In one surviving account, Joan of Arc was quoted as saying that her judges were merely putting her on trial because they were members of the pro-English faction and therefore her "capital enemies"; unfortunately, this play tries to claim otherwise. One of Shaw's primary themes is the notion that Pierre Cauchon and Joan's other judges were acting as "sincere" defenders of the Church in their prosecution of her, a view which is contradicted by document after document as well as the above quote from Joan herself. Cauchon and his cronies are well known to historians as having been long-term supporters of the English and Burgundian factions, and the eyewitnesses said repeatedly that they prosecuted Joan out of revenge for the defeats that their side had suffered at the hands of her army, rather than out of any genuine belief that she was guilty of heresy. Cauchon even allowed her to take final communion (which was never done in the case of heretics), indicating that even he didn't truly believe the charges against her. As Shaw was aware, these charges were soundly debunked when the case was appealed after the English were finally driven from Rouen in 1449; and the arguments put forward in this ruling have been confirmed as accurate by experts in medieval theology and canon law, whereas Cauchon's arguments can easily be refuted by consulting medieval theological works - his arguments are, at best, merely distortions of what the medieval Church actually taught. Here are some specific examples which factored prominently in Shaw's play:
- Shaw, like Cauchon, claimed that Joan was guilty of heresy for wearing male clothing allegedly as a personal preference, despite the fact that both of these men were aware of her own statements to the contrary. She was quoted as saying that she wore soldiers' clothing (of a type which had "laces and points" by which the pants and tunic could be securely tied together) primarily to protect herself, as her guards had tried to rape her on several occasions; this reason is also given in some of the 15th century chronicles, along with similar quotes from Joan herself on the need to protect her chastity while surrounded by the men in her army. The medieval Church allowed an exemption in such cases of necessity (read St. Thomas Aquinas' "Summa Theologica", or St. Hildegard's "Scivias", for example): the practice of so-called "cross-dressing" was only condemned if it was done as a preference. Shaw rejects all of the above based on the specious argument that the "other women" who accompanied armies in that era didn't wear such clothing, ignoring the fact that these "other women" were: 1) prostitutes, who wore provocative dresses because they were trying to encourage sexual encounters rather than the opposite; and 2) aristocratic women sometimes were given command of their family's armies in the absence of their husband or son, but these women did not bed down at night among the troops in the field, as Joan often did. Shaw chooses to ignore these circumstances.
- On a somewhat related subject, Shaw tries to portray her as a rebel against "gender norms", again ignoring her own statements and the circumstances of the era. She was quoted by one eyewitness as saying that, quote, "I would rather stay home with my poor mother and spin wool [rather than lead an army]", which hardly sounds like someone who is trying to reject traditional gender roles. When another woman, Catherine de la Rochelle, wanted to get involved, Joan told her to "go home to your husband and tend your household". At no point do we find her making any 'feminist' statements. She was given titular command of an army for the same reason other religious visionaries sometimes were given such a role in that era, not as part of a "feminist crusade".
- Shaw admits that Joan was a devout Catholic and yet claims her as "the first Protestant martyr" - in the same sentence. This seems to be a rather willful contradiction, and the claim of "Protestant tendencies" is merely based, once again, on the old business of accepting Cauchon's claims about her at face value while ignoring the circumstances. If you read the documents you will find that Joan never opposed the Church as a whole: she merely stated her objection to being tried by a panel of pro-English clergy, and repeatedly asked to be given a non-partisan group instead or to be brought before the Pope. It was a violation of Inquisitorial procedure to stack the panel of assessors with people who were pursuing a secular vendetta against the accused: what Cauchon and his cohorts were doing, as Inquisitor Brehal later pointed out during the appeal, was itself an act of heresy. The notion that the medieval Church viewed all Inquisitorial panels as "infallible" and therefore not open to question is just a stereotype, bluntly contradicted by actual medieval theological writings: St. Hildegard, in her 12th century book "Scivias", warns the clergy against judging someone in error or out of anger, as it would be the offending clergy who would be punished for it by God. Joan was perfectly within her rights, even under the rules of the medieval Church, to question her biased judges, and was declared a martyr for Catholicism by Inquisitor Brehal when her execution was declared invalid in 1456. Shaw ignores this. The claim that his play is somehow vindicated by the fact that it was "vetted" by one Catholic (out of the hundreds of millions of Catholics worldwide) is a pointless argument: there are "Catholics" who claim that Joan was having adulterous sex, and all sorts of defamatory allegations. The bottom line is: this play does little more than repeat the slander leveled at Joan by the men who cruelly put her to death, despite the work of generations of scholars to bring a more accurate picture of the issue to light.

when i read this play for my junior AP english class, i truly enjoyed it and thought that while joan is rather naive and intolerant, she is a feminist icon--rebellious and unconventional. she is portrayed as being brave, unlike the romantic fluff-chick that various publications make her out to be. while i did enjoy the informative preface, there were sections in which shaw sounded like a typical elitist male and that disappointed me very much.
all in all, i'd like to think that it was a decent play, and definitely worth reading.

