London, 1992, Greenhill, lst UK ed thus w/DJ, , limited r/p of 1907 ed, 6x9, 447 pp. appendice lists detailed German & French orders of Battle down to reguiment., 1 MAP.
Helmuth von Moltke was promoted to Field Marshal and created Graf von Moltke by the ambitious William I of Prussia and his Chancellor Bismarck on the consolidation of the German empire in 1871, after his triumphs in the Franco-German War. A brilliant intellectual, his strategy and generalship had prevailed against the apparently mighty military power of Napoleon III of France. Napoleon had thought to bolster popular support for his rule by extending his territory to the Rhine. Instead he lost his throne and France was humiliatingly forced to cede Alsace and Lorraine.

By the time this war broke out, von Moltke had already achieved outstanding and surprising successes against Austria in the Six Weeks' War in 1866, and, a perfectionist in organisation, was the creator of the General Staff system of today. Rapidity of attack by the use of railway transport was as successful in France as in his earlier victories, but in France defeat of the army was followed by a people's war before final victory was achieved, exemplified most vividly by the long and horrific siege of Paris.

Against military autobiography in principle, von Moltke was nevertheless prevailed upon to write the history of this war, thus achieving for the reader the best of both worlds - a careful and accurate description of events, combined with insights into strategy which as commander only he could authoritatively give. From the preparations for war and the combat of Weissenburg on 4th August 1870, von Moltke sweeps the reader through his carefully planned campaign including every stage of the war up to the armistice and the homeward march of the victorious German army. Von Moltke is considered by many the most able mind in military matters since Napoleon, and in this unimpeachable work has left for posterity the rare legacy of a complete war recorded from the viewpoint of its commander-in-chief.

Ernst Michael Kranich has written an interesting book on the possibility of evolution without necessarily having to be of the Darwinian type. Even though his work is predated in the main by Wolfgang Schad (Man and Mammals) who also provides a far deeper analysis, it does add some new aspects to Goethean science.

Goeathen science or in other words the way of science developed by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (the famous German poet) is different in the sense that it stays with the phenomenon rather than going outside of it. Goethe stresses this by statements such as "the phenomenon is already theory" using the Greek meaning of theory rather than the modern meaning which almost dissociates itself from the phenomenon under question. As such this approach is purely objective in the true sense of scientific, to get an idea of the full aspects of such a science in a very clear and methodical way devoid of speculation read the book by Henri Bortoft, The Wholeness of Nature, which can expand on this idea.

Kranich uses the Goethean approach to look carefully at the animal world and its developments such as horses skeletons and the organ arrangement in mammals, the important aspect is that he brings out the wholeness of the animal in question rather than an analysis of each part. The animal is seen whole rather than constructed of parts. For example does the word arm or hand having any meaning when abstracted from the body it is connected to, and so too for the organs and structure of the animal. This approach of Kranich is both satisfactory in a very human way and yet does not sacrifice scientific rigour.

Given the comments above I must note that not all of the book was as well written as I would have liked, its possible the translation from the German was not the best perhaps because of the concepts used in German which may have had untranslatable aspects. But I also felt that at times the science was on shaky ground never feeling quite secure in Kranich's argument and always feeling that either there was more to do to make one really believe it or that the opposing arguments from accepted science could not be fully dealt with.

Nonetheless a satisfying book and a good lead into Goethean approaches to science.

If you think that only those with religious motivations find current evolutionary theories inadequate, this book is for you. These German scholars demonstrate that gradual accumulations of mutations does not add up to biological novelty. The abrupt appearance of fossils in the fossil record, as noted by the German paleontologist Otto Schindewolf decades ago, is also recounted. The work of Michael Denton is also mentioned.

If you dislike crying from boredom, I would not suggest this book. I found myself very frustrated with the incessantly repetitive nature of his writing. Some paragraphs made no sense at all. I highly reccomend this book to anyone suffering from insomnia!

This book doesn't hold a candle to Von Drehle's "Among the Lowest of the Dead." I picked this book up hoping to be informed and possibly persuaded that the death penalty is a poor system. The author's uninteresting discussions about personal conflicts with people and organizations made me less than empathetic to his point of view.

For Mello, capital punishment is "government-sponsored homocide." He sees the system as being an "unambiguous disgrace to civilized humanity; besides being classist and indecent, it is racist." I couldn't agree more. And that's why I found this book so compelling to read. Mello places his first-hand analysis of "government-sponsored homocide" in a legal, cultural, philosophical, and ethical context. Though our common sense may say that capital punishment is the best, most justifiable consequence for cold hearted murder, we must use our uncommon sense to see the larger picture.

Government-sponsored homocide is not like a crime of murder--even though both seek retribution, but it's a systemic form of murder in which death is seen as a solution to problems in our society and world. As long as we hold to this solution, we'll never be able to understand man's inhumanity to man. We'll simply take the "common sense" route to soloving complex problems with simplistic answers.

Many readers will say that Mello is too biased in his analysis. But with well over 3,000 men and women in this country facing a death sentence (nearly 400 in Florida alone), and with a president who resided over 100 death sentences in Texas, we have to think much more critically about what type of country and culture we're livng in and allowing to develop.

