The Next Stage…

Well it is time to move onto the next step for me. I finished my MPhil, though I am still waiting on my results, two months ago. I have always intended to continue onto my PhD and I was originally intending to do it part-time while working as an ‘A’ Level Lecturer, however, I was lucky enough to be offered voluntary redundancy package by my college. I know in time like this it sound odd that this was lucky but all I can say is that the package I was offered worked for both parties and that the sum involved means and can contemplate doing the PhD full-time. This means my application is currently going through the red tape and bureaucracy. All going well I will start in January, therefore, I will join the ranks of PhD bloggers like Jakob and Robert. I made a decision to stay at Birmingham and continue to work with my MPhil supervisor, Professor Gary Sheffield. I have mentioned before the importance of the good working relationship with your supervisor and this I feel I have with Gary. I will also have a second supervisor in the guise of Air Commodore (ret’d) Peter Gray. Peter is a Senior Air Power Research Fellow at the university and an expert in Air Power History and Leadership Theory, which is important, as you will see.

In terms of the subject matter, I have decided to move away from purely operational military history and have a look at leadership in the RAF. In particular, I am going to be researching the career of Air Chief Marshal Sir Trafford Leigh-Mallory. Leigh-Mallory has often been given short shrift by most historians as being a career driven egotist who was at worst incompetent. This is, I believe, not strictly the case and I am going to attempt to examine Leigh-Mallory’s leadership effectiveness through the use of contemporary leadership theory, hence the importance of Peter as one of my supervisors. I am hoping to evaluate his decision-making through he use of contemporary sources and place his choices in their operational context. Here is the summary of the proposal that I have submitted:

The Leadership Effectiveness of Air Chief Marshal Sir Trafford Leigh-Mallory

On 14 November 1944, an Avro York took of from RAF Northolt carrying Air Chief Marshal Sir Trafford Leigh-Mallory, his Wife and Personal Staff Officer on the first leg of a journey that was to take Leigh-Mallory to his new command in South East Asia. Just after midday, the aircraft hit a mountain ridge some fifteen miles east of Grenoble killing all on board the aircraft. The impact of this avoidable accident was that unlike other contemporaries Leigh-Mallory has left no viable papers, memoirs or an autobiography. This has led to Leigh-Mallory place in the historiography of the Second World War being overlooked by most historians. Interpretations of Leigh-Mallory’s career had tended to examined through the prism of his role in the Battle of Britain and operation OVERLORD. Therefore, this thesis will seek to make a clear and objective analysis of Leigh-Mallory contribution using contemporary leadership theory. This methodology will allow the use of various sources in order to ascertain the effectiveness of Leigh-Mallory’s leadership capability. It will seek to examine how people viewed Leigh-Mallory and how self-aware he was of his own competence. Thus, the thesis will take a truly inter-disciplinary approach to examine one of the Second World War’s most misunderstood commanders.

It is an exciting prospect to start this. If there is one area that concerns me, it is the leadership aspect. I am going to have to get to grip with the theory and exploring different ideas on measure command competencies. Therefore, if anyone has any good ideas I am all ears. I am not sure how far I will take these aspects. I can see it going two ways. One is to go all out and synthesise a theory/model for the purpose. This will push the thesis away from a historical one but may offer some interesting insights. The other is to find a methodology and use it a conceptual model for examining Leigh-Mallory. This arguably, will allow the thesis to remain grounded in history much more. One thing that I want to avoid is a purely biographical essay of Leigh-Mallory.

Now I plan examine Leigh-Mallory’s leadership at the operational and strategic level of war i.e. from Group command up to his time as AOC-in-C of the Allied Expeditionary Air Force. I do want to have a look at the tactical level but this may be problematic in terms of the theory. However, I will be researching his command of No. 8 Squadron and his inter-war service in order to contextualise his career.

More soon…

P.S. Any thoughts on sources?

A Few Additions…

Couple of additions to the library arrived this past week…

Christina Goulter, A Forgotten Offensive: Royal Air Force’s Anti-Shipping Campaign, 1940-1945 (London: Frank Cass, 1995) – An important contribution to the history of the RAF and in particular its contribution to maritime air power.

