49 of 54 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
The battle is just part of the story, December 15, 2006
This review is from: Sea of Thunder: Four Commanders and the Last Great Naval Campaign 1941-1945 (Hardcover)
I picked this up after seeing Thomas do a book signing (which was mostly his discussion of the battle and some Q/A). It was interesting to hear about a battle that was so deadly, so historically significant (the last "traditional" sea battle of significant size), and yet so overlooked. The battle itself takes up less than a fifth of the book and doesn't unfold until well past the midpoint. It's also easily the least interesting part of the book. Battle buffs and others expecting a blow by blow will be disappointed, as will less intense WWII buffs. What Thomas actually gives us is a short history of the US and Japanese naval fleets in the Pacific and brief biographical sketches of their commanders and some of the rank and file sailors. Thomas sometimes snarky observations liven up the early parts of the book and show an incisive, funny side that was missing in the last book of his that I'd read (the RFK bio; the book also flows better than the RFK book which seemed choppy). Thomas gives us personal sides of Admiral Halsey and his Japanese counterparts, with somewhat broad portraits of Admirals Nimitz and King, as well as General MacArthur. I'm surprised that he didn't mention that Nimitz and MacArthur were momma's boys--both lived in my former apartment building in the 1920s (a few years apart) with their mothers and MacArthur probably hoped that the malarial jungles of the South Pacific would keep his mother away (she followed him, anyway). We get some review of tactics and examples of the limits of cultural knowledge and within-military communication systems that caused problems for both sides and contributed to the battle at Leyte taking place.
It's an enjoyable book and full of things I didn't know before--why only three stars? In Thomas' effort to show the cultural blinders on both sides, he tends to over stereotype. He made visits to Japan, but I got the impression they were largely orchestrated by Newsweek staff, which is hardly the way to learn about a culture. He also makes annoying comments about people's instincts and other motivational states that seem pretty unknowable from a historical distance. The broadness of his characterizations of Halsey and others also fall apart in places. The battle, itself, was the least interesting story in the book, despite access to survivors. I would have expected a longer, richer narrative with more detail. I'm not an intense war buff, but I've watched my share of "The World at War" and BBC's battle by battle history of the European and Pacific theatres, etc. and the book left me wanting more. Thomas does tell us what happened to key figures after the war, which is nice addition to the usual war narrative. Halsey's decline into irrelevance and the problems he suffered in dealing with his mentally ill wife are among the sadder transitions that occurred. John McCain, the media's favorite 2008 contender for President, makes a cameo appearance in a footnote, and his grandfather plays a small part in the main narrative. All-in-all a readable, interesting book, but not Thomas' best work. It's not as enlightening as the also-flawed RFK book nor the dense, incisive, entertaining ride of his early work on the CIA.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
100 of 121 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Compelling and Fascinating Read., November 9, 2006
This review is from: Sea of Thunder: Four Commanders and the Last Great Naval Campaign 1941-1945 (Hardcover)
Evan Thomas presents an outstanding, extraordinarily researched, and easy to read narrative of one of the Pacific's greatest sea battles in `Sea of Thunder: Four Commanders and the Last Great Naval Campaign 1941-1945'. Uniquely, and most interesting is the balanced research it is clear Thomas completed in order to share a vivid picture of the mind-set of the combatants at sear: The U.S. Navy appeared to have a view that the Japanese Navy was not up to their combat ready level, and the Japanese Navy viewed the U.S. Navy as being made of individuals not willing to sacrifice for their beliefs. Obviously both perspectives were wrong; Thomas gives understanding of actions based upon these perspectives in a manner never told before.
The Battle of Leyte Gulf, the focus of Thomas' work, is history's largest and most compelling naval battle. Writing from the perspectives of four officers: William Halsey, who commanded the U.S. 3rd Fleet; and Cdr. Ernest Evans, captain of a lowly destroyer, the U.S.S. Johnston; Adm. Takeo Kurita; Adm. Matome Ugaki, readers and historians alike are about to embark on a breath-taking journey onto the high seas of the Pacific where brave men sacrificed in the name of their country.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
343 of 440 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Judgmental revision narrative tarnishes American military heroes of WWII, November 27, 2006
This review is from: Sea of Thunder: Four Commanders and the Last Great Naval Campaign 1941-1945 (Hardcover)
An authentic historian attempts to ferret out the facts of past events without allowing their personal biases to intrude. Beginning a couple of decades ago, the phenomena of revisionist "historians" emerged where facts were seen as impediments to pushing a particular agenda. After that, the celebrity "historian" came into vogue, such as television talking head Tom Brokaw. Evan Thomas, in my view, falls into the celebrity journalist category. He is not a bonafide historian and he is a revisionist in that he applies the "political correctness" of today to the reality of six or more decades ago.
