The thesis of the provocative and potentially important Clash of Civilizations is that the increasing threat of violence arising from renewed conflicts between countries and cultures that base their traditions on religious faith and dogma. This argument moves past the notion of ethnicity to examine the growing influence of a handful of major cultures--Western, Eastern Orthodox, Latin American, Islamic, Japanese, Chinese, Hindu and African--in current struggles across the globe. Samuel P Huntington, a political scientist at Harvard University and foreign policy aide to President Clinton, argues that policymakers should be mindful of this development when they interfere in other nations' affairs. --Christine Buttery

Civilizations or Cultures?, 08 Sep 2008
This is a book which has had wide currency among international opinion-formers. The egregious Tony Blair has cited it many times (typically enough, without actually crediting it as such, just using the words as if the product of his own thoughts). My problem with it rests on some inadequacies of expression and treatment. The role of race is virtually ignored for one: Islam only attracts those in or descended from certain racial or sub-racial groups, where Islam has been predominant for centuries. Yes, there are a few mavericks and cranks who take it up, but these are rare exceptions. So Islam is NOT (as Huntington claims) likely to somehow take over the "West" EXCEPT by conquest, destruction or (most crucially) by Europe and elsewhere accepting vast numbers of Muslims (who have, as he says, a far higher birth rate) into the European or European-founded societies. Unfortunately this IS the case as Europe is flooded with infiltrating millions.

Huntington's view of "The West" is very Americo-centric. Instead of seeing our Age (I.E. the 2,100 years after 1415) as a whole as Anglo-American-German, as Rudolf Steiner did (he called it the "5th Post-Atlantean"), or as "the age of the white northern European", Huntington really thinks of America as the heartland of Western Civilization (and not, as some might, one of its graveyards!) and thinks that if America ceases to be "Western" by giving up individualism, the Christian church(es) etc, then America itself will be "de-Westernized" and the West would be "reduced to Europe and a few lightly populated overseas European settler countries [and] becomes a miniscule and declining part of the world's population on a small and inconsequential peninsula at the extremity of the Eurasian land mass" (paperback edition p.307).

This above viewpoint must be seen as absurdly misconceived and "little American". For one thing, even Western Europe has a population at least equivalent to that of the United States and its Canadian appendage. And some of the overseas offshoots of the European Empires (especially the British) have large populations which are still mostly of European descent, such as Australia, which is now counted as having about 20 million. And what is the obsession with mere numbers? The British ruled most of India and Africa and elsewhere with tiny groups of British/European civil servants and officers disposing of modest numbers of European police and soldiers.

To my way of thinking, the book is important because it does raise the subject, but apart from the above criticisms, it fails to note that in advanced sections of European (or, as Huntington would put it, "Western") humanity, there is a continuing evolution of consciousness which might lead to a quantum leap in civilization, particularly if Europe joins with a fully independent Russia, that is a Russia which is run by Russians and not "rootless cosmopolitans" with Russian passports. That Europe + Russia could be at least the foundation of a a REAL New Order over time!

Prophetic and gripping, but slightly dated, 15 Apr 2007
This book was written as a prophecy about what the author felt would characterise the C21st. Now that we are nearly a decade into the C21st, we have the ability to look back and see if he was right. If yes, then this book was prophetic and its lessons should be learned. If not, then he is wrong, and the book is little more than an airport novel.

On one or two dimensions, Huntingdon has been extraordinarily accurate, predicting that Islamic extremism would become the number one security threat to the West in the C21st. Ominously, he predicted that the West would be driven to attack nations that possessed WMDs in the fear they would pass them on to terrorists. This is the Bush doctrine, written before Bush was even an elected official, never mind President. Equally ominous, he predicted that Islamic radicals would rally to the cause of any Muslim state attacked in such a way, and the influx of foreign insurgents into Iraq confirms this. Interestingly, the author predicts that the Taliban and Al Qaeda would be very prominent in the C21st, yet never actually names the organisations by name (in the case of Al Qaeda because it did not adopt its current name until several years after the book was written).

Huntingdon is slightly inaccurate in his prediction that China would become more bellicose and confrontational. At least so far, China has been warm towards the West, with trade deals and cultural exchanges flourishing. Another weakness of the book is his rather arbitrary definition of societies, and his notion that a "core state" would drive forward its respective civilisation. This is not the case, with supra-national agencies taking the place of "core states".

Overall, the book is highly recommended. However, given its relative age, it would be advisable to buy a more recent book on geopolitics as well, to top up the introduction that this book provides.


Must reading for the serious student of international affairs, 08 Nov 2006
While there is much (most) of this book I disagree with, it is nonetheless the essential, seminal work on the Clash of Civilizations theory, and thus is must reading for any serious student of international affairs.

In describing his thesis, Huntington elevates "mere" culture to the level of civilization, implying that there are unbridgable fundamental differences between different civilizations which will inevitably lead to a world where these civilizations compete or clash. I don't mean to lazily discredit the idea by association, but this is the philosophy promoted by the likes of Osama bin Laden, for example.

I am afraid reviewers who link this author to the militaristic neo-con movement in the US do not understand either Huntington's thesis or neo-cons themselves. A member of the Western civilization who was an adherent of the Clash of Civilizations worldview would NEVER attack a state of the Islamic civilization, let alone try to turn it into a democracy. Huntington's thesis would predict other nations in the Islamic civilization would rally to the defense of their co-civilizationalist, seeing the attack in terms of an attempt by one civilization to dominate another no matter how justified the attack was (or wasn't, in this case).

Before the war at least, neo-cons argued that all peoples yearn for democracy, that democracy can be delivered at the point of a sword and that it is the mission (burden?) of the West and particularly the lone superpower to liberate these peoples, who will welcome us as their saviors as we create new allies in our own image even while we destroy our enemies. Anyone who suggested that Muslims or Arabs might not be happy to be invaded and brought to democracy was cleverly dismissed as a racist or cultural imperialist. What the neo-cons see as universal civilization Huntington would say is merely Western civilization, and thus any attempt to impose this on another civilization would be doomed to failure.

While Huntington's thesis (first postulated in 1993) would seem to successfully predict the failure of neo-con policy, I think he goes too far in defining characteristics which are "merely" cultural as civilizational. Certainly, there are such things as Islamic and Sinic and Orthodox cultures which one may be wise (and respectful) to consider when dealing with people from those cultures. However, to suggest that these differences are unbridgable is in my view a very limited, deterministic world-view and really an end-game in itself. Individuals can bridge these divisions - what makes "civilizations" composed of individuals any different?

In addition, there are things like universal human rights which exist and have been ratified by nations all over the world. I can not agree with Huntington that these are just expressions of Western thought imposed on the world by the dominant civilization.

Although I find much to oppose in this book, it is very well presented and will certainly be argued about for years to come. You may as well read about the theory straight from the source!

Unconvincing, 05 Apr 2006
It's almost tempting to agree with Huntington's analysis and conclusions. Almost. Yet his premises just don't stand up.

First he argues that what matters most to people, above all else, is culture. While certainly important, he is only able to point to random evidence here and there that 'prove' this. The reader, howver, is left questioning 'why is culture so resonant with people?'. Other than the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is no obvious explanation for why people of the various civilizations now buy into culture much more readily than they did 20 years ago. Further, I am personally unconvinced that these same people would fly the flag of culture above all else - peace, prosperity, trade, etc.

His conception of identity is also troubling. It's monolithic, impermeable, and static. Just as the 'West' certainly did not act as one when various states chose to invade Iraq, nor do I believe that the Muslim world truly identifies with your average Bosnian. At least, I'd need more than Huntington's word on the matter to convince me.

Overall, it's just too deterministic. Huntington provides no insight into how his 'paradigm' might itself become obsolete. The resounding implication seems to be if enough people buy into The Clash then it will come true. There's no place like home, there's no place like home...

Philosophical problem with this book, 01 Apr 2006
This book is interesting for the influence that it is claimed to exert, especially upon the present US administration. You can see the attraction of this whole Clash of Civilizations agenda: you can walk into someone else's country, help yourself to their economic resources and describe it as social progress.

If all the Arab World produced were watermelons, would anyone be have written this book or launched the recent war?

Civilizations or Cultures?, 08 Sep 2008
This is a book which has had wide currency among international opinion-formers. The egregious Tony Blair has cited it many times (typically enough, without actually crediting it as such, just using the words as if the product of his own thoughts). My problem with it rests on some inadequacies of expression and treatment. The role of race is virtually ignored for one: Islam only attracts those in or descended from certain racial or sub-racial groups, where Islam has been predominant for centuries. Yes, there are a few mavericks and cranks who take it up, but these are rare exceptions. So Islam is NOT (as Huntington claims) likely to somehow take over the "West" EXCEPT by conquest, destruction or (most crucially) by Europe and elsewhere accepting vast numbers of Muslims (who have, as he says, a far higher birth rate) into the European or European-founded societies. Unfortunately this IS the case as Europe is flooded with infiltrating millions.

Huntington's view of "The West" is very Americo-centric. Instead of seeing our Age (I.E. the 2,100 years after 1415) as a whole as Anglo-American-German, as Rudolf Steiner did (he called it the "5th Post-Atlantean"), or as "the age of the white northern European", Huntington really thinks of America as the heartland of Western Civilization (and not, as some might, one of its graveyards!) and thinks that if America ceases to be "Western" by giving up individualism, the Christian church(es) etc, then America itself will be "de-Westernized" and the West would be "reduced to Europe and a few lightly populated overseas European settler countries [and] becomes a miniscule and declining part of the world's population on a small and inconsequential peninsula at the extremity of the Eurasian land mass" (paperback edition p.307).