Vincent Orange, Tedder: Quietly in Command (London: Routledge, 2006) – A useful addition to Orange’s biographies of RAF airmen. Tedder is one of the most important airmen in the history of the RAF. Serving as deputy commander in Europe and then as the first CAS of the post-war RAF he often dealt with numerous difficult problems and personalities. It is interesting to note that he hasn’t dealt with Leigh-Mallory or Douglas, but that is an issue I will deal with at a later date.

I have also added a few e-books to the collection. The Canadian Directorate of Heritage and History has a download section with various publications. Of interest to those of us interested in air power are the RCAF’s official history of the Second World War and there are a few interesting titles on the development of naval aviation in Canada. There are also copies of the Canadian official history of both the First and Second World War.

Some Qualitative Observations of Air Power at Dieppe…

One of things I looked at in the course of my research was the contemporary qualitative view of the effectiveness of Air Power over Dieppe. This was easily classified into fours areas; political, command, operational and German views of the raid.

At an operational level a useful source was the Canadian Military Headquarters Historical Reports compiled by C P Stacey during the course of the war. Many of these were based upon oral accounts given by either surviving or released soldiers in the period 1942-1945. Therefore, they do not suffer from many of the issues related to oral testimony. Though Stacey’s motive must be born in mind as he was quite happy to confront Mountbatten over what he perceived as the problems of the raid. One of the more interesting things to come out of the accounts below was the issue of identification. Indeed by the D-Day it was common to see aircraft with the so-called ‘D-Day stripes’, however, these were certainly used during Operation STARKEY in 1943 and I have seen some reference to their use at Dieppe. Indeed I have seen a picture of a Free French Spitfire with bands applied over the cowling, however, I can’t find a standing order for this.

Anyway here is what I wrote on this source…

While at a political and command level it can be argued that RAF’s operations over Dieppe were viewed as a success, it is useful to see how those on the beach and on the supporting ships viewed it. Given that the RAF’s primary mission was air cover, their opinion helps to frame whether or not that support was successful from their perspective. The CMHQ reports compiled by C P Stacey form a useful basis for such an analysis.[1] In terms of air power, the views are mixed, varying from negative opinions on the issue of supporting bombardment to positive views on the overall impact of air power. For example, Captain G A Browne of the Royal Canadian Artillery, who served as a Forward Observation Officer (FOO) with the RRC, commented on the cancelling of the aerial bombardment to preserve the element of surprise that;

Further, is surprise easier to obtain, than the preparatory heavy air bombardment which in our case would quite probably have succeeded where surprise, or rather the hope of surprise, failed?[2]

This rather negative view can be contrasted with that of Lieutenant J E R Wood of the Royal Canadian Engineers, who was captured on RED/WHITE beach, commented after the war that

Some of our people later claimed they never saw the Air Force. Of course they didn’t. They were too busy up top keeping the Luftwaffe off us. I can truthfully say we were not machine gunned on that beach except by our own people after we’d folded up. That means the R.A.F. did its stuff.[3]

Two accounts highlight one of the key problems found during JUBILEE; the identification of friendly aircraft and friendly fire due to issues of command and control. Both Captain James Runcie of the QOCHC and Private Maier of the Essex Scottish both discuss the issue of friendly fire on Canadian positions on RED/WHITE beach.[4] However, neither account is critical of the RAF; for example, Maier noted that a late-arriving Landing Craft Tank caused the incident he witnessed, in his opinion.[5] All the force commanders in their reports highlighted the issue of recognition with Roberts noting that ‘A much higher standard of air recognition is required.’[6] This was reiterated by Hughes-Hallett in the ‘Lessons Learnt’ report.[7] The problem of control was noted in an army report in December, which praised the directing of close support aircraft, but noted that the delay imposed by the system then in place needed work.[8]


[1] DHH, CMHQ Report No. 89 – The Operation at DIEPPE, 19 Aug 42: Personal Stories of Participants, 31 December 1942; CMHQ Report No. 90 – The Operation at DIEPPE, 19 Aug 42: Further Personal Stories of Participants, 18 February 1943; CMHQ Report No. 142 – Operation “JUBILEE”: The Raid on Dieppe, 19 Aug 42, Further New Information, 18 July 1945.

[2] DHH, CMHQ Report No. 89, p. A-9.

[3] DHH, CMHQ Report No. 142, para. 15.

[4] DHH, CMHQ Report No. 89, p. H-6; CMHQ Report No. 90, p. D-3.

