie Horton debacle), and in others he dramatically overstates the significance of the particular action. The only credible observation is that of the evolution of a new form of politics, a political system in which "image is everything". However, Carter complete ignores liberal manipulation of race in politics, and this book subsequently comes off as being very biased. If you're looking for a good book on race in politics, I suggest reading The End of Racism by Dinesh D'Souza or Hating Whitey by David Horowitz.

This book is four essays that deal with ideological drift of the GOP towards rightist and culturally conservative themes, and the appeal to white racism that underlies much of the GOP's appeal to the voters. The essays are chronological, the first one deals primarily with George Wallace, the others with Nixon, Reagan, and Gingrich.

Carter uses George Wallace's presidential campaigns of 1968 and 1972 as his starting point - how a racist demagogue from a cultural backwater quickly develops a national constituency, appealing to whites who feel threatened by the civil rights revolution of the 1960s. He then analyzes Nixon's exploitation of the same fears in his building of his "Silent Majority", and Nixon's important role in transitioning the Wallace voter to the GOP in 1972 and after.

The last two essays focus on Reagan and Gingrich, and how they in essence "deconstruct" racism to better fit their conservative ideologies and broaden the GOP's appeal. Nixon, Reagan, and Gingrich are far more circumspect in displaying overt racism than a Wallace, but Carter's arguement that their focus on exploiting the fears of middle class voters has its roots in the racism of George Wallace and his ilk is fairly compelling.

Carter sometimes seem to take this theory a bit too far, but that will happen in a short four essay book. Carter is troubled by the GOP's appeal to white racial fears, and his viewpoint that the GOP is 'playing with fire' around these fears is always evident, and sometimes heavyhanded.

This is a very readable thought provoking book.

In four clear, well-written essays, Carter shows how the conservative counter-revolution had its origins in white revulsion against the gains of the civil rights movement. From Montgomery to Milwaukee, whites found the prospect of racial equality frightening and unacceptable. In response to this--and, Carter acknowledges, other issues--a political realignment emerged. No one was more telling and important to this conservative backlash than George Wallace, the Dixiecrat from Alabama whose independent campaigns for the White House showed the Republican Party how to employ coded racial appeals to go from the party of the country club to the party of country music. This is a lively, thoughtful book with hard evidence and engaging anecdotes. And Carter is one of the best literary stylists writing history today. Better still is his magnificent biography of George Wallace, THE POLITICS OF RAGE, which describes the same transformations through the biography of a fascinating Southern demagogue who once received 34 per cent of the vote in my home state of Wisconsin!

For insight into Gingrich, one should skip this book and instead read his extensive set of Amazon reviews. Yes -- Newt Gingrich writes lots of reviews on Amazon! And not a single pan! Everything gets four stars or more, suggesting that Newt may be burdened by a seriously unsceptical mind.

And it's not all Toffler and Deming. He reads novels, history, and science books, and seems to have a military fetish. The reviews are generally well-written and useful, but Gingrich may overestimate the importance of books. On Kissinger's "Does America Need a Foreign Policy?" he writes, "This is a book the Bush Administration can use for sophisticated planning." I can just see Dubya, Cheney and Condy huddled over a dog-eared copy of Kissinger's book, marking up their map of geopolitical chessboard.

Newt who? Is he still around? Put a fork in him...he's done.

I've been a fan of Newt Gingrich ever since I read "Window of Opportunity" back in 1984 and I used to watch his special order speeches on the House floor on C-SPAN long after the rest of the country had gone to bed. I thought I would enjoy hearing from my role model, in his own words, why the 104th and 105th Congress stalled, shot itself in the foot repeatedly, and allowed our character-challenged president take credit for things he didn't do.

I was wrong.

Although I have a better understanding now of the events surrounding Congress over the last several years, I found the litany of apoligies and excuses depressing. I miss the visionary Newt, and the last chapter, which describes Newt's "4 goals for our generation" felt like an afterthought.

All in all, I'm glad Newt wrote this book, and it should be required reading for all Republicans, but don't expect to put the book down feeling inspired 'cause it isn't going to happen. Newt: catharsis is good for the soul, but please start looking forward instead of backward.

Is one lifelong zealot going to destroy our Republican Party and bring shame to the whole democratic system of justice. Are these meanminded right wing hate mongers going to prevail. America will rise and say NO

This in NOT a politically motivated work. This is definitely the best teaching reference on what it means to be a United States Citizen. With being a Citizen of this country comes great responsibilites to oneself, your community and to your country. This would go hand-in-hand very nicely with Hillary R. Clinton's book "It takes a Village".

Burnham's book is a fine history of the slow degeneration of Congress as an institution, from it's beginnings as the heart of our gov't, to it's present state as an irritating side show that mainly serves to siphon public money off to various local interests. That, in fact, is one of the things Burnham defends, and this is the book's primary flaw. While it gives a fine account of the creeping imperialism of the executive branch, it offers nothing but jeremiads. The practical solutions to this problem, such as making Congress larger, are not seriously considered. Worse yet is the author's tendency to defend the more backward aspects of Congressional life, such as special interest politics. It is all well and good to say that Congress defends the rights of the few against the many and stands in the path of mob tyrannny, but it is undeniable that it is all to often a leech that exists only to expropriate the wealth of one segment of society and pass it on to another. Burnham's blind allegience to outworn gov't mechanisms is his great flaw. The first principles he adheres to are as valid as ever, but they need a new embodiement more suited to our own times and troubles. Romantic nostalgia for the days of Webster and Calhoun is counterproductive.

Ah, the Reagan years ... when Newt Gingrich was a rising star, Bill Clinton was an obscure Southern governor, and Republicans knew Congress was the enemy. Within just a few years, the same people and institutions who railed against the 'imperial Congress' would find themselves in control of that institution. By that time, the White House was the enemy again, and Republicans devoted their energy and determination to rolling back the presidency and using Congress as an engine of 'reform.'

As a monument of that earlier, innocent era, this book has three elements: an indictment of Congressional abuses of power, an analysis of the 'separation of powers' doctrine, and policy prescriptions for the late 1980s and beyond. Of these, the last is largely outdated now and the first is incomplete: the problem isn't that Congress is too powerful vis-à-vis the presidency, or vice versa, but rather that *both* branches have far too much power (just for good measure, so does the judiciary), and *both* should be severely, brutally, uncompromisingly scaled back.

The middle element, the analysis of 'separation of powers,' still stands up fifteen years later, however, and is worth a read for students of political science.