Customer Reviews

Wolves, Jackals, and Foxes: The Assassins Who Changed History

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Kris Hollingworth's book Wolves, Jackals, and Foxes is a good read about 20th century assassinations. The reading is quick and the stories are told with as light a touch as one can when dealing with the subject matter.

The book is episodic; each chapter focuses on a different assassination, and there is no real overarching theme here. Assassins are generally identified by Hollingsworth by motive: political or governmental (wolves), terrorists or power (jackals), or notoriety (foxes). However, the incidents in the book are not grouped into sections. And, despite the categorizations, Hollingsworth doesn't delve much into the psychology of the assassins mentioned or reach any real conclusions; the stories are mostly "this happened, then something else happened." I didn't notice any real political slant as another reviewer found.

My favorite installments dealt with an attempted assassination of Harry S. Truman, and the possible assassination of Josef Stalin (it has not been conclusively proven that Lavrenti Beria actually poisoned him). The story about ETA bombers actually watching "Day of the Jackal" together at a theater also had some gallows humor about it.

If you can get past the stop-and-go nature of the book, it's a pretty decent read on a very interesting subject.

This is an interesting topic, BUT the book is terribly written and espouses questionable facts.

You have to hold your nose when you read this; the word choices and sentence structure are so bad. Many a sentence needs re-parsing in an attempt to determine what point the author is trying to make. And, then there is the British spelling that can drive you up the bloody wall!

He has the facts wrong regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He blames the Republicans for delaying its passage, when in fact it was the Republicans who made it possible. The Southern Democrats in both houses of congress were adamantly opposed to this legislation. The Democrats had 67 seats in the Senate, but in the end only 46 voted for passage; it was the Republicans that helped bring the bill out of filibuster and to assure its final passage. All facts that are easily confirmed on the web at reputable web sites.

The author seems to have also bought into the left wing liberal propaganda for the 2003 Iraq invasion.

Be careful when you read this one; all the facts aren't what they appear to be.

Wolves, Jackals, and Foxes is an interesting read, but by Page Four, errors creep in. Some are trivial, some silly (confusing Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor with the Egyptian deity "Osiris"), but most are inexcusable if you are writing historical nonfiction.

Besides the Osiris gaffe--and the glaring misinformation about the 1960s American Civil Rights movement pointed out by another reviewer--other discrepancies include:

- Puerto Rico repeatedly referred to as a "country." It is not and never was. It is a "Commonwealth,": i.e., an unincorporated U.S. territory.

- Anastasio Somoza, dictator of Nicaragua, was killed in 1980, not the "1950s" as the author states

- The film "Dr.Strangelove" was released in 1964, not 1963

- In his recounting of Arthur Bremer's foiled assassination attempt on Richard Nixon in Canada (before he would later shoot George Wallace), the author writes "...as he [Bremer] travelled across the border from Wisconsin..." The only way Bremer could have done that would have been a long, cold swim across Lake Superior. Most would find it more convenient to drive from Wisconsin into Minnesota, and THEN into Canada, as Wisconsin has no international boundaries.

- Liberia: President William TOLBERT--not "Talbot"--of Liberia was killed in a 1980 coup led by Samuel Doe

- "The Cuban people suffered half a century of political, economic, technological, and military blockades by the most powerful country in the world." Now, the author is not the first person to confuse--either by ignorance or intent--the difference between a blockade and an EMBARGO, so perhaps it should be explained here: If the U.S. prevented Cuba from doing business with other countries, it would be a true blockade. However, as the U.S. currently prohibits American companies and individuals from doing business with Cuba, a trade embargo is in place. Other nations, including Canad and the author's U.K., are free to conduct with Cuba whatever trade they wish. (He conveniently ignores the fact that pre-Castro Cuba had one of the highest standards of living in the Western Hemisphere. Cuba's current standard of living is directly attributable to Castro himself and not U.S. trade policy.

Overall, despite the annoying British terminology, a revised edition could still be a decent book, provided the author would a) make use of an internet search tool, b) consult an atlas, and b)omit the liberal-leftist editorializing and stick to facts.

There is an undercurrent of irony throughout the book, and the author is definitely present in the conversation, i.e., expressing sardonic sense of humor. I found it to be relatively equally distributed across political boundaries, no one escapes the quips.

I bought this book thinking it would be an objective piece about the subject matter.

What I got was something ridiculously laced with a liberal slant. The author relishes all things left of center, including celebrating gun control, and admonishes all thing right of center.

This COULD have been a great book, if the author had simply objectively stuck to the subject matter without injecting his political views into so much of the content.

I am very disappointed. It was truly wasted potential.