This above viewpoint must be seen as absurdly misconceived and "little American". For one thing, even Western Europe has a population at least equivalent to that of the United States and its Canadian appendage. And some of the overseas offshoots of the European Empires (especially the British) have large populations which are still mostly of European descent, such as Australia, which is now counted as having about 20 million. And what is the obsession with mere numbers? The British ruled most of India and Africa and elsewhere with tiny groups of British/European civil servants and officers disposing of modest numbers of European police and soldiers.

To my way of thinking, the book is important because it does raise the subject, but apart from the above criticisms, it fails to note that in advanced sections of European (or, as Huntington would put it, "Western") humanity, there is a continuing evolution of consciousness which might lead to a quantum leap in civilization, particularly if Europe joins with a fully independent Russia, that is a Russia which is run by Russians and not "rootless cosmopolitans" with Russian passports. That Europe + Russia could be at least the foundation of a a REAL New Order over time!

Prophetic and gripping, but slightly dated, 15 Apr 2007
This book was written as a prophecy about what the author felt would characterise the C21st. Now that we are nearly a decade into the C21st, we have the ability to look back and see if he was right. If yes, then this book was prophetic and its lessons should be learned. If not, then he is wrong, and the book is little more than an airport novel.

On one or two dimensions, Huntingdon has been extraordinarily accurate, predicting that Islamic extremism would become the number one security threat to the West in the C21st. Ominously, he predicted that the West would be driven to attack nations that possessed WMDs in the fear they would pass them on to terrorists. This is the Bush doctrine, written before Bush was even an elected official, never mind President. Equally ominous, he predicted that Islamic radicals would rally to the cause of any Muslim state attacked in such a way, and the influx of foreign insurgents into Iraq confirms this. Interestingly, the author predicts that the Taliban and Al Qaeda would be very prominent in the C21st, yet never actually names the organisations by name (in the case of Al Qaeda because it did not adopt its current name until several years after the book was written).

Huntingdon is slightly inaccurate in his prediction that China would become more bellicose and confrontational. At least so far, China has been warm towards the West, with trade deals and cultural exchanges flourishing. Another weakness of the book is his rather arbitrary definition of societies, and his notion that a "core state" would drive forward its respective civilisation. This is not the case, with supra-national agencies taking the place of "core states".

Overall, the book is highly recommended. However, given its relative age, it would be advisable to buy a more recent book on geopolitics as well, to top up the introduction that this book provides.


Must reading for the serious student of international affairs, 08 Nov 2006
While there is much (most) of this book I disagree with, it is nonetheless the essential, seminal work on the Clash of Civilizations theory, and thus is must reading for any serious student of international affairs.

In describing his thesis, Huntington elevates "mere" culture to the level of civilization, implying that there are unbridgable fundamental differences between different civilizations which will inevitably lead to a world where these civilizations compete or clash. I don't mean to lazily discredit the idea by association, but this is the philosophy promoted by the likes of Osama bin Laden, for example.

I am afraid reviewers who link this author to the militaristic neo-con movement in the US do not understand either Huntington's thesis or neo-cons themselves. A member of the Western civilization who was an adherent of the Clash of Civilizations worldview would NEVER attack a state of the Islamic civilization, let alone try to turn it into a democracy. Huntington's thesis would predict other nations in the Islamic civilization would rally to the defense of their co-civilizationalist, seeing the attack in terms of an attempt by one civilization to dominate another no matter how justified the attack was (or wasn't, in this case).

Before the war at least, neo-cons argued that all peoples yearn for democracy, that democracy can be delivered at the point of a sword and that it is the mission (burden?) of the West and particularly the lone superpower to liberate these peoples, who will welcome us as their saviors as we create new allies in our own image even while we destroy our enemies. Anyone who suggested that Muslims or Arabs might not be happy to be invaded and brought to democracy was cleverly dismissed as a racist or cultural imperialist. What the neo-cons see as universal civilization Huntington would say is merely Western civilization, and thus any attempt to impose this on another civilization would be doomed to failure.

While Huntington's thesis (first postulated in 1993) would seem to successfully predict the failure of neo-con policy, I think he goes too far in defining characteristics which are "merely" cultural as civilizational. Certainly, there are such things as Islamic and Sinic and Orthodox cultures which one may be wise (and respectful) to consider when dealing with people from those cultures. However, to suggest that these differences are unbridgable is in my view a very limited, deterministic world-view and really an end-game in itself. Individuals can bridge these divisions - what makes "civilizations" composed of individuals any different?

In addition, there are things like universal human rights which exist and have been ratified by nations all over the world. I can not agree with Huntington that these are just expressions of Western thought imposed on the world by the dominant civilization.

Although I find much to oppose in this book, it is very well presented and will certainly be argued about for years to come. You may as well read about the theory straight from the source!

Unconvincing, 05 Apr 2006
It's almost tempting to agree with Huntington's analysis and conclusions. Almost. Yet his premises just don't stand up.

First he argues that what matters most to people, above all else, is culture. While certainly important, he is only able to point to random evidence here and there that 'prove' this. The reader, howver, is left questioning 'why is culture so resonant with people?'. Other than the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is no obvious explanation for why people of the various civilizations now buy into culture much more readily than they did 20 years ago. Further, I am personally unconvinced that these same people would fly the flag of culture above all else - peace, prosperity, trade, etc.

His conception of identity is also troubling. It's monolithic, impermeable, and static. Just as the 'West' certainly did not act as one when various states chose to invade Iraq, nor do I believe that the Muslim world truly identifies with your average Bosnian. At least, I'd need more than Huntington's word on the matter to convince me.

Overall, it's just too deterministic. Huntington provides no insight into how his 'paradigm' might itself become obsolete. The resounding implication seems to be if enough people buy into The Clash then it will come true. There's no place like home, there's no place like home...

Philosophical problem with this book, 01 Apr 2006
This book is interesting for the influence that it is claimed to exert, especially upon the present US administration. You can see the attraction of this whole Clash of Civilizations agenda: you can walk into someone else's country, help yourself to their economic resources and describe it as social progress.

If all the Arab World produced were watermelons, would anyone be have written this book or launched the recent war?

An utterly rivetting read, 02 Jan 2009
A great book! Gripping from page 1, very informative historically and a really good read. Could not put it down. A good balance between narating history and telling a personal story - and just being a great read! Highly recommended.

Fascinating account ot the life of a double agent., 28 Dec 2008
We played this audio CD on a long car journey and it held us spellbound for 6 hours. It is the intriguing story of how small-time crook, Eddie Chapman, became the most infamous double agent of World War II. He displayed incredible courage and fortitude while working undercover. The narration is clear and enjoyable. The story is packed with informative detail that allows you to build a picture of this immoral but fascinating man. Highly recommended.

The inspiration for Fleming's Bond?, 15 Jul 2008
If you like adventure then you can't go far wrong with this book. During World War II, petty East End criminal Eddie Chapman finds himself banged up in occupied Jersey's prison. He is given a lifeline that he cannot refuse - come and work for German secret intelligence as a spy or face the consequences. Eddie opts for the former and is thrown into the grandiose world of a German spymaster. Now he is faced with the moral dilemma of double-crossing his country or the gamble of double crossing his new found boss. You'll have to read the book to find out which choice he makes ... I thoroughly recommend this book!



Well written but lacks of characters' in-depth analysis, 15 Jul 2008
The book is well written. The author limits himself to analyzing events based on first-hand evidence: on the one hand this allows to draw a very faithful picture of agent Zig Zag's wartime adventures. On the other hand however, this method discourage the author from trying to investigate in-depth motivations and convictions of agent Zig Zag.

Fritz, 24 May 2008

Agent Zigzag, a Review by the
Cote d'Azur Men's Book Club







When one of the most wanted men in Britain escaped police by jumping through a Jersey hotel window he leaped into a new career, an Englishman whose deeds were to be heard and applauded by both The Fuehrer and Winston Churchill.