Shaw was a close friend of a Benedictine Abbess, Dame Laurentia, who "vetted" his plays for fairness to the faith. This play is fun, takes lots of bites out of politicians and clergy, and says something beautiful about the imagination. This Joan is no dolt and had to be burnt at the stake. That is a complement to her faith.

Christmas Eve, 1914. A remarkable event was in the offing because two great armies from two different persuasions met not to slit each other's throats but to exchange gift parcels, goodwill and Christmas carols. It is one of the most unheralded events of the First World War, largely unsung in history until Professor Weintraub recreated the strained and eerie peculiarity that held the trenches on that bleak and cold December night. As a schoolboy starting to get fascinated with European history, I came across some references about this event in some books but in very short passages. It is only now that a historian has finally crafted a very poignant story of the events using material from the letters and diaries of the participants, and from newspaper accounts.

It is an account of common human decency surfacing in one brief moment in time, in a sea of the savagery of war. It was the men, the ordinary fighting soldiers, not their officers who extemporaneously planned this truce. The first signs and signboards appeared from the German lines, proclaiming that "You no fight, we no fight." And so slowly and almost imperceptibly, the men began to emerge from their mud soaked trenches. They swapped cigarettes and food, helped bury each others dead and even engaged in some games. For that brief moment sanity prevailed, European culture prevailed and the author concludes that "the war restored rules evoking an earlier century and a less complicated world."

The unplanned truce lasted through the whole night and all throughout Christmas day. It worried some officers and Generals that its spirit might spread like wildfire and lead to a cessation of hostilites--and to their relief the violence eventually resumed, and would continue for three more Christmases and end six weeks just shy of a fourth. It is a narrative so refreshingly free of sentiment that it reads like a novel about a remarkable chapter in the history of the First World War, when combatants on both sides laid down their arms and invoked the spirit of their shared religious tradition. Remarkable

I was curious to know why Weintraub wrote a book about a brief period prior to Christmas in 1914, on the battlefields of Flanders, when German and British soldiers spontaneously agreed to declare a truce and suspend fighting, thereby defying their commanding officers. The answer to that question, in my opinion, has profound significance 87 years later. No doubt the book's impact on me is explained, at least in part, by the fact that I read it during the holiday season, following the events of September 11th, as a war on terrorism continues. But also because, as an eager student of military history, I am intrigued by isolated situations in which humanity (for lack of a better term) at least temporarily prevails over death and destruction. Centuries ago, knights and their attendants would work with their enemies to clear a field for combat the next day. Such cooperation had an obvious practical value. That's not what interests Weintraub as he examines a temporary truce during one of the bloodiest wars ever fought. It had little (if any) practical or tactical value but it did (and does) suggest a human need which transcends military obligations.

Weintraub draws upon a wealth of primary sources (e.g. letters and diaries) in which firsthand accounts comment on the shared misery created by "shells, bombs, underground caves, corpses, liquor, mice, cats, artillery, filth, bullets, mortars, fire, and steel." I am reminded of movies such as All's Quiet on the Western Front and Paths of Glory in which the human misery portrayed is almost unbearable to watch. I had the same reaction when seeing more recent movies such as Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down.

As Weintraub explains in this book, at least some of the opposing forces decided to call what we today would describe as a "time out." Several displayed signboards and banners which said "You no fight, we no fight" (by the Germans) and "Merry Christmas" (by the British). Messages and holiday greetings were exchanged, sometimes conveyed by trained dogs serving as intermediaries. Weintraub credits the Germans with taking the initiative but not all of the German soldiers and few of their officers condoned the truce. (The choice of the book's title is apt. More than 200 years ago, Joseph Mohr wrote the lyrics and Franx X. Gruber the music of "Stille Nacht," a German carol.) Nor did all of the Allied forces. Everyone involved correctly understood that battle would soon resume but at least for a very brief time, everyone involved (to varying degrees) experienced "peace on earth, good will toward man." For many of them, death had merely been delayed. How welcome it must have been to have a silent night or two after enduring deafening bombardments. And no doubt an opportunity to reflect upon loved ones far away and to recall happier Christmases in the past.

It is possible but highly unlikely that there will ever again be a land war of the nature and to the extent of the two World Wars. Never again will opposing warriors in near proximity exchange Christmas greetings and gifts. This is part of the significance of what Weintraub has recreated in his book: Warfare in the 21st century will mostly be waged by high-tech systems to deliver weapons of mass destruction to achieve global and regional military objectives. At least to this reader, Weintraub seems to ask: Why not eliminate war in any form so that the world can have a "silent night" every night? Why not indeed?

Heard the taped version of SILENT NIGHT: THE REMARKABLE
1914 CHRISTMAS TRUCE by Stanley Weintraub . . . imagine a
war that all of a sudden stops because both sides would rather
exchange gifts and play soccer than fight . . . and what if
the soldiers had refused to take up arms again? . . . unfortunately,a few stray bullets escalated the hostilities again--but for too short a time there was an actual cessation of all fighting . . . one infantryman summed up things the best: "Nobody said we couldn't like them. They just said to had to kill them. A bit stupid, isn't it?" . . . this true actually happened, by the way, and Weintraub's portrayal of it is masterful . . . I only wish that ending all wars could be so simple!

