WWII History Recommendation

[00Buck]

I'm reading the last book of Rick Atkinson's Liberation Trilogy, The Guns At Last Light, covering WWII from the invasion of Normandy to the end of the war. The other books, An Army at Dawn and The Day of Battle, cover the invasion of North Africa and the bloody mess in Italy, respectively.

These books are very well written and read as much like a novel as any military history I've read (and I've read a lot). Atkinson sometime gets carried away with his flowery descriptions, but it's little enough to pay for the insights he offers into the dynamics of the Allied war effort and the personalities involved.

He blends every perspective from the GI's and Tommies clawing for yards of ground in Italy to the Army commanders getting drunk with Churchill. He's fairly even handed in his assessments, but I sense a bit of a dislike for Montgomery – I'll bet that comes as a shock.

Anyway, for you history buffs, it's a highly informative and readable series. Try it. I doubt that you will be disappointed.

[veryzer]

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll have to put it in the queue as I've just been given a list by an esteemed vet on the forum. Out of curiosity, have you read Beevor's Normandy book, and if so, how does it compare? I haven't, but his book on Stalingrad was amazing...a zero sum game in an ethical abyss.

Out of curiosity question #2, do any modern histories that you're familiar with praise Montgomery, or is he relegated to the bulky company of general officer egomaniacs like MacArthur whose strategic deficiencies outlast their cult of personality?

[Bob Womack]

Originally Posted by 00Buck

I'm reading the last book of Rick Atkinson's Liberation Trilogy, The Guns At Last Light, covering WWII from the invasion of Normandy to the end of the war. The other books, An Army at Dawn and The Day of Battle, cover the invasion of North Africa and the bloody mess in Italy, respectively.

Thanks for the recommendation. I've got The Day of Battle sitting on my shelf and I'm trying to get around to it... so many books, so little time.

Originally Posted by veryzer

Out of curiosity question #2, do any modern histories that you're familiar with praise Montgomery, or is he relegated to the bulky company of general officer egomaniacs like MacArthur whose strategic deficiencies outlast their cult of personality?

You know, I think old Monty is finally getting a fair shake, and I say that despite the fact that it often comes up looking unfavorable. I read a recent U.S. Airborne perspective that was kind to him, saying that the troops appreciated the way he always personally visited their units. At the same they were unfavorable towards his "set piece" style of battle management and rigid maintenance of all control and initiative at the top of the command structure, aka him. As you may know, the exploitation phase of battle was the focus of American tactical planning, releasing lower commanders to exploit any tactical advantage they saw on their own initiative. Monty was against that to the last, preferring that everyone below him conform to his planned movements. The result was often slow going with high casualties.

Meanwhile, I just finished Craig L. Symonds' book, Operation Neptune, about the planning and husbandry of naval forces from the beginning of the war through the execution of the D-Day landings. Symonds was very favorable towards the British, enough so that I assumed he was British right up to the end of the book when I checked his bio and found he was American born and bred. Nevertheless, his evaluation of Monty was wry at best, "giving to preening." According to him, Britain needed a hero and Churchill gave them Monty, despite his marginal success in N. Africa (this paraphrasing the book). Monty's failure to take his D-Day objectives until two months later (yes, yes I know about the Allied closure of the rail system that left the brunt of the Panzer divisions facing Monty), his unwillingness to move a mere handful of miles to close the Falaise pocket allowing a good portion of the German 7th Army to to escape, and his failed attempt to foreclose the European war with Market/Garden (where his troops faced the very same German 7th Army the U.S. had on the ropes in the Falaise pocket) did a lot to tarnish his reputation. In Market/Garden he used a battle plan that was considered a failing strategy in the prewar exit exam at the Netherlands Army Officer Academy. He refused to consult with the Netherlanders on a battle across their turf and refused info from their intelligence network before and during the battle, virtually assuring the failure of Market/Garden.

Personally I've tried really hard to like Montgomery but he keeps beating me! Once I got over the fact that some many of the general officers were egomaniacs I went on to analyze him purely on the basis of success and failure, and that is where I came a cropper on Monty.

Bob

[Wadcutter]

Atkinson's WW II trilogy is imho one of the great reads of WW II history. I read them a couple of years ago and they are sitting on my bookshelf right now. I hope I live long enough to give them a re-read. The Day of Battle in particular, covering the war in Italy from 43 -44 was a masterpiece I thought on a part of WW II that really doesn't receive the coverage and analysis that it should in the overall scheme of the war. Atkinson did an absolutely outstanding job here, particularly in his coverage of General Mark Clark and his dubious and controversial decision to head straight for Rome following the Anzio breakout. Clark's decision to cross the Rapido River was not only controversial, but was darn near court martial material. The men who survived that disastrous decision pursued Clark's prosecution after the war. For those of you who haven't heard of the Rapido River crossing in Italy, I suggest you Google it up. There is a book out on this incident that I can suggest called Crossing The Rapido: A Tragedy of WW II. by Duane Schultz. It's available on Amazon. Day of Battle, as a great book will do, led me to pursue other books on this topic. If you haven't read Atkinson's trilogy on WW II, you are really in for a treat and an education. So many books, so little time.

[homme de fer]

I found that John Keegan wrote some great history books. I read "The First World War", "The Second World War", and "The American Civil War" and found each to be fascinating as he dove into the geopolitical structure surrounding each.

