I was very surprised when I ordered this book and found out that yes, indeed, it was merely a very tiny portion of what I had expected. I suppose I should have known from the price, but the description (at least at that time) did not make it clear that it wasn't the entire dictionary.

While this may be a very thorough source for the words it covers, it should be noted in the basic information that this is ONLY 128 pages of a 15,000 page work. The description above is very misleading.

itz a dictionary. what more can i say

If you are looking for an indepth analysis of the strategy and tactics of 20th century battles, then this book isn't for you. Instead, what this book does well is give an overview of some of the major battles in the 20th century. Some of the descriptions are better than others as the authors/sources vary, but in general this book is a good place to begin a study of modern combat. It gives a good reference point from which a more detailed study/investigation can be made via other sources.

The Mammoth Book of Battles is a good way to get a broad look at some of the pivotal battles of the 20th century. There are 35+ battles covered in the book, starting with the Boer War and finishing with Desert Storm. It's interesting to track the development of warfare through this century as it becomes faster, more wide ranging, and lethal.You can get a sense of the shifts in military thinking as the book progresses towards the present; compare the Somme to Ia Drang for example.

Although the detail is by necessity sparing, there is enough to get a good look at some famous and some not so famous battles. The writing quality varies; some pieces are eyewitness accounts from journals, while others are by military historians. The best is the piece on Anzio by John Keegan, probably one of the best military historians out there today. The editor wrote the final piece on the Gulf War, which is unfortunately somewhat un-inspired, and looks like it was cribbed together from numerous news blurbs on the war. The editor also makes the mistake of calling the 82nd Airborne Division, the "Screaming Eagles", which is actually the moniker of the 101st Airmobile Division.

It's probably best to think of this book as a springboard for getting you looking into the battles covered in more depth.

Actually the Cold War started when the Soviets supposedly assasinated General Sikorsky. And before they supposedly did that because of the certain fact Sikorsky didn't like the USSR for their mass murder of thousands of Polish officers, they set up an alternative Polish regime to combat Poland's true one that was in exile in Cairo in 1943. The reason for that was because the authentic Governemnt of Poland would likely pick Sikorsky as the leader of Poland after the war and he could have become president. And if he did there would definitely be NO Communism in Poland, now that would take away the USSR's direct land bridge to East Germany where they always poised themselves to take over the Indusrial Rhineland(Oh my god if I though like Chomsky I would say that the USSR was one big greedy corporation that really according to its game plan wanted to absord West German buisiness prospects that the US Marshall plan created into it's own realm.)

The USSR's placement of Soviet style regimes in Eastern Europe that imprisoned millions is the real cause for the "get tough" policy. Not to mention the Soviet placing 2 million men in Eastern Europe in a posture to attack the West mainly through the Fulda Gap against 1 American Division along the Frankfurt to Rhineland highway. The USSR's intrest in the Industrial Complex has to be looked into it may provide the only explanation for why they murdered so many just so they could keep intact their land bridge to Rhineland.

Gaddis eloquently addresses the causes of the Cold War. Gaddis discusses the policy of the Truman administration and how a "get tough" policy led to the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union.

As far apart from the Disney classic as the movie version of Moby Dick is to its literary partner, Alice in Wonderland portrays the fanciful tale of the little girl, Alice, wandering about in a world of her own childhood imaginings and storybook recollections. If you have never actually READ the book, than you have a chance to know what your mother always thought would scare you as a little child, but really just adds to the fantastical wonderland which was the author's intention.

Right and honorable? Not exactly what I'd use to describe Mr. Rhodes. Gag me.

Life-threatening events under anesthesia are rare and personal experience is limited. Therefore, mentally preparation with lessons learned from near misses in anesthesia are essential. What did the fat man in "The house of god" teach his residents? "Only make a mistake once, and don't make all of them at the same time"

An excellent early nineteenth narrative report of the major Bedouin tribes of the Arabian Peninsula including insightful commentary and reflection on prevailing folkways and mores by a European Arabist.

Primary focus is the early beginnings of modern Saudi Arabia, the unification of the Wahhabiyah movement and the Al Saud family, the spread of Wahhabiyah Islam, conflicts with the indigenous Bedouin tribes and Ottoman Turkish occupation.

A provocative first hand account, highly readable for anyone interested in Islam, Saudi Arabia, the Ottoman Empire and the Arab world. At once an anthropological and historical work.

The quality of the speakers in this collection varied. Some, like those by Fred Friendly and Tom Brokaw, were interesting and thought-provoking but the decline in talent from lecture to lecture was obvious - the last one was by conservative ideologue and media mogul Rupert Murdoch, defending sleeze (sp?) on TV. The editors also did a poor job - all they had to do was transcribe some speeches. The fact that they wound up with spelling and grammatical errors just goes to show how quickly this work was thrown together. My advice - read the offerings by Wicker, Chancellor, Friendly and Brokaw and skip the rest.

I was mainly drawn to Bulletproof Monk because John Woo, one of my all-time favorite action-movie directors, is helming an adaptation starring Chow Yun-Fat. Woo also wrote the introduction. Along with Mike Avon Oeming's art, that's about all that's worth a look.

The story seems to be patterned after kung-fu movies, but the creators seem to forget that the fun of a kung-fu flick is NOT the dopey plot, or the deep meditations of the tortured characters, but the KUNG-FU. Seeing 2 VERY short action sequences in print is not a thrill....

The characters are all forgettable, and I didn't feel for any of them in the slightest. My sole enjoyment in this waste of money came from the numerous self-congratulatory essays from the various people involved with the book. They practically break their arms patting themselves on the back..
You'd think you were reading about Catcher in the Rye, instead of an overrated amateur-hour piece of junk. Pass at all costs!

I thought the movie increased Jades role and that perhaps she belongs in a jupiter video what with all the sanskrit/tibetan writing on her at the end.

Iloved this bok. Oeming is a GOD. The editorial is incorrect. The movie is being PRODUCED by John Woo. Not directed by. It is directed by Paul Hunter.