As a satire on the spirit of Oscar Wilde, "The Green Carnation" is definite overkill. Hichens' own epigrammatism lacks the grace and subtlety of Wilde's wit and wisdom, and he drags wall-to-wall his assays into cleverness whether or not they are appropriate to develpment of the context. Disappointing.

I am a fan of MacArthur. I am interested in his life. I am interested in his faults and his successes. If Inchon was his best, the rest of Korea was probably his worst. The author does a great job of detailing the faults in generalship and character of this man. Weintraub does a fantastic job of intertwining the story of the generals and the politicians with the stories of how the "forgotten war" plays itself out for the American GI. The book was very well researched and documented. I am still a fan of the general. I understand more, however, what perhaps his private ambitions truly were and what motivated him. While Truman was a great president and thought MacArthur's speeches were a bunch of bull----; I think they are inspiring. For further reference on Korea and MacArthur, Geoffrey Peret's "Old Soldiers Never Die" does a fairly good job describing the challenges at the end of the general's life. Without Marshall, Truman clearly wouldn't have faired as well as he did. As a history teacher, I find that George C. Marshall is not given his just due in the history texts of our time. Weintraub tries to credit him and brings him into the picture well. Overall, the author does a fine job to bring this often skipped-over piece of American History to life. I would like to thank him for that and for reminding us that there was a war before vietnam, because a lot of students do not.

Douglas MacArthur will forever be remembered as one of America's outstanding generals. Nonetheless, every great warlord, if he survives long enough, has his twilight, and MACARTHUR'S WAR documents his - that period from June 1950 until April 1952 when his career and reputation became mired in the Korean War, the first of America's post-W.W.II Asian debacles.

Author Stanley Weintraub's volume is a well researched, albeit dry, history of the general's last campaign. Within its pages, we encounter a wealth of players, both major and minor. MacArthur himself, America's aging postwar proconsul of a defeated Japan, sometimes brilliant, too often insubordinate, but always egotistical, self-aggrandizing, and militantly anticommunist. The staff toadies who surrounded him and sustained his narrow view of the universe, at the center of which was always Douglas himself: generals Wright, Willoughby and Whitney. His combat commanders: the hapless Gen. Walker (8th Army) and the self-important flunky Gen. Almond (X Corps). The wretched South Korean dictator, Syngman Rhee. General Peng Dehuai, the capable Chinese commander who infiltrated 200,000 of his troops into North Korea right under MacArthur's very nose. The plucky female war correspondent, Marguerite Higgins, who defied the clubbish, men-only mindset of her peers to go out and bring back the story. The home-front military and ex-military, in particular JCS Chairman Bradley and Defense Secretary Marshall, both so in awe of Douglas as to be rendered virtually ineffectual. Truman, the politically beleaguered Commander-In-Chief, who finally brought MacArthur to heel in a fit of righteous pique. And finally, MacArthur's eventual replacement as Supreme Commander, the humorlessly efficient Gen. Ridgeway.

If your previous exposure to the Korean "police action" has been nothing more than "MASH" reruns, then you'll find this book to be a valuable introduction. It includes a center section of about 30 photos. Woefully, it includes only one map - a single page rendering of the entire Korean peninsula, which, more often than otherwise, doesn't even show the places where the action takes place. (The map is so extraordinarily useless, I wonder why the author bothered at all.)

In the end, MacArthur was a victim of his own Weltanschauung, which became increasingly outmoded and dysfunctional as the Cold War swiftly monopolized the world stage. Had it not been for Korea, MacArthur's place on Mt. Olympus would certainly been assured. Instead, he died in relative obscurity in 1964 in the Waldorf-Astoria.

MacArthur was one of the acclaimed heroes of the American military when I was growing up. Unfortunately, this idol had feet not merely of clay but of soggy mud. Weintraub magnificently documents his protagonist's arrogance, his megalomania, and his disdain for U.S. constitutional processes.

Weintraub deftly points out that in MacArthur's efforts to become a public general, he wasn't even a particularly good general. The photo of MacArthur sitting happily on his command ship while American boys were invading at Inchon captures that mood perfectly. Weintraub has magnificently described the mud and muck of the Korean war, the valor of our soldiers particularly those in Task Force Smith and those who fought their way back from near the Manchurian border when the Chinese came in in force -- something that Mac assured President Truman would never happen.

This is a splendid book which should be read by the public as well as the specialist. It is thoroughly researched, even the odd parts dealing with Mac's threat to use nuclear weapons. And it is disturbing in the way it paints a Congress ready to lionize a military man while denigrating the custodian of the Constitution who acted perfectly properly in relieving an insubordinate subordinate from high command. The country and the Army were both better off for Truman's actions.