[5] DHH, CMHQ Report No. 90, p. D-3.

[6] TNA, DEFE 2/551, The Dieppe Report (Combined Report,  October 1942), p. 143.

[7] TNA, ADM 239/350, Lessons Learnt, p. 1.

[8] TNA, WO 106/4195A, File 24 – Lessons to be Learned from the Dieppe Raid.

The Bombing of Coventry

Tuesday will see an interesting documentary aired on BBC2 entitled Blitz: The Bombing of Coventry. The details from the BBC website states that it will not only look at the bombing and the impact that it had upon British bombing policy. The blurb also mentions the term ‘to coventrate’ which Brett mentions in this post.

Should be interesting.

New Book and a New(ish) Blog

Another book to fall on my doormat is:

Edward Westermann Flak: German Anti-Aircraft Defenses, 1914-1945 (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2001) – This book looks at the other side of the bombing campaign against Germany, namely the use of Anti-Aircraft artillery in the defence of Germany. It examines the numerous problems that befell this arm in its attempt to defend Germany cities and helps illustrates the problems that was faced in this period.

A blog I have stumbled across is How it Really Was by Christopher Knowles, a part-time PhD student at the Centre for Contemporary British History. It has some interesting posts about the British Occupation of post-war Germany. An interesting subject and after reading Sholto Douglas’ autobiography, Years of Command, and reading the problems he had during his time as Military Governor of the British Zone of Occupation, I am looking forward to reading more.

A while ago I mentioned podcasts that are popping up over the net well the National Archives have started some video podcasts entitled War on Film. Each one explores the truth behind popular war films. To quote from the website:

The National Archives holds a large number of records about the events featured in six of the most popular war films of all time. In our ‘War on Film’ videocast series William Spencer, one of our military records specialists, explores the true stories behind these films and uses original records to depict actual events.

The latest looks at the truth behind the ‘Longest Day’.

A Trip to London…and Books

Yesterday saw me take a run into London. The purpose of this visit was to meet up with Brett Holman of Airminded who is over in the UK on holiday. For anyone who has followed Brett’s blog you will be aware that it is one of the better history blogs on the net. For me it has the added advantage of being abaout Air Power History. It is always great to put a name to the face. Several other bloggers came along to so it was a meeting of the blogosphere. It was also great to meet Jakob, who runs the blog Thrust Vector. I think each of our blogs, and by default research interests, highlights the diversity of Air Power History. Good luck to Breet in getting his thesis published and finding that much vaunted job that we all desire at the of our PhD’s.

Seeing as I was in London it seemed rude of me not to visit the bookshops and peruse the bookshelves. This of course meant that some purchasing was done. This is what I picked up yesterday.

Stephen Bungay The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain (London: Aurum Press, 2009) – This is the new 2009 edition of this work on the Battle. I have not had the chance to read it so it will be interesting to see what he has to add to the historiography.

Noble Frankland History at War: The Campaign of a Historian (London: Giles de Mare, 1998) – This is Franklands account of his life as a historian and deals with many aspects of the historical profession and in particular the issues relating to the publication of the Official History of the Strategic Air Offensive against Germany.

Alfred Hurley Billy Mitchell: Crusader for Air Power (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1975) – A useful early biography of one of the most important men in American air power history.

Harry Yeide and Mark Stout First to the Rhine: The 6th Army Group in World War II (St Paul, MN: Zenith Press, 2007) – I picked this up as I have always wondered about the operation of Devers command, which has recieved scant attention from historians.

Seeing as I was in London I decided to make a day of it and I popped up to the RAF Museum and took some pictures of the exhibits. Always a favourite of mine but I do wish that they would imporve the lighting for photography. As I was in the area  also popped to Hannants and picked up a model. I did not need to but I felt the need.

Some Concluding thoughts…

Here are some of my general thoughts on the effectiveness of the RAF during the raid on Dieppe. If I was to pull out one general point it would be that unlike what Mountbatten argued i.e that Dieppe provided vital lessons for OVERLORD, for the RAF Dieppe is one pillar of development that feeds in to 1943 but that it had to be understood in context with developments from other theatres.