Hitler knew him as Little Fritz; the blue-eyed boy of the Abwher, the Nazi secret service and Churchill was impressed by his exploit, for he was spying for Britain, too, under the codename Agent Zigzag. Eddie Arnold Chapman was, a rising star in the Soho world of gangsters, and, in the twilight days of peace in early l939, a dark haired, handsome young man, destined it seemed, to spend many years behind bars.
He was a care rogue, a womaniser, a leading figure in the mob known as "The Jelly Gang" for their habit of using gelignite to blow safes. He could have been a prototype for 007 James Bond. His girlfriend was pregnant and he was with another woman when the police found him in the Channel Islands. He was captured, eventually and jailed, managed to rob the Governor and then the Germans invaded and he found himself in a Nazi prison camp outside Paris. He was already a bit of a linguist, having picked up basic German and French.
The harsh regime did not appeal so Chapman offered his services to the goose steppers; after lengthy Teutonic thought, the SS the Abwher decided he was genuine. They trained him to be one of their spies in England He graduated from a Nazi school for spies, in France with honours and made many friends, especially his boss, a somewhat aristocratic chap who kept him well supplied with cash. Chapman, naturally, quickly found that boss man was taking his cut from the thousands of Reich marks he was handing over. It takes a crook to know a crook.
The Cote d'Azur Men's Book Club thought Agent Zigzag by journalist Ben Macintyre a very entertaining read, a combination of Bond and Biggles. Fritz, parachuting at night and landing in a muddy Cambridgeshire field and naively banging on a farmhouse door and saying he had been in a car accident. MI5who turned him into their man picked him up. Money changed hands.
Fritz blowing up the De Havilland factory where the wonder plane, the Mosquito was made,
the staged attack being arranged by MI5 experts to fool the Germans.
The stubborn Englishness of the Editor of The Times in refusing to print an untruthful report, which would have fooled the enemy into believing Fritz, was doing good work. . Not a problem for the patriotic Daily Express!
Fritz still has that swashbuckling air about him, he returns to his German group leader and friend by sea, and seemingly reverts to the Nazi regime. Back in Germany and many more adventures, he finds love again in Norway with the beautiful Dagmar. Just as he arranged with MI5 to pay a good "pension" to his woman, so now he does the same for his new love, with the Germans!
He parachutes back into Britain with the brief to track down the new anti-U-boat weapon that is causing devastation to the wolf packs. Such a device only exists in the Nazi imagination, of course and the boffins think up a hilarious device that is pure Monty Python or The Goons, just to give the enemy something to think about. The secret weapon was, of course, the Bletchley Park code breaker.
Had the stakes not been so huge, Agent Zigzag would have been a biting satirical piece of work, yet, it is the gripping life story of courageous con man who reverted to type at war's end to thieving and safe breaking and, naturally, womanising. A crook, but our crook. As his MI5 boss said, "One of the bravest men I have ever met."
Oh, yes, and old Adolf probably thought much the same. Eddie Arnold Chapman was awarded the Iron Cross, First Class.
Chapman, born in the North East, was a charismatic crook made good by his courage and apparent indifference to personal suffering. He mixed with the great and the good but he was never a Gentleman, he was a spy who did a great service for his country in her time of need.


All, especially the ladies, loved him. It could have been men like Chapman who inspired a Naval Intelligence officer, one Ian Fleming, to create James Bond. Agent Zigzag did not have a licence to kill, officially, but he dreamed of assassinating Hitler!

Civilizations or Cultures?, 08 Sep 2008
This is a book which has had wide currency among international opinion-formers. The egregious Tony Blair has cited it many times (typically enough, without actually crediting it as such, just using the words as if the product of his own thoughts). My problem with it rests on some inadequacies of expression and treatment. The role of race is virtually ignored for one: Islam only attracts those in or descended from certain racial or sub-racial groups, where Islam has been predominant for centuries. Yes, there are a few mavericks and cranks who take it up, but these are rare exceptions. So Islam is NOT (as Huntington claims) likely to somehow take over the "West" EXCEPT by conquest, destruction or (most crucially) by Europe and elsewhere accepting vast numbers of Muslims (who have, as he says, a far higher birth rate) into the European or European-founded societies. Unfortunately this IS the case as Europe is flooded with infiltrating millions.

Huntington's view of "The West" is very Americo-centric. Instead of seeing our Age (I.E. the 2,100 years after 1415) as a whole as Anglo-American-German, as Rudolf Steiner did (he called it the "5th Post-Atlantean"), or as "the age of the white northern European", Huntington really thinks of America as the heartland of Western Civilization (and not, as some might, one of its graveyards!) and thinks that if America ceases to be "Western" by giving up individualism, the Christian church(es) etc, then America itself will be "de-Westernized" and the West would be "reduced to Europe and a few lightly populated overseas European settler countries [and] becomes a miniscule and declining part of the world's population on a small and inconsequential peninsula at the extremity of the Eurasian land mass" (paperback edition p.307).

This above viewpoint must be seen as absurdly misconceived and "little American". For one thing, even Western Europe has a population at least equivalent to that of the United States and its Canadian appendage. And some of the overseas offshoots of the European Empires (especially the British) have large populations which are still mostly of European descent, such as Australia, which is now counted as having about 20 million. And what is the obsession with mere numbers? The British ruled most of India and Africa and elsewhere with tiny groups of British/European civil servants and officers disposing of modest numbers of European police and soldiers.

To my way of thinking, the book is important because it does raise the subject, but apart from the above criticisms, it fails to note that in advanced sections of European (or, as Huntington would put it, "Western") humanity, there is a continuing evolution of consciousness which might lead to a quantum leap in civilization, particularly if Europe joins with a fully independent Russia, that is a Russia which is run by Russians and not "rootless cosmopolitans" with Russian passports. That Europe + Russia could be at least the foundation of a a REAL New Order over time!

Prophetic and gripping, but slightly dated, 15 Apr 2007
This book was written as a prophecy about what the author felt would characterise the C21st. Now that we are nearly a decade into the C21st, we have the ability to look back and see if he was right. If yes, then this book was prophetic and its lessons should be learned. If not, then he is wrong, and the book is little more than an airport novel.

On one or two dimensions, Huntingdon has been extraordinarily accurate, predicting that Islamic extremism would become the number one security threat to the West in the C21st. Ominously, he predicted that the West would be driven to attack nations that possessed WMDs in the fear they would pass them on to terrorists. This is the Bush doctrine, written before Bush was even an elected official, never mind President. Equally ominous, he predicted that Islamic radicals would rally to the cause of any Muslim state attacked in such a way, and the influx of foreign insurgents into Iraq confirms this. Interestingly, the author predicts that the Taliban and Al Qaeda would be very prominent in the C21st, yet never actually names the organisations by name (in the case of Al Qaeda because it did not adopt its current name until several years after the book was written).

Huntingdon is slightly inaccurate in his prediction that China would become more bellicose and confrontational. At least so far, China has been warm towards the West, with trade deals and cultural exchanges flourishing. Another weakness of the book is his rather arbitrary definition of societies, and his notion that a "core state" would drive forward its respective civilisation. This is not the case, with supra-national agencies taking the place of "core states".

Overall, the book is highly recommended. However, given its relative age, it would be advisable to buy a more recent book on geopolitics as well, to top up the introduction that this book provides.


Must reading for the serious student of international affairs, 08 Nov 2006
While there is much (most) of this book I disagree with, it is nonetheless the essential, seminal work on the Clash of Civilizations theory, and thus is must reading for any serious student of international affairs.

In describing his thesis, Huntington elevates "mere" culture to the level of civilization, implying that there are unbridgable fundamental differences between different civilizations which will inevitably lead to a world where these civilizations compete or clash. I don't mean to lazily discredit the idea by association, but this is the philosophy promoted by the likes of Osama bin Laden, for example.

I am afraid reviewers who link this author to the militaristic neo-con movement in the US do not understand either Huntington's thesis or neo-cons themselves. A member of the Western civilization who was an adherent of the Clash of Civilizations worldview would NEVER attack a state of the Islamic civilization, let alone try to turn it into a democracy. Huntington's thesis would predict other nations in the Islamic civilization would rally to the defense of their co-civilizationalist, seeing the attack in terms of an attempt by one civilization to dominate another no matter how justified the attack was (or wasn't, in this case).

Before the war at least, neo-cons argued that all peoples yearn for democracy, that democracy can be delivered at the point of a sword and that it is the mission (burden?) of the West and particularly the lone superpower to liberate these peoples, who will welcome us as their saviors as we create new allies in our own image even while we destroy our enemies. Anyone who suggested that Muslims or Arabs might not be happy to be invaded and brought to democracy was cleverly dismissed as a racist or cultural imperialist. What the neo-cons see as universal civilization Huntington would say is merely Western civilization, and thus any attempt to impose this on another civilization would be doomed to failure.

While Huntington's thesis (first postulated in 1993) would seem to successfully predict the failure of neo-con policy, I think he goes too far in defining characteristics which are "merely" cultural as civilizational. Certainly, there are such things as Islamic and Sinic and Orthodox cultures which one may be wise (and respectful) to consider when dealing with people from those cultures. However, to suggest that these differences are unbridgable is in my view a very limited, deterministic world-view and really an end-game in itself. Individuals can bridge these divisions - what makes "civilizations" composed of individuals any different?

In addition, there are things like universal human rights which exist and have been ratified by nations all over the world. I can not agree with Huntington that these are just expressions of Western thought imposed on the world by the dominant civilization.

Although I find much to oppose in this book, it is very well presented and will certainly be argued about for years to come. You may as well read about the theory straight from the source!

Unconvincing, 05 Apr 2006
It's almost tempting to agree with Huntington's analysis and conclusions. Almost. Yet his premises just don't stand up.

First he argues that what matters most to people, above all else, is culture. While certainly important, he is only able to point to random evidence here and there that 'prove' this. The reader, howver, is left questioning 'why is culture so resonant with people?'. Other than the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is no obvious explanation for why people of the various civilizations now buy into culture much more readily than they did 20 years ago. Further, I am personally unconvinced that these same people would fly the flag of culture above all else - peace, prosperity, trade, etc.

His conception of identity is also troubling. It's monolithic, impermeable, and static. Just as the 'West' certainly did not act as one when various states chose to invade Iraq, nor do I believe that the Muslim world truly identifies with your average Bosnian. At least, I'd need more than Huntington's word on the matter to convince me.

Overall, it's just too deterministic. Huntington provides no insight into how his 'paradigm' might itself become obsolete. The resounding implication seems to be if enough people buy into The Clash then it will come true. There's no place like home, there's no place like home...

Philosophical problem with this book, 01 Apr 2006
This book is interesting for the influence that it is claimed to exert, especially upon the present US administration. You can see the attraction of this whole Clash of Civilizations agenda: you can walk into someone else's country, help yourself to their economic resources and describe it as social progress.

If all the Arab World produced were watermelons, would anyone be have written this book or launched the recent war?

An utterly rivetting read, 02 Jan 2009
A great book! Gripping from page 1, very informative historically and a really good read. Could not put it down. A good balance between narating history and telling a personal story - and just being a great read! Highly recommended.

