Rating: 
Summary: Nuremberg is not the focus...
Review: ...instead this is a story of personal tribulations and struggles raising interesting questions; the most interesting of which being centered around the importance of choosing how we meet our end. I think the the previous reviewers missed the point of the novel, and were instead expecting a courtroom thriller. While I can concede some to some of the points raised in nit-picking the novel to death, the ulimate score a book receives should be based, in my opinion, on the total enjoyment derived from reading it. Buckley weaves a complicated tale seamlessly together to creat a book which I could not bring myself to stop reading. So: a courtroom thriller...nope; an engaging, intellect-provoking tale...you bet!!!
Rating: 
Summary: Come Back BLackford Oakes!
Review: A fan of Buckley's novels with Blackford Oakes as the CIA agent involved in international crises, I looked forward to this historical novel. I was sorely disappointed.Buckley's main character is flat. The conflict he will face is apparent and obvious early. The "big twist" at the end was predictable and meager. Worse, I was never sure if Buckley knew what he wanted to write. A novel about a participant in the trials? A novel with a philosophical debate? An expose on the legal tenets used in the Nuremburg trials? Unfortunately, all of these were touched upon in the book, but none satisfactorily probed or developed in depth. Instead, the book was scattered and disorganized with the reader left to want more in each area. Overall a very disappointing book about a topic that has so much to offer.
Rating: 
Summary: worthless
Review: A novel of worthless sentimentality that succeeds relating historically to the Nuremberg "trials" only through a great deal of name-dropping.
Rating:
Summary: CONSERVATIVE VALUES
Review: Buckley is one of the greatest conservatives who ever lived. He is a hero to most, but he never meant blip to me. Him and John Wayne. I have many great relatives who are disappointed in me. I think all conservatives and history buffs should read this book.
Rating:
Summary: Great theme, shallow characters
Review: Buckley's Blackford Oaks novels were always quie riveting, particularly as he used historical personalities as major players in his plots (JFK, Khrushchev, Castro). In "Nuremberg," he uses them only in side roles (Jackson, Biddle, Goering, Speer) and instead creates his own war criminal as the central villain. This already lessens the interest. Second, the two German-American servicemen (Rheinhardt and Allbright) don't ring true. WWII era US Army soldiers wanting to drink sherry? Very strange. And considering Allbright's heritage and what the Nazis did to his family, one would think he would hardly be so diffident or that he would want to help Sebby in his "act of mercy." Other characters just seem superfluous. What is really the point of the chapters involving Sebby's Grand Canyon supervisor or even the German girl friend. Neither contributes to the story line or the outcome. These secondary characters and their subplots in the novel were tepid and unnecessary. I'm afraid Buckley has lost his touch in mixing history with fiction. Too bad -- the Nuremberg trial presents a fascinating backdrop for developing a thoughtful page-turner -- something Buckley failed to do.
Rating: 
Summary: Like a "dumbed down" version of a more complete version
Review: Having read articles by Buckley in the past, but no fiction, I was disappointed by this book. It has all the ingredients of a first rate work, but was taken from the oven half done. None of the characters are really developed, and when the book finally gets through the superficial aspects of the main character's life and into the meat and potatoes of his involvement in the Nuremberg trials, the author dishes out enough to really interest the reader in the subject matter, both the non-fiction and fiction aspects of the plot, then stops far short of fully satisfying the reader's appetite for either.
Every aspect of the book, even the vocabulary, reads as though the book is a 'simplified' version rewritten for younger readers, or a Reader's Digest condensed version of the original. All in all, a wholly unsatisfying treatment of the subject matter.
Rating:
Summary: Superficial
Review: I felt like I was reading an outline. At the close of the book, I knew as much about the characters and what made them tick as I did on the first page. Mr. Buckley knows how to string words together but very little about plotting and character development. The entire reading experience was eerily remote.
Rating:
Summary: Nowhere near Buckley's old suspense standards
Review: I have been reading Buckley's thrillers for years and even have an autographed copy of "Brothers No More." I much preferred the Blackford Oakes series to his latest efforts, and this book is certainly among the worst of the newer stuff. The novel is a plodding bore, and when it doesn't plod, it drags. The legal arguments are arcane and not deeply explored, and I suspect they are of interest only to history and law buffs. The author sets up a barely intriguing love triangle, then abruptly drops it with hardly an explanation. There is neither action nor suspense. I don't know why Buckley wasted his time here; don't waste your money.