——————————————————————————————–

In the build up to and during JUBILEE, the RAF showed the degree to which as a service it was willing to integrate into Combined Operations. The fact that in the inter-war years the RAF called for a holistic Combined Operations doctrine illustrates that the RAF was aware of the need to consider inter-service cooperation on operations. That this did not happen was largely down to the other services, especially the RN which wished to keep the focus on amphibious operations. The RAF was aware of the key role it was to play in any Combined Operation and by the start of the war the pre-requisite of air superiority was accepted by all the services. By 1942, the RAF had made a vigorous attempt to integrate itself into the Combined Operations organisation with the setting up of No. 1441 Flight at the CTC. This would eventually become No. 105 Wing, which would have an important role in controlling the crews required for the HQS and FDTs from 1943 onwards. This organisation from 1942 onwards would train squadrons from Fighter, Bomber and Army Co-Operation Commands in the principles relating to the support of Combined Operations. This occurred alongside their normal operations with which they were tasked. That this occurred despite the protestations of Harris, illustrates the importance that the Air Staff placed upon integration and co-operation.

During the course of JUBILEE Leigh-Mallory, as the senior RAF officer, played a full part in the advising and operational decision-making process and during the course of the battle sought to control air operations with a representative onboard the HQS. That Leigh-Mallory was not on board himself highlights the difficulty of commanding air power and the need to be at a central command node to effectively control air assets. This would still be the overall situation in 1944, though eased by the development of the FDT. Leigh-Mallory also illustrated a willingness to work with Mountbatten on future operations when it showed the opportunity to attain his primary goal of air superiority, even though these would become strategic dead end.

The parallel development of Combined Operation doctrine and the operational objectives of Fighter Command merged to give that command its primary mission during JUBILEE. Normally viewed as a selfish act by the RAF, an understanding of Combined Operations doctrine shows that the opposite is actually the case. That the RAF’s view of the role of air superiority had developed to include fighter operations by the time of JUBILEE helps to explain its role. The fact that it aided its Fighter Command’s role in 1942 should not be seen negatively. It illustrates the flexibility of air power in the face of changing operational conditions. The need for air superiority from fighter aircraft had been illustrated in numerous campaigns before JUBILEE, prevented German attempts to gain air superiority in 1940.

That the RAF’s modus operandi during JUBILEE fitted in with Fighter Commands role should as be noted viewed positively. The RAF was seeking to do its best to prevent the Luftwaffe from interfering with the operation. In this, it was generally successful. That the RAF suffered more than the Luftwaffe is not an indication that it was out fought on the day as the detailed analysis above illustrates that many of the airframes were returned to service and many pilots were rescued. This would be a telling factor for the Luftwaffe whose inability to replace losses would cost them in the air battles of the 1943 and 1944. However, the RAF was able to maintain and effective strength in 1943 with a well-trained cadre of pilots. The Luftwaffe was not able to do from 1942 onwards due to poor training and the high rate of losses it was suffering on all fronts.

Possibly the one area where problems occurred in the aftermath of JUBILEE was in the belief held by Leigh-Mallory and Mountbatten that a similar operation could be launched in order to wear down the Luftwaffe by forcing it to fight, even the RAF was forced to admit that the method was a one shot strategy and without the actual landing of significant forces there was unlikely to be a repeat performance. However, given the strategic situation of late 1942 and early 1943 it was perhaps not wrong for it to be tried. Both AFLAME and COLEMAN were strategic dead ends and this was realised by members of the Air Staff who vetoed the operations as far as they could. That they stayed on the agenda may well be explained by Mountbatten’s attempts to garner more power for COHQ, as was seen in the preparation for JUBILEE. However, Leigh-Mallory must not be excused for not seeing the fallacy of this strategy. Despite the failures of late 1942 the strategy was revived as part of deception plans in 1943, however, once again it did not succeed in the aim of bringing the Luftwaffe to battle.

In terms of the direct impact of air power on JUBILEE, it can be argued that with the exception of the loss of HMS Berkeley and some landing craft the cover provided by Fighter Command was useful in preventing the full weight of the Luftwaffe attacking the beaches. It was noted by eyewitness that some of the losses, while regrettable, were not the fault of the RAF as in the midst of battle craft were arriving late and caught in the maelstrom. The loss of HMS Berkeley was primarily the fault of the failure of command and control systems then in place to deal with RAF aircraft flying below three thousand feet. This meant that Luftwaffe aircraft under this height became the RN’s responsiblity, therefore, the loss must be put down to the RN’s AA defences. In general, the direct support provided was very useful. For example, the attacks on the Hess Battery aided No.4 Commando’s operation. Smoke laying was found to be very useful and was most welcome in the withdrawal phase of JUBILEE. The most disappointing aspect was the provision of Tac R which were left with little to do, as the Germans did not send in reserves. However, the battle was costly for the RAF, with aircraft on the direct support mission suffering the most. Nevertheless, the RAF was willing to accept these losses.