Fascinating account ot the life of a double agent., 28 Dec 2008
We played this audio CD on a long car journey and it held us spellbound for 6 hours. It is the intriguing story of how small-time crook, Eddie Chapman, became the most infamous double agent of World War II. He displayed incredible courage and fortitude while working undercover. The narration is clear and enjoyable. The story is packed with informative detail that allows you to build a picture of this immoral but fascinating man. Highly recommended.

The inspiration for Fleming's Bond?, 15 Jul 2008
If you like adventure then you can't go far wrong with this book. During World War II, petty East End criminal Eddie Chapman finds himself banged up in occupied Jersey's prison. He is given a lifeline that he cannot refuse - come and work for German secret intelligence as a spy or face the consequences. Eddie opts for the former and is thrown into the grandiose world of a German spymaster. Now he is faced with the moral dilemma of double-crossing his country or the gamble of double crossing his new found boss. You'll have to read the book to find out which choice he makes ... I thoroughly recommend this book!



Well written but lacks of characters' in-depth analysis, 15 Jul 2008
The book is well written. The author limits himself to analyzing events based on first-hand evidence: on the one hand this allows to draw a very faithful picture of agent Zig Zag's wartime adventures. On the other hand however, this method discourage the author from trying to investigate in-depth motivations and convictions of agent Zig Zag.

Fritz, 24 May 2008

Agent Zigzag, a Review by the
Cote d'Azur Men's Book Club







When one of the most wanted men in Britain escaped police by jumping through a Jersey hotel window he leaped into a new career, an Englishman whose deeds were to be heard and applauded by both The Fuehrer and Winston Churchill.

Hitler knew him as Little Fritz; the blue-eyed boy of the Abwher, the Nazi secret service and Churchill was impressed by his exploit, for he was spying for Britain, too, under the codename Agent Zigzag. Eddie Arnold Chapman was, a rising star in the Soho world of gangsters, and, in the twilight days of peace in early l939, a dark haired, handsome young man, destined it seemed, to spend many years behind bars.
He was a care rogue, a womaniser, a leading figure in the mob known as "The Jelly Gang" for their habit of using gelignite to blow safes. He could have been a prototype for 007 James Bond. His girlfriend was pregnant and he was with another woman when the police found him in the Channel Islands. He was captured, eventually and jailed, managed to rob the Governor and then the Germans invaded and he found himself in a Nazi prison camp outside Paris. He was already a bit of a linguist, having picked up basic German and French.
The harsh regime did not appeal so Chapman offered his services to the goose steppers; after lengthy Teutonic thought, the SS the Abwher decided he was genuine. They trained him to be one of their spies in England He graduated from a Nazi school for spies, in France with honours and made many friends, especially his boss, a somewhat aristocratic chap who kept him well supplied with cash. Chapman, naturally, quickly found that boss man was taking his cut from the thousands of Reich marks he was handing over. It takes a crook to know a crook.
The Cote d'Azur Men's Book Club thought Agent Zigzag by journalist Ben Macintyre a very entertaining read, a combination of Bond and Biggles. Fritz, parachuting at night and landing in a muddy Cambridgeshire field and naively banging on a farmhouse door and saying he had been in a car accident. MI5who turned him into their man picked him up. Money changed hands.
Fritz blowing up the De Havilland factory where the wonder plane, the Mosquito was made,
the staged attack being arranged by MI5 experts to fool the Germans.
The stubborn Englishness of the Editor of The Times in refusing to print an untruthful report, which would have fooled the enemy into believing Fritz, was doing good work. . Not a problem for the patriotic Daily Express!
Fritz still has that swashbuckling air about him, he returns to his German group leader and friend by sea, and seemingly reverts to the Nazi regime. Back in Germany and many more adventures, he finds love again in Norway with the beautiful Dagmar. Just as he arranged with MI5 to pay a good "pension" to his woman, so now he does the same for his new love, with the Germans!
He parachutes back into Britain with the brief to track down the new anti-U-boat weapon that is causing devastation to the wolf packs. Such a device only exists in the Nazi imagination, of course and the boffins think up a hilarious device that is pure Monty Python or The Goons, just to give the enemy something to think about. The secret weapon was, of course, the Bletchley Park code breaker.
Had the stakes not been so huge, Agent Zigzag would have been a biting satirical piece of work, yet, it is the gripping life story of courageous con man who reverted to type at war's end to thieving and safe breaking and, naturally, womanising. A crook, but our crook. As his MI5 boss said, "One of the bravest men I have ever met."
Oh, yes, and old Adolf probably thought much the same. Eddie Arnold Chapman was awarded the Iron Cross, First Class.
Chapman, born in the North East, was a charismatic crook made good by his courage and apparent indifference to personal suffering. He mixed with the great and the good but he was never a Gentleman, he was a spy who did a great service for his country in her time of need.


All, especially the ladies, loved him. It could have been men like Chapman who inspired a Naval Intelligence officer, one Ian Fleming, to create James Bond. Agent Zigzag did not have a licence to kill, officially, but he dreamed of assassinating Hitler!




MI6 huh ?, 01 Sep 2005
I had read "Kilo17", and was very surprised to find out about this book from Ferguson. Well, really, how much of an expert can he pretend to be, given he has barely spent a year or two with 6 ?
That's what he says in his first book, when he explains how he ended up assigned to HMCE.
Mind you the book content is not uninteresting, but nothing you can't find anywhere else through open sources. Which confirmed my impression of a very relative field "expertise" from the author.

A great place to start, 02 May 2005
This is clearly designed to be an introduction to the subject for the general public so I suppose specialists will know much of what is in here, but even so it is an excellent read, especially good for dipping into rather than reading cover to cover. It is also a fascinating book because it is the only one about the craft of spying written by a real former MI6 officer. The emphasis of the book (the manipulation of people rather than use of bugs and gadgets) is intriguing. But the big question is: what happened to the TV series which the book was supposed to accompany? It's sounds as though it would have been great, but I never even heard that it was on.

the reality of spying, 19 Jan 2005
So many books on espionage concentrate on James Bond style gadgets. This book avoids that and,as well as chapters defining what intelligence is, developing a cover or new identity,and surveillance and countersurveillance, it has excellent information on the core of espionage which is agent recruitment. This book stresses how to build relationships or if you want to be cynical about it,how to manipulate people.
Forget the movies and read this book written by an ex-MI6 officer.

Civilizations or Cultures?, 08 Sep 2008
This is a book which has had wide currency among international opinion-formers. The egregious Tony Blair has cited it many times (typically enough, without actually crediting it as such, just using the words as if the product of his own thoughts). My problem with it rests on some inadequacies of expression and treatment. The role of race is virtually ignored for one: Islam only attracts those in or descended from certain racial or sub-racial groups, where Islam has been predominant for centuries. Yes, there are a few mavericks and cranks who take it up, but these are rare exceptions. So Islam is NOT (as Huntington claims) likely to somehow take over the "West" EXCEPT by conquest, destruction or (most crucially) by Europe and elsewhere accepting vast numbers of Muslims (who have, as he says, a far higher birth rate) into the European or European-founded societies. Unfortunately this IS the case as Europe is flooded with infiltrating millions.

Huntington's view of "The West" is very Americo-centric. Instead of seeing our Age (I.E. the 2,100 years after 1415) as a whole as Anglo-American-German, as Rudolf Steiner did (he called it the "5th Post-Atlantean"), or as "the age of the white northern European", Huntington really thinks of America as the heartland of Western Civilization (and not, as some might, one of its graveyards!) and thinks that if America ceases to be "Western" by giving up individualism, the Christian church(es) etc, then America itself will be "de-Westernized" and the West would be "reduced to Europe and a few lightly populated overseas European settler countries [and] becomes a miniscule and declining part of the world's population on a small and inconsequential peninsula at the extremity of the Eurasian land mass" (paperback edition p.307).

This above viewpoint must be seen as absurdly misconceived and "little American". For one thing, even Western Europe has a population at least equivalent to that of the United States and its Canadian appendage. And some of the overseas offshoots of the European Empires (especially the British) have large populations which are still mostly of European descent, such as Australia, which is now counted as having about 20 million. And what is the obsession with mere numbers? The British ruled most of India and Africa and elsewhere with tiny groups of British/European civil servants and officers disposing of modest numbers of European police and soldiers.

To my way of thinking, the book is important because it does raise the subject, but apart from the above criticisms, it fails to note that in advanced sections of European (or, as Huntington would put it, "Western") humanity, there is a continuing evolution of consciousness which might lead to a quantum leap in civilization, particularly if Europe joins with a fully independent Russia, that is a Russia which is run by Russians and not "rootless cosmopolitans" with Russian passports. That Europe + Russia could be at least the foundation of a a REAL New Order over time!

Prophetic and gripping, but slightly dated, 15 Apr 2007
This book was written as a prophecy about what the author felt would characterise the C21st. Now that we are nearly a decade into the C21st, we have the ability to look back and see if he was right. If yes, then this book was prophetic and its lessons should be learned. If not, then he is wrong, and the book is little more than an airport novel.

On one or two dimensions, Huntingdon has been extraordinarily accurate, predicting that Islamic extremism would become the number one security threat to the West in the C21st. Ominously, he predicted that the West would be driven to attack nations that possessed WMDs in the fear they would pass them on to terrorists. This is the Bush doctrine, written before Bush was even an elected official, never mind President. Equally ominous, he predicted that Islamic radicals would rally to the cause of any Muslim state attacked in such a way, and the influx of foreign insurgents into Iraq confirms this. Interestingly, the author predicts that the Taliban and Al Qaeda would be very prominent in the C21st, yet never actually names the organisations by name (in the case of Al Qaeda because it did not adopt its current name until several years after the book was written).

