Having finally read the military bible that's increasingly quoted as a business bible, it's difficult to fault the honorable Tzu, if indeed he existed. In fact, as he's a contemporary of Confucious I coudn't help wonder if it was Confucious himself moonlighting his darker musings.
The flaws with Sun Tzu are its stating the bleeding obviousness and tautology. Apparently you should avoid attacking well fortified positions for instance. Then again, the WWI generals seemed to miss that bit. They cleary never read Tzu's views on facile ground.
Tautologically, you should never fight a battle unless you're sure you're going to win it before you start. Well, who can be sure even with good advice. I bet Napoleon thought he'd win Waterloo.
Best of all though, next time I'm on a business course and the tutor starts quoting Sun Tzu, I'll have a good idea whether the tutor is bluffing or not.
Quite the guide to guerilla warfare and full I'm sure of good advice, obviously I've not put it to the test. Che was clearly sincere and earnest, which was probably what got him killed.
You can't help thinking there is something naieve about providing your enemies with a book outlining your methods and thinking they won't outwit you. There is also the possibility that someone was using Che, someone less scrupulous perhaps.
The manual is also let down by contradicting itself, such as allowing relationships and later not. Also by its sexism, Che tries not be sexist but still thinks women make better cooks as that is part of 'their traditional role'.
The emphasis on revolutionary indoctrination is also terribly dated. Hopefully people don't still believe that you have to take on a convoluted, contradictory pseudo-Marxist-Leninist rationale for what may be a perfectly straightforward insurrection against the corrupt. Ideology all too often just gets in the way of simpler explanations and twists original good intentions into more sinister things.
De Sousa Mendes certainly deserves recognition for his flagrant flouting of Salazar's rules and saving the lives of numerous refugees. Whether this is the book to achieve that is more questionable.
The prose is lightweight and the content sparse, which can't all be put down to it being a translation (possibly one which loses a verve present in the original). Much of the book is taken up with Salazar himself and comparisons which only mean something to a French readership. Indeed, it maybe should have been called "Paralell Lives".
Also, there is the question of why is there a need for this book? Apparently he has been honoured around the world and books have been written about him. If this were the 60s or even as late as the 80s, in his native Portugal, there would be a reason for a campaigning treatise. This seems a bit late in the day, lacking focus and the Ladybird version. None of which detracts from De Sousa Mendes deserving to be spoken of in company of Oscar Schindler.