Europe was in the throes of World War II; and when America joined the fighting; Ernie Pyle went along. Long before television beamed daily images of combat into our living rooms; Pyle’s on-the-spot reporting gave the American public a firsthand view of what war was like for the boys on the front. Pyle followed the soldiers into the trenches; battlefields; field hospitals; and beleaguered cities of Europe. What he witnessed he described with a clarity; sympathy; and grit that gave the public back home an immediate sense of the foot soldier’s experience.
#1768007 in Books James A Rawley 1999-10-01Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.02 x .87 x 5.98l; 1.16 #File Name: 0803273231366 pagesFighting Joe Hooker
Review
0 of 1 people found the following review helpful. A great job of reviewing the life of "Fighting Joe" with ...By Rev. Ron Hooker (Yale Graduate)A great job of reviewing the life of "Fighting Joe"with great insight into the man who made a majorcontribution to his country. Rev. Ron Hooker (Yale Graduate)6 of 6 people found the following review helpful. Solid biography of Fighting Joe HookerBy Steven PetersonThis is a fine biography of the Union General; "Fighting" Joe Hooker. The book is somewhat dated (originally published in 1944); but it holds up pretty well.The book starts with a little about Hooker's early life. But we then move ahead quickly to his Civil War record. His first real command was as brigade commander after First Bull Run (Manassas). The story of his Civil War involvement begins then. At some point; early on; he became known as "Fighting Joe Hooker;" a nickname that he despised. The book straightforwardly notes that the origin of the nickname is unclear.One thing that set Hooker apart from many other early generals was that he; indeed; was a fighter. There were poor generals (Franz Sigel comes to mind); there were generals who found it difficult to fight hard and commit themselves totally to battle (George McClellan exemplifies this); some were good at brigade or division command and poor when promoted to corps command. Hooker was a fine general at division and corps command. The one question: Could he have been successful in independent command? His one opportunity was when he headed the Army of the Potomac at Chancellorsville. Between injury and possible loss of confidence and nerve; he threw away a winnable battle after some excellent maneuvering on Hooker's part. He remained in command briefly after that; but was gone by the time of Gettysburg.Up to Chancellorsville; as this book points out; he was a good solid general. Afterwards; when two corps of the Army of the Potomac were transported to Chattanooga; he found himself in charge of the 11th and 12th Corps. He generally led these troops creditably until he resigned after General James McPherson's death (Hooker felt he should have had that command). The book then chronicles his career thereafter and follows him until his death.The book portrays well his sometimes foolish attacks on others. He could be an intriguer. The author shows well why Lincoln had some reservations about making him commander of the Army of the Potomac. At the same time; he showed considerable administrative ability after taking the Army over from the hapless Ambrose Burnside.This is a fair portrayal of a complex person; who had more good days than bad during the Civil War; but who also had questions dogging him throughout his career. A well done biography.2 of 2 people found the following review helpful. Dated But Still Good Biography of Important Union CommanderBy Kevin M. Derby"Fighting"Joe Hooker is one of the more important Union commanders of the Civil War which is why it's odd that Walter Hebert's biography; first published in 1944; remains the standard life of him. Hebert presents a solid account of Hooker's rise in the Army of the Potomac and his command of it. Presenting an interesting view of Hooker's leadership at Chancellorsville; Hebert does a fine job of reconstructing his leadership (and lack of it) in that pivotal battle. Hebert also doesn't hold back in showing how Hooker attempted to use connections and pull strings to get ahead. After resigning his command right before Gettysburg; Hooker went west to Tennessee to command the old XI and XII corps and led them credibly in the Chattanooga and Atlanta campaigns despite not getting along with W.T.Sherman. Hooker resigned in a fit after Sherman elevated his old subordinate Oliver Howard to command the Army of the Tennessee instead of him but he remained in the service leading the Northern Department. Hebert does a fine job in following Hooker during the war though he could have used more primary materials and sources in his account. Like many biographies of the era; Hebert could have fleshed out his subject's post-war career more. The one area where Hebert fails is tracing Hooker's politics. Back in California--when he worked with Sherman and Henry Halleck--Hooker was very active with the Democratic party and even ran for office. When the war ended; Hooker married the sister of a prominent congressman. During the war; Hooker showed no problems running to politicians when he needed help (including the likes of Salmon P. Chase). Hebert could have done more on Hooker's politics and patronage battles which would have helped add to his look at the war years. Despite this; Hebert penned a sharp biography which stands the test of time seventy years after it was first published.