Huntingdon is slightly inaccurate in his prediction that China would become more bellicose and confrontational. At least so far, China has been warm towards the West, with trade deals and cultural exchanges flourishing. Another weakness of the book is his rather arbitrary definition of societies, and his notion that a "core state" would drive forward its respective civilisation. This is not the case, with supra-national agencies taking the place of "core states".

Overall, the book is highly recommended. However, given its relative age, it would be advisable to buy a more recent book on geopolitics as well, to top up the introduction that this book provides.


Must reading for the serious student of international affairs, 08 Nov 2006
While there is much (most) of this book I disagree with, it is nonetheless the essential, seminal work on the Clash of Civilizations theory, and thus is must reading for any serious student of international affairs.

In describing his thesis, Huntington elevates "mere" culture to the level of civilization, implying that there are unbridgable fundamental differences between different civilizations which will inevitably lead to a world where these civilizations compete or clash. I don't mean to lazily discredit the idea by association, but this is the philosophy promoted by the likes of Osama bin Laden, for example.

I am afraid reviewers who link this author to the militaristic neo-con movement in the US do not understand either Huntington's thesis or neo-cons themselves. A member of the Western civilization who was an adherent of the Clash of Civilizations worldview would NEVER attack a state of the Islamic civilization, let alone try to turn it into a democracy. Huntington's thesis would predict other nations in the Islamic civilization would rally to the defense of their co-civilizationalist, seeing the attack in terms of an attempt by one civilization to dominate another no matter how justified the attack was (or wasn't, in this case).

Before the war at least, neo-cons argued that all peoples yearn for democracy, that democracy can be delivered at the point of a sword and that it is the mission (burden?) of the West and particularly the lone superpower to liberate these peoples, who will welcome us as their saviors as we create new allies in our own image even while we destroy our enemies. Anyone who suggested that Muslims or Arabs might not be happy to be invaded and brought to democracy was cleverly dismissed as a racist or cultural imperialist. What the neo-cons see as universal civilization Huntington would say is merely Western civilization, and thus any attempt to impose this on another civilization would be doomed to failure.

While Huntington's thesis (first postulated in 1993) would seem to successfully predict the failure of neo-con policy, I think he goes too far in defining characteristics which are "merely" cultural as civilizational. Certainly, there are such things as Islamic and Sinic and Orthodox cultures which one may be wise (and respectful) to consider when dealing with people from those cultures. However, to suggest that these differences are unbridgable is in my view a very limited, deterministic world-view and really an end-game in itself. Individuals can bridge these divisions - what makes "civilizations" composed of individuals any different?

In addition, there are things like universal human rights which exist and have been ratified by nations all over the world. I can not agree with Huntington that these are just expressions of Western thought imposed on the world by the dominant civilization.

Although I find much to oppose in this book, it is very well presented and will certainly be argued about for years to come. You may as well read about the theory straight from the source!

Unconvincing, 05 Apr 2006
It's almost tempting to agree with Huntington's analysis and conclusions. Almost. Yet his premises just don't stand up.

First he argues that what matters most to people, above all else, is culture. While certainly important, he is only able to point to random evidence here and there that 'prove' this. The reader, howver, is left questioning 'why is culture so resonant with people?'. Other than the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is no obvious explanation for why people of the various civilizations now buy into culture much more readily than they did 20 years ago. Further, I am personally unconvinced that these same people would fly the flag of culture above all else - peace, prosperity, trade, etc.

His conception of identity is also troubling. It's monolithic, impermeable, and static. Just as the 'West' certainly did not act as one when various states chose to invade Iraq, nor do I believe that the Muslim world truly identifies with your average Bosnian. At least, I'd need more than Huntington's word on the matter to convince me.

Overall, it's just too deterministic. Huntington provides no insight into how his 'paradigm' might itself become obsolete. The resounding implication seems to be if enough people buy into The Clash then it will come true. There's no place like home, there's no place like home...

Philosophical problem with this book, 01 Apr 2006
This book is interesting for the influence that it is claimed to exert, especially upon the present US administration. You can see the attraction of this whole Clash of Civilizations agenda: you can walk into someone else's country, help yourself to their economic resources and describe it as social progress.

If all the Arab World produced were watermelons, would anyone be have written this book or launched the recent war?

An utterly rivetting read, 02 Jan 2009
A great book! Gripping from page 1, very informative historically and a really good read. Could not put it down. A good balance between narating history and telling a personal story - and just being a great read! Highly recommended.

Fascinating account ot the life of a double agent., 28 Dec 2008
We played this audio CD on a long car journey and it held us spellbound for 6 hours. It is the intriguing story of how small-time crook, Eddie Chapman, became the most infamous double agent of World War II. He displayed incredible courage and fortitude while working undercover. The narration is clear and enjoyable. The story is packed with informative detail that allows you to build a picture of this immoral but fascinating man. Highly recommended.

The inspiration for Fleming's Bond?, 15 Jul 2008
If you like adventure then you can't go far wrong with this book. During World War II, petty East End criminal Eddie Chapman finds himself banged up in occupied Jersey's prison. He is given a lifeline that he cannot refuse - come and work for German secret intelligence as a spy or face the consequences. Eddie opts for the former and is thrown into the grandiose world of a German spymaster. Now he is faced with the moral dilemma of double-crossing his country or the gamble of double crossing his new found boss. You'll have to read the book to find out which choice he makes ... I thoroughly recommend this book!



Well written but lacks of characters' in-depth analysis, 15 Jul 2008
The book is well written. The author limits himself to analyzing events based on first-hand evidence: on the one hand this allows to draw a very faithful picture of agent Zig Zag's wartime adventures. On the other hand however, this method discourage the author from trying to investigate in-depth motivations and convictions of agent Zig Zag.

Fritz, 24 May 2008

Agent Zigzag, a Review by the
Cote d'Azur Men's Book Club







When one of the most wanted men in Britain escaped police by jumping through a Jersey hotel window he leaped into a new career, an Englishman whose deeds were to be heard and applauded by both The Fuehrer and Winston Churchill.

Hitler knew him as Little Fritz; the blue-eyed boy of the Abwher, the Nazi secret service and Churchill was impressed by his exploit, for he was spying for Britain, too, under the codename Agent Zigzag. Eddie Arnold Chapman was, a rising star in the Soho world of gangsters, and, in the twilight days of peace in early l939, a dark haired, handsome young man, destined it seemed, to spend many years behind bars.
He was a care rogue, a womaniser, a leading figure in the mob known as "The Jelly Gang" for their habit of using gelignite to blow safes. He could have been a prototype for 007 James Bond. His girlfriend was pregnant and he was with another woman when the police found him in the Channel Islands. He was captured, eventually and jailed, managed to rob the Governor and then the Germans invaded and he found himself in a Nazi prison camp outside Paris. He was already a bit of a linguist, having picked up basic German and French.
The harsh regime did not appeal so Chapman offered his services to the goose steppers; after lengthy Teutonic thought, the SS the Abwher decided he was genuine. They trained him to be one of their spies in England He graduated from a Nazi school for spies, in France with honours and made many friends, especially his boss, a somewhat aristocratic chap who kept him well supplied with cash. Chapman, naturally, quickly found that boss man was taking his cut from the thousands of Reich marks he was handing over. It takes a crook to know a crook.
The Cote d'Azur Men's Book Club thought Agent Zigzag by journalist Ben Macintyre a very entertaining read, a combination of Bond and Biggles. Fritz, parachuting at night and landing in a muddy Cambridgeshire field and naively banging on a farmhouse door and saying he had been in a car accident. MI5who turned him into their man picked him up. Money changed hands.
Fritz blowing up the De Havilland factory where the wonder plane, the Mosquito was made,
the staged attack being arranged by MI5 experts to fool the Germans.
The stubborn Englishness of the Editor of The Times in refusing to print an untruthful report, which would have fooled the enemy into believing Fritz, was doing good work. . Not a problem for the patriotic Daily Express!
Fritz still has that swashbuckling air about him, he returns to his German group leader and friend by sea, and seemingly reverts to the Nazi regime. Back in Germany and many more adventures, he finds love again in Norway with the beautiful Dagmar. Just as he arranged with MI5 to pay a good "pension" to his woman, so now he does the same for his new love, with the Germans!
He parachutes back into Britain with the brief to track down the new anti-U-boat weapon that is causing devastation to the wolf packs. Such a device only exists in the Nazi imagination, of course and the boffins think up a hilarious device that is pure Monty Python or The Goons, just to give the enemy something to think about. The secret weapon was, of course, the Bletchley Park code breaker.
Had the stakes not been so huge, Agent Zigzag would have been a biting satirical piece of work, yet, it is the gripping life story of courageous con man who reverted to type at war's end to thieving and safe breaking and, naturally, womanising. A crook, but our crook. As his MI5 boss said, "One of the bravest men I have ever met."
Oh, yes, and old Adolf probably thought much the same. Eddie Arnold Chapman was awarded the Iron Cross, First Class.
Chapman, born in the North East, was a charismatic crook made good by his courage and apparent indifference to personal suffering. He mixed with the great and the good but he was never a Gentleman, he was a spy who did a great service for his country in her time of need.


All, especially the ladies, loved him. It could have been men like Chapman who inspired a Naval Intelligence officer, one Ian Fleming, to create James Bond. Agent Zigzag did not have a licence to kill, officially, but he dreamed of assassinating Hitler!