Reading Mello helps us think about this "anathema to civilization." He does it with passion, insight, and years of committed work. Even though he has stepped down from being a capital public defender, I think his book will be useful to generations to come who can join others to take on anti-death work.

Von Däniken claims that the myths, arts, social organizations, etc., of ancient cultures were introduced by astronauts from another world. He questions not just the capacity for memory, but the capacity for culture and civilization itself, in ancient peoples. Prehistoric humans did not develop their own arts and technologies, but rather were taught art and science by visitors from outer space.

Where is the proof for von Däniken's claims? Some of it was fraudulent. For example, he produced photographs of pottery that he claimed had been found in an archaeological dig. The pottery depicts flying saucers and was said to have been dated from Biblical times. However, investigators from Nova (the fine public-television science program) found the potter who had made the allegedly ancient pots. They confronted von Däniken with evidence of his fraud. His reply was that his deception was justified because some people would only believe if they saw proof ("The Case of the Ancient Astronauts," first aired 3/8/78, done in conjunction with BBC's Horizon and Peter Spry-Leverton)!

However, most of von Däniken's evidence is in the form of specious and fallacious arguments. His data consists mainly of archaeological sites and ancient myths. He begins with the ancient astronaut assumption and then forces all data to fit the idea. For example, in Nazca, Peru, he explains giant animal drawings in the desert as an ancient alien airport. The fact that the lines of the drawing would be useless as a runway for any real aircraft because of their narrowness is conveniently ignored by von Däniken. The likelihood that these drawings related to the natives' science or mythology is not considered. He also frequently reverts to false dilemma reasoning of the following type: "Either this data is to be explained by assuming these primitive idiots did this themselves or we must accept the more plausible notion that they got help from extremely advanced peoples who must have come from other planets where such technologies as anti-gravity devices had been invented." His devotion to this theory has not dwindled, despite contrary evidence, as is evidenced by still another book on the subject, Arrival of the Gods : Revealing the Alien Landing Sites at Nazca (1998).

There have been many critics of von Däniken's notions, but Ronald Story stands out as the most thorough. Most critics of von Däniken's theory point out that prehistoric peoples were not the helpless, incompetent, forgetful savages he makes them out to be. (They must have at least been intelligent enough to understand the language and teachings of their celestial instructors--no small feat!) It is true that we still do not know how the ancients accomplished some of their more astounding physical and technological feats. We still wonder how the ancient Egyptians raised giant obelisks in the desert and how stone age men and women moved huge cut stones and placed them in position in dolmens and passage graves. We are amazed by the giant carved heads on Easter Island and wonder why they were done, who did them, and why they abandoned the place. We may someday have the answers to our questions, but they are most likely to come from scientific investigation not pseudoscientific speculation. For example, observing contemporary stone age peoples in Papua New Guinea, where huge stones are still found on top of tombs, has taught us how the ancients may have accomplished the same thing with little more than ropes of organic material, wooden levers and shovels, a little ingenuity and a good deal of human strength.

We have no reason to believe our ancient ancestors' memories were so much worse than our own that they could not remember these alien visitations well enough to preserve an accurate account of them. There is little evidence to support the notion that ancient myths and religious stories are the distorted and imperfect recollection of ancient astronauts recorded by ancient priests. The evidence to the contrary--that prehistoric or 'primitive' peoples were (and are) quite intelligent and resourceful--is overwhelming.

Of course, it is possible that visitors from outer space did land on earth a few thousand years ago and communicate with our ancestors. But it seems more likely that prehistoric peoples themselves were responsible for their own art, technology and culture. Why concoct such an explanation as von Däniken's? To do so may increase the mystery and romance of one's theory, but it also makes it less reasonable, especially when one's theory seems inconsistent with what we already know about the world. The ancient astronaut hypothesis is unnecessary. Occam's razor should be applied and the hypothesis rejected.

When I first read Chariots of the Gods years ago, it grabbed me like no book before. The hypothesis was staggering, the evidence astounding. I recall my teenage enthusiasm over learning the origins of our species. But as the years went by and I grew more cynical and crotchety, and saw much of the "evidence" disputed and discredited, I've had to back off on the conviction that Von Daniken was right about ancient aliens visiting Earth and spawning the race of Man.

However, since its publication, the pendulum of mainstream science has swung toward belief of life on other planets--even intelligent life. There remains many reasons to keep an open mind on the subject: unexplained and credible UFO sightings; our own space travel capabilities; the statistics supporting intelligent alien life; reports of ongoing alien abduction and breeding; the unsolved mysteries of Man's origin; and a good deal of Von Daniken's compelling evidence that has not been otherwise explained. Every decade or so there is a paradigm shift in the body of scientific knowledge Man has accumulated, which always makes us more enlightened, but also proves that throughout the past we were wrong on many things and never as smart as we thought we were. There's no reason to think the trend won't continue.