[00Buck]

More interesting recommendations - thanks!

I haven't read Beevor's book on Normandy, but I read his book on Stalingrad several years ago. Comparing him with Atkinson is a little like comparing a great guitar I used to have with a great guitar I have now. Hard to do. Both are very good writers.

Re Montgomery and Clark. The megalomania of so many historical commanders has always baffled me. Is that what it takes to get the job done? Is it the old boy network? (In the US that means the WPPA -West Point Protective Association). Or is it like many aspects in life, where leadership is ceded to the loudest voice in the room who acts the part? It's a mystery to me.

Anyway, I'm ordering the Rapido Crossing book today for my next read.

[Wadcutter]

Originally Posted by 00Buck

More interesting recommendations - thanks!

I haven't read Beevor's book on Normandy, but I read his book on Stalingrad several years ago. Comparing him with Atkinson is a little like comparing a great guitar I used to have with a great guitar I have now. Hard to do. Both are very good writers.

Re Montgomery and Clark. The megalomania of so many historical commanders has always baffled me. Is that what it takes to get the job done? Is it the old boy network? (In the US that means the WPPA -West Point Protective Association). Or is it like many aspects in life, where leadership is ceded to the loudest voice in the room who acts the part? It's a mystery to me.

Anyway, I'm ordering the Rapido Crossing book today for my next read.

I think Crossing The Rapido will reinforce your opinion on megalomania of some commanding officers. A very interesting read and yet a very sad and depressing read as well.

[JLT]

For my money, one of the best books to come out of World War II was Bill Mauldin's Up Front. Besides being one of the best illustrators of the war, his commentary, more than any other book, brought the realities of the front-line soldier to the notice of the public at large. Mauldin was a brilliant reporter, easily the equal of Ernie Pyle in his own way.

If you don't know much about WWII, perhaps this book is a good place to start.

[veryzer]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

Thanks for the recommendation. I've got The Day of Battle sitting on my shelf and I'm trying to get around to it... so many books, so little time.
You know, I think old Monty is finally getting a fair shake, and I say that despite the fact that it often comes up looking unfavorable. I read a recent U.S. Airborne perspective that was kind to him, saying that the troops appreciated the way he always personally visited their units. At the same they were unfavorable towards his "set piece" style of battle management and rigid maintenance of all control and initiative at the top of the command structure, aka him. As you may know, the exploitation phase of battle was the focus of American tactical planning, releasing lower commanders to exploit any tactical advantage they saw on their own initiative. Monty was against that to the last, preferring that everyone below him conform to his planned movements. The result was often slow going with high casualties.

Meanwhile, I just finished Craig L. Symonds' book, Operation Neptune, about the planning and husbandry of naval forces from the beginning of the war through the execution of the D-Day landings. Symonds was very favorable towards the British, enough so that I assumed he was British right up to the end of the book when I checked his bio and found he was American born and bred. Nevertheless, his evaluation of Monty was wry at best, "giving to preening." According to him, Britain needed a hero and Churchill gave them Monty, despite his marginal success in N. Africa (this paraphrasing the book). Monty's failure to take his D-Day objectives until two months later (yes, yes I know about the Allied closure of the rail system that left the brunt of the Panzer divisions facing Monty), his unwillingness to move a mere handful of miles to close the Falaise pocket allowing a good portion of the German 7th Army to to escape, and his failed attempt to foreclose the European war with Market/Garden (where his troops faced the very same German 7th Army the U.S. had on the ropes in the Falaise pocket) did a lot to tarnish his reputation. In Market/Garden he used a battle plan that was considered a failing strategy in the prewar exit exam at the Netherlands Army Officer Academy. He refused to consult with the Netherlanders on a battle across their turf and refused info from their intelligence network before and during the battle, virtually assuring the failure of Market/Garden.

Personally I've tried really hard to like Montgomery but he keeps beating me! Once I got over the fact that some many of the general officers were egomaniacs I went on to analyze him purely on the basis of success and failure, and that is where I came a cropper on Monty.

Bob

That's an informative and convincing assessment of Montgomery. You clearly know lots more about him than I do....though with a similar result.

[cotten]

Next time you're in the vicinity of New Orleans, be sure to allow a full day or more to visit the National WW II Museum. http://www.nationalww2museum.org/?re...ww.google.com/
We did just after Christmas, and it was quite enjoyable, despite the unusually large crowds. Get your tickets ahead of time, and allow time, not just to view and read, but to reflect. There is much to be remembered, much to be learned, and much to be applied to our world situation today.

cotten

[Silly Moustache]

There is so much literatire about WW2, and we read mostly from the allied side, so I was intrigued to find a series of books (Kindle style) written from the point of view of the Germans -especially in France during the Allied invasion.
Holger Eckhertz - D Day from German Eyes Books 1 & 2.

This is his introduction:

"My grandfather had been a German propaganda journalist in 1944 and had visited the Atlantic Wall under construction. He was also a veteran of the German Army in World War One, and so his background enabled him to build a strong rapport with the interviewees, many of whom had not spoken of their experiences even with their own families. The result is a series of interviews which reveal not only the desperate reactions of German soldiers to the Allied onslaught, but also the surprising mix of motivations which drove them".

What I got from this is that the common soldier is not fighting for evil, he cannot do his job unless he believes he's doing the right thing.