MI6 huh ?, 01 Sep 2005
I had read "Kilo17", and was very surprised to find out about this book from Ferguson. Well, really, how much of an expert can he pretend to be, given he has barely spent a year or two with 6 ?
That's what he says in his first book, when he explains how he ended up assigned to HMCE.
Mind you the book content is not uninteresting, but nothing you can't find anywhere else through open sources. Which confirmed my impression of a very relative field "expertise" from the author.

A great place to start, 02 May 2005
This is clearly designed to be an introduction to the subject for the general public so I suppose specialists will know much of what is in here, but even so it is an excellent read, especially good for dipping into rather than reading cover to cover. It is also a fascinating book because it is the only one about the craft of spying written by a real former MI6 officer. The emphasis of the book (the manipulation of people rather than use of bugs and gadgets) is intriguing. But the big question is: what happened to the TV series which the book was supposed to accompany? It's sounds as though it would have been great, but I never even heard that it was on.

the reality of spying, 19 Jan 2005
So many books on espionage concentrate on James Bond style gadgets. This book avoids that and,as well as chapters defining what intelligence is, developing a cover or new identity,and surveillance and countersurveillance, it has excellent information on the core of espionage which is agent recruitment. This book stresses how to build relationships or if you want to be cynical about it,how to manipulate people.
Forget the movies and read this book written by an ex-MI6 officer.

Boring and repetitive, 14 Apr 2008
This book appears to be written by someone who worked in Northern Ireland but there are a number of anomolies which indicate they were not as involved as they claim.

Beware the first three quarters of the book is taken up with extremely dull detail about special forces training which will be nothing new to you if you have any of the SAS books previously.



And you think the SAS have it tough? , 13 Feb 2008
This book was a real eye opener. I recently discovered a copy of this book and having read many of the SAS real life stories, did not really know what to expect.

What comes across is an in-depth look at an elite unit that most people know very little about. A unit so secret that they use false names and know very little about the other people they serve with. The book covers in detail the training, selection and the gruelling punishment this poses to those involved. This really is a "make one mistake and you are out" mentality.

That a unit as covert as the 14 Company, who actually take on and train members of the SAS, can have received very little published notoriety says a lot in itself. The members of these units have a job to do. A job that is genuinely dangerous and life threatening on a day to day basis. All the more difficult when you have to not only memorise an A-Z in depth, but know how to communicate to multiple moving Operatives at the same time in an urban or country environment, using a covert language - and be ready to enter a lethal fire fight on a regular occurrence.

Experts in weapons, surveillance, photography, survival, driving and amongst the most physically fittest people in the forces, these people deserve all our respect for the job they do and get no recognition for.

I can see why this book was a Sunday Times Bestseller. Buy it.


Highly Recommended!!, 04 Dec 2006
Great read for any walk of life... It kept me gripped until the end, in fact I read it within a couple of days!

My advice would be to buy it, and enjoy!

Twelve Months In The Life Of...., 10 Jun 2006
Yeah, well ... Might be a part of the problem. The book REALLY starts in its last third, most of the pages before # 200 being devoted to an excrutiatingly precise, day-by-day, selection course.
It seems to me that Rennie has spent very little time with the Det, and has tried to jump on the bandwagon of Special Forces, terrorism -related book circuit, by exploiting as much as possible his year with 14 Intelligence Company.


And it shows in "The Operators" that Rennie has definitely very little of substance to write. The technical details, the detailing of almost every push-up session allows him to wrap up the 300 pages. Even in the last third of the book, which specifically relates to his months as an actual operator, he fills in the blanks by telling many stories that happened during the Troubles, stories he was not directly involved in.
Analysis, whether social or political, is little to none. Well, that might have been high expectations anyway, but at least, I would have liked to read something beyond the tech review and the procedurals of military intel.

Very disappointing from my point of view, except for the inconditional militaria reader.

This man did the business!, 31 Jan 2006
As a serviceman myself and having known a couple of people who have actually served with Special Forces units of one kind or another, it was with a fair amount of reserve that I started reading this book. Would it be Gung Ho, very 'Rupertish', or totally laughable and ludicrous like the book entitled "The Sixteen" written by an armchair warrior who didn't have a clue? (please see my review on Amazon.com). I thought I would give the man a chance and I was very pleased to be able to report that it is one of the best accounts of selection, training and follow up operations in the Northern Ireland Province that I have ever read. A lot of the weapons, logistics and equipment details I knew to be true from my own experiences in the Armed Forces but I did in fact cross-check the training and slightly 'shadier' aspects within the content of the book with an ex-Royal Marine pal of mine who actually served with the 'Detachment'. Whilst my pal was still very guarded and utterly professional about it all, he confirmed that everything that I'd asked him regarding this unit and what he thought of the writer's knowledge and experiences seemed very bona fide and although James Rennie was most definitely of the 'Rupert'(Officer) variety he was without doubt made of very stern stuff, totally committed, went through the mill and did the business when it mattered. A real eye opener for the general public, military historians and potential SF applicants! An absolutely excellent read. Buy it!

You have to admire the cheek of Open Secret's author Stella Rimington. After a career spanning 25 years in MI5, during which she was more than happy for the Official Secrets Acts to be used to the government's advantage, she is now outraged that attempts should have been made to block publication of her memoirs and is calling for the act to be reformed. In an extended preface to Open Secret, Rimington writes of her encounter with Cabinet secretary, Sir Richard Wilson, "By the end of an hour or so of being threatened, bullied and cajoled in the more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger way the Establishment behaves to its recalcitrant sons and, as I now know, daughters, I was very shaken". One wonders what else she expected? The thought of any former director-general of MI5 writing his or her memoirs was bound to have disturbed the security services and, compared to many, Rimington got off lightly. But then, whatever else she might think, Rimington is still very much an Establishment woman. She submitted her manuscript for vetting, took out one or two edgy bits, and as she disarmingly points out, there are no revelations about the inner workings of the intelligence services. When she gets to any contentious issues, such as MI5's role in infiltrating CND and breaking the miners' strike, all she has to say is that MI5 never did anything wrong, that that those who say otherwise are conspiracy theorists and that we'll just have to take her word for it because she's right. The portrait that emerges of a bunch of mildly incompetent bureaucrats who wouldn't say boo to a goose does no favours to Rimington or MI5. The books does have its moments, particularly those describing a woman isolated in an almost exclusively male world, but its real significance lies in the fact it was published at all. If the director-general is allowed to go public, there's precious little to stop the MI5 foot soldiers doing likewise. And when they do, the skeletons that Rimington has kept firmly locked in the cupboard might start to come tumbling out. --John Crace

Civilizations or Cultures?, 08 Sep 2008
This is a book which has had wide currency among international opinion-formers. The egregious Tony Blair has cited it many times (typically enough, without actually crediting it as such, just using the words as if the product of his own thoughts). My problem with it rests on some inadequacies of expression and treatment. The role of race is virtually ignored for one: Islam only attracts those in or descended from certain racial or sub-racial groups, where Islam has been predominant for centuries. Yes, there are a few mavericks and cranks who take it up, but these are rare exceptions. So Islam is NOT (as Huntington claims) likely to somehow take over the "West" EXCEPT by conquest, destruction or (most crucially) by Europe and elsewhere accepting vast numbers of Muslims (who have, as he says, a far higher birth rate) into the European or European-founded societies. Unfortunately this IS the case as Europe is flooded with infiltrating millions.

Huntington's view of "The West" is very Americo-centric. Instead of seeing our Age (I.E. the 2,100 years after 1415) as a whole as Anglo-American-German, as Rudolf Steiner did (he called it the "5th Post-Atlantean"), or as "the age of the white northern European", Huntington really thinks of America as the heartland of Western Civilization (and not, as some might, one of its graveyards!) and thinks that if America ceases to be "Western" by giving up individualism, the Christian church(es) etc, then America itself will be "de-Westernized" and the West would be "reduced to Europe and a few lightly populated overseas European settler countries [and] becomes a miniscule and declining part of the world's population on a small and inconsequential peninsula at the extremity of the Eurasian land mass" (paperback edition p.307).

This above viewpoint must be seen as absurdly misconceived and "little American". For one thing, even Western Europe has a population at least equivalent to that of the United States and its Canadian appendage. And some of the overseas offshoots of the European Empires (especially the British) have large populations which are still mostly of European descent, such as Australia, which is now counted as having about 20 million. And what is the obsession with mere numbers? The British ruled most of India and Africa and elsewhere with tiny groups of British/European civil servants and officers disposing of modest numbers of European police and soldiers.

To my way of thinking, the book is important because it does raise the subject, but apart from the above criticisms, it fails to note that in advanced sections of European (or, as Huntington would put it, "Western") humanity, there is a continuing evolution of consciousness which might lead to a quantum leap in civilization, particularly if Europe joins with a fully independent Russia, that is a Russia which is run by Russians and not "rootless cosmopolitans" with Russian passports. That Europe + Russia could be at least the foundation of a a REAL New Order over time!

Prophetic and gripping, but slightly dated, 15 Apr 2007
This book was written as a prophecy about what the author felt would characterise the C21st. Now that we are nearly a decade into the C21st, we have the ability to look back and see if he was right. If yes, then this book was prophetic and its lessons should be learned. If not, then he is wrong, and the book is little more than an airport novel.