So who knows what really happened in our past? Surely, much of Von Daniken's premise is inaccurate, but that doesn't change the fact that his book is a highly stimulating and entertaining read. I loved it. --Christopher Bonn Jonnes

First of all, it's not science-fiction. Just because mr. Daniken's interpretations are different from the typical archeologist community, it doesn't mean they're bad. He is not preaching anything, just stating his theories based on facts. Yes, facts. He did make some mistakes, but he was perfectly able to correct them in other books later on. And his hypothesis didn't come out of thin air; the mythological "coincidences" he stated are worthy of mention and study, and he did travel all around the world to explore the sites. He did meet several people to interview, etc. This book hooked me to the mysteries of ancient history, and then I discovered other brilliant authors like Charles Berlitz, Robert Charroux and Graham Hancock. And no, mr. Daniken doesn't think a trivial thing is evidence of extraterrestrial visits; the hints he shows are more than interesting, and it's about time someone criticizes and rebutes traditional history. And I read that book for the first time at age 13 (I'm now 16), it opened my eyes to new concepts, it made me start asking more questions, and rebutting some major problems and contradictions of our history as told in classes. Why were we never told in school that Glozel's site existed (cf. Robert Charroux's Mysterious Unknown Book), which contradicts our modern thinking of when writing appeared? Why were we never told about Nazca's plains? Many people seemed to misunderstand Mr. Daniken's interpretation: he doesn't think the *drawings* are the landing sites, the large fields next to it are. Many said the idea of the drawings in the sand as landing strips was ludicrous; indeed it is, Mr. Daniken said they were SIGNS to these landing sites, just to clear out the confusion. Well, this is getting long, so I'll finish by saying this book is worthy of recognition.

Many of us are born naked. But Mr. Graffenried shows us once again how nakedness can sell a book, or can it?

I just jumped in and read the review to this book on this page, and I have to say if you think the photographs in 'Naked in Paradise' are simply silly, then you really don't know anything about art. These photos are not made to sell, I'm very sorry for the reviewer who thinks so... Michael von Graffenried is a very fine photographer!

I've recently seen an exposition of some of Graffenried's photographies taken in the Swiss cantone of Jura and in Algeria. The pictures are amazing and so are those in the book 'Naked in Paradise'. By the way, I do not condemn an artist's ability to combine art and commerce but appreciate it.

...for one very simple reason--it's too damned long, and not very satisfying. None of the characters are at all sympathetic (quite the opposite in "The War Hound and the World's Pain," as I liked Ulrich von Bek very much), save Lucifer himself...sympathy for the Devil, you say? Maybe. I also gotbored rather quickly with Manfred von Bek's wanderings about the Deeper City; I really think Moorcock could have pared back quite a few of the details here, and the narrative would have improved immeasurably.

This is not an easy read, and it's probably too long by half, but it's far from Moorcock's worst. (See "The Sailor on the Seas of Fate" for a good example of Moorcock at his hastiest.) The pacing here is languid but the hallmarks of Moorcock's best work are here, albeit fitfully: his unique feel for the period and thorough knowledge of history and culture, and his ability to blend the historical elements with the fantastic. Casual readers should stick with the first book (Warhound and the World's Pain), but Moorcock aficionados should at least give this one a try.

One of Moorcock's best fantasy novels. More in the tradition of Gloriana than the Elric or Corum books, City in the Autumn Stars relates the tale of a memeber of the Von Bek family, fleeing the turmoil of the French Revolution only to find himself entangled in an ever-expanding web of alchemical intrigue. Moorcock's use of alchemical symbolism and the various esoteric teachings that swept Europe at the time is an interesting plot device and it creates just the right kind of atmosphere for the fantastic events that develop. Don't expect him to always get his esoteric symbolism right however, he uses the material to spice up his story and develop his allegory in certain places, but the book is still a fantasy and you can't expect it to faithfully represent alchemy. It's a great read and a nice change from the vadhagh, rune-mumbling, albino doom ditties he's written in the past.

I bought this book to provide me with some background information on bentwood furniture and it seems to me that it performs this task quite adequately. There are plenty of high quality color photographs of surviving furniture; these are combined with historic black&white photographs. The accompanying text describes basic principles clearly and provides a fair bit of history.

I am not a Thonet buff, so I dare not compare it with other literature on the topic, but viewed in isolation it seems nice enough. At good coffee table book, or better.

I love the topic: the sculpture of Ursula von Rydingsvard, so I had to give this book at least 3 stars. I am less than satisfied with the way the author continually refers to elements of Ms. von Rydingsvard's remarkable history rather than art history. I wonder how many readers would be interested to know more of the artist's interest Giotto. This is only touched on in the interview-not at all in the analytical essay. Maybe a little scholarship could be directed here, and leave out some of the tabloid sensationalism. The connections to Giotto or any of her other artistic influences would certainly broaden the means of interpreting her work, whereas the references Brenson makes to von Rydingsvard's childhood serve to limit our understanding leading us to believe that this sort of knowledge is the essential key to it's meaning. I don't believe this to be so. Even though there are too many black and white plates, I confess to buying this book for the pictures. If you can't see von Rydingsvard's sculpture in person, you will find this an economical introduction to her work.