Traditional arguments relating to the effectiveness of JUBILEE usually relate to its importance in providing lessons that contributed to the success of OVERLORD. This is certainly the argument made by Mountbatten in his later life and supported by Hughes-Hallett. From an air power perspective, it is hard to support this position. That JUBILEE served a purpose is certainly true. It fitted in with the prevailing view of air power in support of Combined Operations and aided Fighter Command’s key operational objectives; however, these lessons did not last into 1944. By 1943, it became apparent to the Allies that the battle for air superiority in preparation for OVERLORD would have to be fought closer to Germany and due to the technical limitation of Fighter Command’s equipment; this battle would be primarily fought by the 8AAF.

Therefore, if the lessons of JUBILEE were not important in the preparation for OVERLORD, were they as useful elsewhere? The answer to this is that JUBILEE’s importance lay in the impact it had upon events in 1943. JUBILEE acted as an enabler of change. It illustrated problems that had to be resolved if air power was to be fully effective in Combined Operations. The problems the occurred in the command and control of air power during JUBILEE, noticeably the loss of HMS Berkeley, led to the development and refinement of a command and control system that played a useful role in the Mediterranean and come to fruition at Normandy. Had the war gone on beyond 1945 it is also likely that the further development of the FDT concept into ocean going FDS would have been useful to SEAC. The ability to control air power within the area of fleet AA defence during OVERLORD overcame the primary problem encountered during JUBILEE.

JUBILEE also illustrated the need for some form of aerial bombardment in support of Combined Operations, though its exclusion was for valid reasons. In order to deal with this contentious issue, as illustrated by Harris’ unwillingness to allow Bomber Command aircraft to bomb civilian targets in France, the formation of the inter-service committee on fire support was encouraged by discussions emanating from JUBILEE. This committee, led by the RAF examined the issue and made suggestions that would aid the planners of OVERLORD where aerial bombardment was used fully. Indeed the choice of Graham as chair was a perceptible one due to his pre-war experience in Combined Operations doctrine. However, as JUBILEE was an enabler it should be recognised that much practical experience in this issue and the development of the FDT concept came from the Mediterranean, which proved to be a training ground for ideas being developed. The Graham Report that appeared in December 1943 would form one source of information for the planners of OVERLORD. In providing this source of information the RAF illustrated its flexibility and willingness to work with other services on joint issues.

The thesis has sought to re-frame the debate surrounding the RAF at Dieppe by taking a progressive examination of both its operational and doctrinal context. Then it has sought to examine what impact JUBILEE had on air power in Combined Operations. Generally, it can be argued the RAF performed well on the day and that while losses were high these were either replaceable or repairable. Its impact upon on the Luftwaffe is more difficult but it can be said that their losses were more difficult to replace. While losses to the assault force occurred, it can be argued that had the RAF not been fighting for air superiority, thus, providing air cover, they would have been worse. The impact of JUBILEE on future operations is more difficult to assess. Certainly JUBILEE enabled discussions to occur but whether this had a direct link to OVERLORD is debatable given the vast amount of experience be gained in the Mediterranean. Thus, this thesis has hopefully refocused the debate on JUBILEE to an examination of the operational effectiveness of the RAF and the impact on developments in 1943 not 1944.

The end and a few changes…

Well I am sitting on the train to Birmingham to go and submit my MPhil thesis. Part of me is happy that it is done but the other part feels worried that I have left bits out. I know there are limitations but that is the nature of the beast. Being only 40,000 words there is only so much I could include. I admit as much in my introduction. I am proud of the work and feel that it does what I set out to do and that is to refute the revisionist accounts on the RAF’s perceived failure to use bombers at Dieppe.