On one or two dimensions, Huntingdon has been extraordinarily accurate, predicting that Islamic extremism would become the number one security threat to the West in the C21st. Ominously, he predicted that the West would be driven to attack nations that possessed WMDs in the fear they would pass them on to terrorists. This is the Bush doctrine, written before Bush was even an elected official, never mind President. Equally ominous, he predicted that Islamic radicals would rally to the cause of any Muslim state attacked in such a way, and the influx of foreign insurgents into Iraq confirms this. Interestingly, the author predicts that the Taliban and Al Qaeda would be very prominent in the C21st, yet never actually names the organisations by name (in the case of Al Qaeda because it did not adopt its current name until several years after the book was written).

Huntingdon is slightly inaccurate in his prediction that China would become more bellicose and confrontational. At least so far, China has been warm towards the West, with trade deals and cultural exchanges flourishing. Another weakness of the book is his rather arbitrary definition of societies, and his notion that a "core state" would drive forward its respective civilisation. This is not the case, with supra-national agencies taking the place of "core states".

Overall, the book is highly recommended. However, given its relative age, it would be advisable to buy a more recent book on geopolitics as well, to top up the introduction that this book provides.


Must reading for the serious student of international affairs, 08 Nov 2006
While there is much (most) of this book I disagree with, it is nonetheless the essential, seminal work on the Clash of Civilizations theory, and thus is must reading for any serious student of international affairs.

In describing his thesis, Huntington elevates "mere" culture to the level of civilization, implying that there are unbridgable fundamental differences between different civilizations which will inevitably lead to a world where these civilizations compete or clash. I don't mean to lazily discredit the idea by association, but this is the philosophy promoted by the likes of Osama bin Laden, for example.

I am afraid reviewers who link this author to the militaristic neo-con movement in the US do not understand either Huntington's thesis or neo-cons themselves. A member of the Western civilization who was an adherent of the Clash of Civilizations worldview would NEVER attack a state of the Islamic civilization, let alone try to turn it into a democracy. Huntington's thesis would predict other nations in the Islamic civilization would rally to the defense of their co-civilizationalist, seeing the attack in terms of an attempt by one civilization to dominate another no matter how justified the attack was (or wasn't, in this case).

Before the war at least, neo-cons argued that all peoples yearn for democracy, that democracy can be delivered at the point of a sword and that it is the mission (burden?) of the West and particularly the lone superpower to liberate these peoples, who will welcome us as their saviors as we create new allies in our own image even while we destroy our enemies. Anyone who suggested that Muslims or Arabs might not be happy to be invaded and brought to democracy was cleverly dismissed as a racist or cultural imperialist. What the neo-cons see as universal civilization Huntington would say is merely Western civilization, and thus any attempt to impose this on another civilization would be doomed to failure.

While Huntington's thesis (first postulated in 1993) would seem to successfully predict the failure of neo-con policy, I think he goes too far in defining characteristics which are "merely" cultural as civilizational. Certainly, there are such things as Islamic and Sinic and Orthodox cultures which one may be wise (and respectful) to consider when dealing with people from those cultures. However, to suggest that these differences are unbridgable is in my view a very limited, deterministic world-view and really an end-game in itself. Individuals can bridge these divisions - what makes "civilizations" composed of individuals any different?

In addition, there are things like universal human rights which exist and have been ratified by nations all over the world. I can not agree with Huntington that these are just expressions of Western thought imposed on the world by the dominant civilization.

Although I find much to oppose in this book, it is very well presented and will certainly be argued about for years to come. You may as well read about the theory straight from the source!

Unconvincing, 05 Apr 2006
It's almost tempting to agree with Huntington's analysis and conclusions. Almost. Yet his premises just don't stand up.

First he argues that what matters most to people, above all else, is culture. While certainly important, he is only able to point to random evidence here and there that 'prove' this. The reader, howver, is left questioning 'why is culture so resonant with people?'. Other than the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is no obvious explanation for why people of the various civilizations now buy into culture much more readily than they did 20 years ago. Further, I am personally unconvinced that these same people would fly the flag of culture above all else - peace, prosperity, trade, etc.

His conception of identity is also troubling. It's monolithic, impermeable, and static. Just as the 'West' certainly did not act as one when various states chose to invade Iraq, nor do I believe that the Muslim world truly identifies with your average Bosnian. At least, I'd need more than Huntington's word on the matter to convince me.

Overall, it's just too deterministic. Huntington provides no insight into how his 'paradigm' might itself become obsolete. The resounding implication seems to be if enough people buy into The Clash then it will come true. There's no place like home, there's no place like home...

Philosophical problem with this book, 01 Apr 2006
This book is interesting for the influence that it is claimed to exert, especially upon the present US administration. You can see the attraction of this whole Clash of Civilizations agenda: you can walk into someone else's country, help yourself to their economic resources and describe it as social progress.

If all the Arab World produced were watermelons, would anyone be have written this book or launched the recent war?

An utterly rivetting read, 02 Jan 2009
A great book! Gripping from page 1, very informative historically and a really good read. Could not put it down. A good balance between narating history and telling a personal story - and just being a great read! Highly recommended.

Fascinating account ot the life of a double agent., 28 Dec 2008
We played this audio CD on a long car journey and it held us spellbound for 6 hours. It is the intriguing story of how small-time crook, Eddie Chapman, became the most infamous double agent of World War II. He displayed incredible courage and fortitude while working undercover. The narration is clear and enjoyable. The story is packed with informative detail that allows you to build a picture of this immoral but fascinating man. Highly recommended.

The inspiration for Fleming's Bond?, 15 Jul 2008
If you like adventure then you can't go far wrong with this book. During World War II, petty East End criminal Eddie Chapman finds himself banged up in occupied Jersey's prison. He is given a lifeline that he cannot refuse - come and work for German secret intelligence as a spy or face the consequences. Eddie opts for the former and is thrown into the grandiose world of a German spymaster. Now he is faced with the moral dilemma of double-crossing his country or the gamble of double crossing his new found boss. You'll have to read the book to find out which choice he makes ... I thoroughly recommend this book!



Well written but lacks of characters' in-depth analysis, 15 Jul 2008
The book is well written. The author limits himself to analyzing events based on first-hand evidence: on the one hand this allows to draw a very faithful picture of agent Zig Zag's wartime adventures. On the other hand however, this method discourage the author from trying to investigate in-depth motivations and convictions of agent Zig Zag.

Fritz, 24 May 2008

Agent Zigzag, a Review by the
Cote d'Azur Men's Book Club







When one of the most wanted men in Britain escaped police by jumping through a Jersey hotel window he leaped into a new career, an Englishman whose deeds were to be heard and applauded by both The Fuehrer and Winston Churchill.

Hitler knew him as Little Fritz; the blue-eyed boy of the Abwher, the Nazi secret service and Churchill was impressed by his exploit, for he was spying for Britain, too, under the codename Agent Zigzag. Eddie Arnold Chapman was, a rising star in the Soho world of gangsters, and, in the twilight days of peace in early l939, a dark haired, handsome young man, destined it seemed, to spend many years behind bars.
He was a care rogue, a womaniser, a leading figure in the mob known as "The Jelly Gang" for their habit of using gelignite to blow safes. He could have been a prototype for 007 James Bond. His girlfriend was pregnant and he was with another woman when the police found him in the Channel Islands. He was captured, eventually and jailed, managed to rob the Governor and then the Germans invaded and he found himself in a Nazi prison camp outside Paris. He was already a bit of a linguist, having picked up basic German and French.
The harsh regime did not appeal so Chapman offered his services to the goose steppers; after lengthy Teutonic thought, the SS the Abwher decided he was genuine. They trained him to be one of their spies in England He graduated from a Nazi school for spies, in France with honours and made many friends, especially his boss, a somewhat aristocratic chap who kept him well supplied with cash. Chapman, naturally, quickly found that boss man was taking his cut from the thousands of Reich marks he was handing over. It takes a crook to know a crook.
The Cote d'Azur Men's Book Club thought Agent Zigzag by journalist Ben Macintyre a very entertaining read, a combination of Bond and Biggles. Fritz, parachuting at night and landing in a muddy Cambridgeshire field and naively banging on a farmhouse door and saying he had been in a car accident. MI5who turned him into their man picked him up. Money changed hands.
Fritz blowing up the De Havilland factory where the wonder plane, the Mosquito was made,
the staged attack being arranged by MI5 experts to fool the Germans.
The stubborn Englishness of the Editor of The Times in refusing to print an untruthful report, which would have fooled the enemy into believing Fritz, was doing good work. . Not a problem for the patriotic Daily Express!
Fritz still has that swashbuckling air about him, he returns to his German group leader and friend by sea, and seemingly reverts to the Nazi regime. Back in Germany and many more adventures, he finds love again in Norway with the beautiful Dagmar. Just as he arranged with MI5 to pay a good "pension" to his woman, so now he does the same for his new love, with the Germans!
He parachutes back into Britain with the brief to track down the new anti-U-boat weapon that is causing devastation to the wolf packs. Such a device only exists in the Nazi imagination, of course and the boffins think up a hilarious device that is pure Monty Python or The Goons, just to give the enemy something to think about. The secret weapon was, of course, the Bletchley Park code breaker.
Had the stakes not been so huge, Agent Zigzag would have been a biting satirical piece of work, yet, it is the gripping life story of courageous con man who reverted to type at war's end to thieving and safe breaking and, naturally, womanising. A crook, but our crook. As his MI5 boss said, "One of the bravest men I have ever met."
Oh, yes, and old Adolf probably thought much the same. Eddie Arnold Chapman was awarded the Iron Cross, First Class.
Chapman, born in the North East, was a charismatic crook made good by his courage and apparent indifference to personal suffering. He mixed with the great and the good but he was never a Gentleman, he was a spy who did a great service for his country in her time of need.