Rating:
Summary: Careless, silly, and offensive
Review: Inane and Offensive The book flap claims this book has "insight and understanding, exploring the characters and issues that defined history." Buckley in his acknowledgments refers to some eighteen historical texts he used as a basis for his book, as well as using an eyewitness to Nuremberg who reassured Buckley that: "That is exactly how it was at Nuremberg." In my opinion, the novel falls far short. Buckley should stick to Blackford Oakes where he can screw up as much as he wants without offending. The title of the book is "Nuremberg: The Reckoning" but its ninety some pages before Nuremberg is mentioned. Ninety something uninteresting pages with very little conflict, obstacles, or interest (except for a brief passage where Sebastian's father is detained by the Gestapo). Instead, Buckley describes Sebastian's summer job as a guide in the Grand Canyon. Many peripheral characters are introduced, including a wiry Indian guide who introduces him to river lore. These characters have no story and bear no relation to future parts of the book and this whole section could have been easily omitted. If someone besides Buckley had written this book, it wouldn't be considered publishable. 1) Upon the death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the focus of the men in basic training becomes "a single question, Might this mean an earlier end to the war? Sebastian leaned over to Ed Coady, `Could be good news. FDR was the unconditional surrender man, right?" This is offensive. FDR was a four-time victor of presidential elections. The Allies were closing in on Berlin, Germany was in its last gasps. It was only a matter of time before Germany collapsed. Recently in a poll of historians, FDR was chosen as America's best president and people lined the tracks of the railroad car that carried FDR's body back to Washington. Possibly the reason for Buckley's dislike of FDR is summed up when one of his characters complains that the Depression had meant an end to the domestic servants they'd been accustomed to. 2) "Army officers had both officers reporting for duty to the Palace of Justice. The Palace was pretty much the only show in town, a huge compound which, along with the adjacent Grand Hotel, all but uniquely survived the destruction of Nuremberg." Number one point of an American family receiving telegrams, letters, and phone calls from Germany while at war is difficult for me to disprove. It sounds suspicious. I could be wrong. Regardless, it is the writer's job to pull the reader in and have the reader buy in. However, Buckley's location of the Grand Hotel as "adjacent" to the Palace of Justice is a howler. The Grand Hotel was not adjacent; in fact, workers from the Palace of Justice would routinely take cabs to the Grand. Buckley's eyewitness, who claims that Buckley got it EXACTLY right, must have been asleep at the switch. 3) Buckley characterizes the jailer, Colonel Burton Andrus, as having control of about everything in town. Buckley's gross carelessness of mislocating the Grand Hotel comes back to bite him, when Andrus demands control of the Grand because he needs control of the compound, the entire compound-and since we know the Grand Hotel is adjacent, well, the warder Col. Andrus becomes in charge of two hundred hotel rooms, building the courtroom, arranging for translations, etc. I am not a professional historian. I have read several of the books Buckley claims to have read, along with Eyewitnesses to Nuremberg. Neither Persico nor Taylor mention Colonel Andrus as more than the jailor 4) Perhaps a fictional device, Buckley has the jail and its courtyard completely bugged. Information about the defendant's plan of defense is forwarded to the prosecution. The bugging isn't mentioned by Taylor or Persico. In science fiction terms, this would be called bolognium. A novel can stand only so much bolognium. Nuremberg isn't a science-fiction world. It is a well-known historical event. 5) Buckley's make believe Nazi war criminal, SS General Amadeus, under interrogation claims that seventy to ninety percent of incoming prisoners to his concentration camp were taken from the railway cars directly to the gas ovens. Although the Nazi war crimes were horrendous, this percentage is far too high. I don't know whether Buckley was careless and meant that seventy to ninety percent of prisoners were NOT taken directly to the gas ovens because in the same conversation, Amadeus says: "Joni required a considerable workforce to maintain it." 6) On page 237, "... Amadeus had raised his hand to question the testimony of Auschwitz commander Rudolf Hess, not to be confused with Nuremberg defendant Rudolph Hoess..." Buckley commits another factual screw-up. Hoess was the Auschwitz commandant and Hess was the Nuremberg defendant. This should have been easily cleared up since later Buckley correctly refers to Hoess as the commandant of Auschwitz. Sheer carelessness on Buckley's part. 7) The ending was neither satisfying nor particularly plausible to me.
Rating:
Summary: A Disappointment
Review: William Buckley has a good story line -- a "behind the scenes" look at what was happening at Nuremberg. Indeed, there was plenty of politcal gamesmanship going on at that time. Buckley's book illustrates some of the "sensitivities" that had to be worked out among the allied powers so the Nuremberg Tribunnal could actually have happened. Had Buckley stayed along these story lines, he would have written a very powerful, thoughtful, and provactive account of one of the most famous trials in history. Unfortunately, he didin't. One should always keep in mind that Nuremberg had a profound impact on the world. That being said, writing about such a serious -- and, emotional -- topic cannot be taken lightly. William Buckley appears to have done just that. For example, he confuses Hess with Hoess. Additionally, introducing a fictional character on the docket with the leaders of the Third Reich trivilizes the importance of this trial. Why "add" another defendent when you already have twenty others that have been indicted for crimes conducted during the war? Buckley delivered dribble when he could have given the readers something powerful. For this reason, the book is a let down. I was expecting something a lot better.
| 