One thing that I am very glad about is my choice of supervisor for it. I had the honour and pleasure of working with Professor Gary Sheffield, one of the UK’s leading military historians. I can not stress too much to potential postgraduate the importance of having a good working relationship with your supervisor. The ability to turn to him or her when you get stuck is so important and if the relationship is fractious it won’t help. I have been lucky to have a supervisor who let me explore the problem and offer pertinent advice when appropriate. He also acted as an excellent editor picking up on numerous mistakes that my tired eyes just could not pick up. I am certain that my thesis all the better for Gary’s help and assistance. So make sure you pick a suitable supervisor as it will pay dividends by the end.

In terms of what is next well the first thing will be the Viva at some date not too far in the future. However, before that I have got move. An offer by work means I leave this week. This is not as bad as it seems as I am going to go back to uni full-time for my PhD. I have to admit this is quite exciting. I am going to stick with Birmingham as even as a part-time student the atmosphere has been excellent. Also in the field of War Studies it is an up and coming challenger to KCL and it is exciting to be part of that. Birmingham already had a reputation in the field of First World War Studies and is growing in the area of Second World War Studies. It is also expanding into air power history. In terms of my thesis I plan to shift my area somewhat. Up until now I have concentrated on operational histories of the use of air power but I am now going to look at leadership effectiveness. In particular I am proposing to examine the career of Air Chief Marshal Sir Trafford Leigh-Mallory who seems to be the villain in many accounts of the Second World War. Hopeful, I will be re-focusing this in my thesis but time will tell on that. I hope to be starting in January. As I go along I will be blogging my experience as a comparison with Robert Thompson’s experience of a military history PhD in the states.

In the mean time I will be starting the process of chopping my thesis into one article and also starting some of the ideas I mentioned a few weeks back. I have just finished the editing process on my first chapter for a book on a conference that I attended last year. That should be out next year. I have also joined Zotero and so far I am pleased with it as a research tool. I have started an Air Power History group with thee aim of collating research and writing on this field. A grandiose task I know but who knows it may be of use to someone. All in all the next few months are going to be eventful.

Additions to the Library

A few additions to the library this past week.

Mark Clodfelter, The Limits of Airpower: The American Bombing of North Vietnam (Macmillan, 1989). A useful analysis on the limit of airpower as a coercive weapons. Also fits in with my recent foray into the Vietnam War.

Randall T Wakelam, The Science of Bombing: Operations Research in RAF Bomber Command (University of Toronto Press, 2009). Hopefully a work that will explore the use of operational research in informing the use of Bomber Command during the Second World War. I wait to see what it adds to the debates surrounding the effectiveness of Bomber Command. Useful I suspect for anyone teaching this subject.

Robert Kershaw, Tank Men: The Human Story of Tanks at War (Hodder, 2009). A history of the men who crewed these vehicle and their thoughts about their lives.

Lloyd Clark, Arnhem: Jumping the Rhine, 1944 and 1945 (Headline, 2009). Another history of Arnhem but one that also looks at the use of airborne forces in crossing the Rhine as it examine Operation VARSITY too. A useful addition to the historiography of Arnhem and airborne warfare.

Well I had to indulge it is my birthday!

Bringing Order to Chaos…

Or catloging ones books…

I’m not if it is just me or whether other historians do this but I like to have thing in a neat ordered way. This is especially true of my books. Over the years I have tried many different methods of cataloging my books but each has had its own flaw. I have tried Excel spreadsheet, Access database and most recently I tried MediaMan.

However, my key concern with these is that they were all saved on my computers and as we all know these are liable to crash at some point and having already lost one spreadsheet I wangted something more realiable. Recently I found LibraryThing. The key thing I like about this system is that is web-based which means that it is accessible from anyway and also that should the worst happen and I need to my library collection is availiable for insurance purposes. I know that may seem like an overreaction but a lot of money goes into our book collection and it is better to be safe than sorry. Just to quote from the site:

LibraryThing is an online service to help people catalog their books easily. You can access your catalog from anywhere—even on your mobile phone. Because everyone catalogs together, LibraryThing also connects people with the same books, comes up with suggestions for what to read next, and so forth.

To store more than 200 books you only have to donate $10, which I think is very good. You can also tag you books, which is useful for research purposes. You can see my library here. Not all uploaded yet but getting there. I think this is a great resource.

Posted in Books. Tags: , . 6 Comments »