All, especially the ladies, loved him. It could have been men like Chapman who inspired a Naval Intelligence officer, one Ian Fleming, to create James Bond. Agent Zigzag did not have a licence to kill, officially, but he dreamed of assassinating Hitler!




MI6 huh ?, 01 Sep 2005
I had read "Kilo17", and was very surprised to find out about this book from Ferguson. Well, really, how much of an expert can he pretend to be, given he has barely spent a year or two with 6 ?
That's what he says in his first book, when he explains how he ended up assigned to HMCE.
Mind you the book content is not uninteresting, but nothing you can't find anywhere else through open sources. Which confirmed my impression of a very relative field "expertise" from the author.

A great place to start, 02 May 2005
This is clearly designed to be an introduction to the subject for the general public so I suppose specialists will know much of what is in here, but even so it is an excellent read, especially good for dipping into rather than reading cover to cover. It is also a fascinating book because it is the only one about the craft of spying written by a real former MI6 officer. The emphasis of the book (the manipulation of people rather than use of bugs and gadgets) is intriguing. But the big question is: what happened to the TV series which the book was supposed to accompany? It's sounds as though it would have been great, but I never even heard that it was on.

the reality of spying, 19 Jan 2005
So many books on espionage concentrate on James Bond style gadgets. This book avoids that and,as well as chapters defining what intelligence is, developing a cover or new identity,and surveillance and countersurveillance, it has excellent information on the core of espionage which is agent recruitment. This book stresses how to build relationships or if you want to be cynical about it,how to manipulate people.
Forget the movies and read this book written by an ex-MI6 officer.

Boring and repetitive, 14 Apr 2008
This book appears to be written by someone who worked in Northern Ireland but there are a number of anomolies which indicate they were not as involved as they claim.

Beware the first three quarters of the book is taken up with extremely dull detail about special forces training which will be nothing new to you if you have any of the SAS books previously.



And you think the SAS have it tough? , 13 Feb 2008
This book was a real eye opener. I recently discovered a copy of this book and having read many of the SAS real life stories, did not really know what to expect.

What comes across is an in-depth look at an elite unit that most people know very little about. A unit so secret that they use false names and know very little about the other people they serve with. The book covers in detail the training, selection and the gruelling punishment this poses to those involved. This really is a "make one mistake and you are out" mentality.

That a unit as covert as the 14 Company, who actually take on and train members of the SAS, can have received very little published notoriety says a lot in itself. The members of these units have a job to do. A job that is genuinely dangerous and life threatening on a day to day basis. All the more difficult when you have to not only memorise an A-Z in depth, but know how to communicate to multiple moving Operatives at the same time in an urban or country environment, using a covert language - and be ready to enter a lethal fire fight on a regular occurrence.

Experts in weapons, surveillance, photography, survival, driving and amongst the most physically fittest people in the forces, these people deserve all our respect for the job they do and get no recognition for.

I can see why this book was a Sunday Times Bestseller. Buy it.


Highly Recommended!!, 04 Dec 2006
Great read for any walk of life... It kept me gripped until the end, in fact I read it within a couple of days!

My advice would be to buy it, and enjoy!

Twelve Months In The Life Of...., 10 Jun 2006
Yeah, well ... Might be a part of the problem. The book REALLY starts in its last third, most of the pages before # 200 being devoted to an excrutiatingly precise, day-by-day, selection course.
It seems to me that Rennie has spent very little time with the Det, and has tried to jump on the bandwagon of Special Forces, terrorism -related book circuit, by exploiting as much as possible his year with 14 Intelligence Company.


And it shows in "The Operators" that Rennie has definitely very little of substance to write. The technical details, the detailing of almost every push-up session allows him to wrap up the 300 pages. Even in the last third of the book, which specifically relates to his months as an actual operator, he fills in the blanks by telling many stories that happened during the Troubles, stories he was not directly involved in.
Analysis, whether social or political, is little to none. Well, that might have been high expectations anyway, but at least, I would have liked to read something beyond the tech review and the procedurals of military intel.

Very disappointing from my point of view, except for the inconditional militaria reader.

This man did the business!, 31 Jan 2006
As a serviceman myself and having known a couple of people who have actually served with Special Forces units of one kind or another, it was with a fair amount of reserve that I started reading this book. Would it be Gung Ho, very 'Rupertish', or totally laughable and ludicrous like the book entitled "The Sixteen" written by an armchair warrior who didn't have a clue? (please see my review on Amazon.com). I thought I would give the man a chance and I was very pleased to be able to report that it is one of the best accounts of selection, training and follow up operations in the Northern Ireland Province that I have ever read. A lot of the weapons, logistics and equipment details I knew to be true from my own experiences in the Armed Forces but I did in fact cross-check the training and slightly 'shadier' aspects within the content of the book with an ex-Royal Marine pal of mine who actually served with the 'Detachment'. Whilst my pal was still very guarded and utterly professional about it all, he confirmed that everything that I'd asked him regarding this unit and what he thought of the writer's knowledge and experiences seemed very bona fide and although James Rennie was most definitely of the 'Rupert'(Officer) variety he was without doubt made of very stern stuff, totally committed, went through the mill and did the business when it mattered. A real eye opener for the general public, military historians and potential SF applicants! An absolutely excellent read. Buy it!

No Secret: Stella Rules, Britannia, 14 Mar 2008
I purchased this book after hearing an interview with Ms. Rimington on BBC 4, and I must say, I found her engaging both on the radio and in print. She is a talented writer, whose eventful life--from childhood during the blitz, through her days as a diplomatic wife in India; her experiences as an archivist; and her almost accidental career in MI5 [the old-school-tie male bastion which she penetrated with panache]--is related with considerable charm and humor (essential requirements for being an effective spy).

On the back of the book, under a series of rave blurbs is a negative one by an individual of the male persuasion, whose non-endorsement guaranteed my determination to read the book. And I quote: "The most effective Secret Service is the one which is secret. She should shut up."

Well, that horse was stolen from the barn years ago, and the service that once dared not speak its name has long since--thanks to ex-intelligence officers writing their memoirs right and left--become the service that will not shut up!

Stella Rimington, the intelligent woman who made it to the director-generalship of MI5, adds a refreshing perspective to the male-dominated literature of British intelligence.

Slow start but very worthwhile, 21 Dec 2007
Despite the headline I have given, this book is interesting throughout. The reason I have said it starts slowly is that the first part of the book does not deal with Ms Rimmington's time working for MI5.

Nevertheless the book as a whole is a fascinating autobiography. Her career is so different to mainstream careers that it is worth reading for a small insight into the world of the intelligence services. As one of the other reviewers comments, some of the incidents described in the book are rather "everyday" but, unlike that reviewer, I think such incidents make Ms Rimmington sound more down-to-earth and consequently credible than would otherwise be the case.

I also do not think the book is harmful, but instead, to the extent it deals with Ms Rimmington's time at MI5 it sets out in a clear and concise way the political and societal contexts in which MI5 operates have changed dramatically since the 1960s. In fact it is this which makes the book so interesting since, as anyone should have been able to guess before reading it, the book was extremely unlikely to reveal any operational information or anything but the most general details about operations.

My one criticism is that Ms Rimmington's time in charge of MI5 is only briefly described, although perhaps this is unavoidable on security grounds.

Definitely one of the top books I've read this year.

avoid, 18 Nov 2007
I would recommend you purchase 'Spies, Lies and Whistleblowers' instead for a more realistic and earthy view of MI5.

Less threat-analysis, more biographical, 17 Jun 2003
The preface to the paperback edition of Open Secret talks of the challenges the security forces face combatting global terrorism. It's an interesting analysis of the problems facing governments and democracies worldwide but, unfortunately, it doesn't really set the tone for the rest of the book. The remainder is less threat-analysis and much more biographical.

The very personal nature of the book, and thus the lack of James Bond style bad-guy chasing, is only a disappointment to those who haven't read anything about it. Open Secret does not set itself up to be a great spy catcher novel. It is the truly fascinating tale of a woman who appeared to join the Secret Service because she couldn't really think of anything else to do and became the "housewife super-spy".

Stella Rimington nicely touches on some of the history if MI5 and its role during the wars (world and cold) without turning Open Secret into a detailed historical work. It's not a technical manual for sleuths either, nor does it contain the great revelations about our Secret Services than some have made out. It is a wonderful insight into the workings of a world that, at least for the part of her time, Stella could not admit existed. She tells of the struggles to bring up a family single-handed while battling the internal workings of a Service that did not expect women to rise to the top. It's a fascinating insight and, perhaps, inspiring to some. Certainly it's a book that, this reader at least, is very glad made got through the censorship.

No hesitation in recommending as a biography, 11 Oct 2002
This is a biography of the woman who ran MI5. It isn't a novel by Tom Clancy and it isn't a full analysis of the structure and methods of the Security Services.

It gives insight into the mind and values of the woman who was very successful within the security services of the 1970's and 1980's. She shows modesty and commitment - rising from part-time Office junior to Head of the Service via hard work and personal sacrifice (especially family relationships and financial).

The book tells us much about English attitudes, the cult of the 'Amateur,' and how many fall by the wayside on the path to the top - lacking commitment or realising that the effort is not justified by the reward.

It will make you question how and why people get to the top in British politics and administration. Americans, in particular, will be stunned by her candour (and poverty)

We need more books like this - real biographies talking about genuine biographical issues as opposed to post-rationalised self-promotion. With more women t