On December 16; 1944; the vanguard of three German armies; totaling half a million men; attacked U.S. forces in the Ardennes region of Belgium and Luxembourg; achieveing what had been considered impossible -- total surprise. In the most abysmal failure of battlefield intelligence in the history of the U.S. Army; 600;000 American soldiers found themselves facing Hitler's last desperate effort of the war.The brutal confrontation that ensued became known as the Battle of the Bulge; the greatest battle ever fought by the U.S. Army -- a triumph of American ingenuity and dedication over an egregious failure in strategic intelligence. A Time for Trumpets is the definitive account of this dramatic victory; told by one of America's most respected military historians; who was also an eyewitness: MacDonald commanded a rifle company in the Battle of the Bulge. His account of this unique battle is exhaustively researched; honestly recounted; and movingly authentic in its depiction of hand-to-hand combat.Mingling firsthand experience with the insights of a distinguished historian; MacDonald places this profound human drama unforgettably on the landscape of history.
#77542 in Books Simon Schuster 2011-06-07 2011-06-07Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.25 x 1.70 x 6.12l; 1.44 #File Name: 0684868555608 pagesGreat product!
Review
13 of 13 people found the following review helpful. The story you don't knowBy John NordinIt's our story; citizens of the United States; but we have converted it into a simplistic myth. Maier shows us the details; the messiness; the fears and fights - and after it is done; we have a more interesting story than when we started.She goes through the battle for ratification; state by state; giving time to the proponents and opponents alike. This means some degree of repetition of arguments; but that is inevitable.What is fascinating with this and most good history is to try to get inside the minds of people and see how differently they saw things. What they worried about was much different than our issues.Here are some of the things that emerge from her narrative:- there was significant opposition to the constitution and its passage was by very close margins in some states. Rhode Island didn't come in until after Washington was installed as president and only in response to a threatened economic embargo if they didn't ratify. Some in a few states thought staying out of the union and going it alone would be just fine.- the proponents of the constitution were active in manipulating press coverage to create a favorable climate for the debate- the Federalist Papers had little impact on the debate outside of New York- reasons to oppose the constitution revolved around the federal government's taxing power; the insufficiency of the number of representatives in the House; the excessive length of terms for national office holders; and the power of Congress to control aspects of how states managed elections. The absence of an executive council to advise the President was also a concern to some.- proponents clearly intended to set up a strong federal government with sufficient power to operate independently and to secure the reputation of the U.S. in the world.- George Washington took almost no part in the ratification debates- Patrick Henry was one of the most forceful opponents of ratification- opponents were fearful the constitution set up a tyranny that might well abolish the state governments- we've all heard that agreeing to a bill of rights was the price of adoption; but few used the term; and the amendments proposed by state conventions bore little resemblance to the ten we now know as the Bill of Rights85 of 89 people found the following review helpful. THE Great Debate - Then and NowBy applewoodI am only in the fourth chapter of this book (just as the public debate is heating up) but want to write this review; because 1) I can see the general form and substance of it so far; and (more importantly) 2) I get the feeling neither of the previous two reviewers have fully read it. (I say this because it is a long dense book but it was reviewed within a few days of publication; with neither review going into any details of the substance of the debates; nor how Maier distinctively presents them.)I'll keep this short and simple for now and add an update when I finally finish.What is so attractive about this book is how it purports to reveal a previously partially told story; one which we think is already complete and resolved; but is in fact still being debated today. Using extensive (all available) original sources; Maier turns her authoritative scholastic skills to perhaps the most important subject in our nation's history - the drafting and ratifying of our Constitution. For too long this has been an issue dominated by the (winning) Federalist protagonists - with scant or dismissive attention given to the (by implication disloyal; antagonist) "Antifederalists" (obviously not the name they chose for themselves); who ironically often took pseudonyms incorporating the name "federal"; and were actually more federalist in really caring about a strong federation of states than the self-claimed "Federalists" were. The (centralizing) Federalist were unified mainly in wanting ratification to be a swift all or nothing proposal. The (decentralized) Antifederalist were anything but unified; which is why they lost.One of the things I like about Maier's approach is that she doesn't obviously and overtly set up this dichotomy of ideologies and characters - as they (ideas and people) were apparently more complex and evolving in regard to this. It does become clear however that from the very beginning there were real and strong difference in people's vision for the new country. There was also an imminent need to 'make it work'. What resulted was a profoundly idealistic but practical and; yet also secretive; partisan and elitist; document pushed through without much faith or interest in the democratic process...This is fascinating stuff! And it is perhaps even more important today as we look to move forward on a sound basis (needing to shore up our foundations); debating the same old issue of balance of powers between the government and the governed (expressed not just in the lopsided and formal arrangement of the separation of powers in the 'Three Branches of Government' - Legislative; Executive; and Judicial; but between the various States and the unified "Federal" government; and even more profoundly and directly between citizens and their elected appointed officials and the hired bureaucrats (the 'hidden iceberg' part of the government) - how we actually express our individuality and exercise our power to check the collective realm by how we freely choose - think; speak; vote; rule on juries; shop and invest.)Maier's writing style is dense and comprehensive; seeming authoritative to me (a nonacademic armchair historian); informed; thorough and balanced; yet also reading almost like a novel - a densely detailed; passionate and convoluted Russian novel.3 of 3 people found the following review helpful. Detailed examination of the process by which the American Constitution was ratifiedBy Steven PetersonOver time; I have had a real interest in the founding period of the United States. The battle over ratification is one of those points in which I am especially interested (I have even done some professional research on the subject; to the extent that that has any relevance). This book; though; delves nicely into the ratification struggle after the Constitutional Convention concluded its business in 1787.The author begins by placing the work in context (Page xi): ". . .the ratification process was the first national election; although it was more like a series of primaries than a presidential election since the votes were cast not on a single day but successively; in one state after another." Indeed; Rhode Island did not accept the Constitution until it was already in effect!Then Constitutional Convention created a draft document. However; it would not become the "law of the land" until it was approved by state ratifying conventions. The heart of this book is exploring how the states actually discussed and voted on the Constitution. It was not a foregone conclusion that the document would be accepted. As the book notes; even George Washington was nervous that the Constitution would fail to get the requisite number of states approving it.The book is well detailed; discussing the events in the various states' ratification conventions. The process was highly political. Some of the contests in states were bruising; others were easy triumphs for those supporting the Constitution. One of the real contributions of this book is showing the differing dynamics across the American states at that time.These were not Greek philosophers involved; they were practicing politicians and; in many cases; they played hardball. For example; in some states; supporters of the Constitution controlled newspapers. Guess what? Arguments against the Constitution never appeared.At any rate; this is a fine historical work that fills a need in the larger literature on the Constitution's origins.