The result is not history. In fact, Thomas besmirches the characters of four men, each noble in their own way, while deprecating the extraordinary nature of the United States' objectives in World War II.
Thomas's stated desire was to write a history of the Battle of Leyte Gulf, what may very well have been the last clash of large naval fleets. The basic premise of viewing the battle, its prelude and aftermath through the eyes of four widely disparate characters could have worked in competent hands. Thomas's hands are not competent in this regard.
Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, commander of an American naval fleet, had the familiar biases of a man of his time. Halsey was a war leader, not a social worker. It is not unexpected that he decorated his bases with exhortations to kill the enemy. It is likewise not unexpected that his public statements were peppered with statements alluding to the alleged racial inferiority of his enemy. There was a massive, worldwide struggle going on; freedom pitted against tyranny.
But Thomas measures Halsey by the standards of today's "political correctness" and, of course, finds Halsey wanting. In fact, Halsey is essentially the target of what appears to be an anti-war hatchet job all through the book.
Thomas chose Commander Ernest Evans as his second profile of American command. Evans commanded a destroyer in the Battle of Leyte Gulf and was the recipient of the Medal of Honor. Thomas wastes a considerable number of words lamenting the cruelties of American prejudice against Evans, who had Cherokee Indian blood. Never does Thomas note that Evans was able to attend the Naval Academy at Annapolis and rise in command in the American Navy based on his abilities, not his ethnic heritage.
Both Halsey and Evans are depicted in what is supposed to be, I guess, a sly way as crazed, demented warriors. Halsey is further denigrated by Thomas's repeated references to Halsey having one or two drinks before sleeping on the recommendation of his personal physician. The last moments of Evans' life are described in an unflattering manner.
Overall, Thomas leaves the impression - and I think this is intentional - that people who fight for their nation, especially the United States, are madmen. Moreover, American war heroes aren't heroes at all, but should be remembered for their blunders and misunderstandings.
Thomas profiles Admiral Takeo Kurita, the Japanese battleship commander and Admiral Matome Ugaki. Kurita comes off in Thomas's accounting as a noble figure, perhaps because he fled the battle. (Fleeing was a judicious decision, since Kurita's mission was suicidal; but Thomas imbues the flight with motives that may not have existed.)
Ukagi was a strange character, a true Japanese nationalist, who was willing to sacrifice himself for the Emperor. Oddly in his recounting of Ugaki, Thomas attempts to separate Ugaki from the spirit that inspired the Japanese to resist so fiercely. It is as if Thomas is attempting to play down the particularly hideous nature of Japanese aggression. Not once, for example, does Thomas point out that the Japanese occupation of China, the Phillipines and other conquered nations cost the lives of 10 million or more innocent people. Rather, I was left with the feeling that Thomas was subtly making an anti-war argument on the order of "All Quiet On The Western Front".
War is a dirty business and many wars are not entirely, if at all, justifiable. But American participation in World War II was fully justified and its heroes were heroes and their reputations should not be sullied by dilettante journalists playing at being historians.
The writing itself has the feel of a high schooler desperately trying to impress teacher with his scholarship and "mature" style. While Thomas trumpets his interviews with survivors of the battle, the narrative itself has the feeling of being cut and pasted from cullings of old newspapers and magazines. Thomas apparently considers his readers unable to grasp significant issues, such as the military use of the 24 hour clock to render times; there are seeming endless instances of Thomas describing a time in the military way, i.e. 0934, and immediately appending 9:34 a.m., as if the average reader doesn't already know this or is too stupid to keep it in mind.
Interestingly enough, the very poltically correct Evan Thomas includes a line saying that even the prostitutes of Hawaii were rolling bandages in the aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor. While ripping Halsey, a bonfide American hero to shreds, Thomas seems to be a bit a of a prude and puritan when it comes to prostitutes; why would they not have also been concerned citizens wanting to do whatever they could to help their fellow Americans? Thomas seems to buy into rather common stereotypes about prostitutes and it is, in fact, surprising that he doesn't use the more poltiically correct contemporary term of sex worker.
If you get the impression that I don't think much of Evan Thomas's attempt to set forth military history, you are correct. War does not need to be glorified in any way. But the truth is that some wars are necessary and in the words of yet another journalist cum historian, there are "good wars". Thomas does not bring a respectful attitude to this retelling of a historic battle. My advice is to pursue other, less biased, histories.
Jerry
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192250339_.gif){kind=small}
