Berkut Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 Originally posted by Andrew Hedges: Is that "The Battle for History" or a different book? My mistake, although in my defence it was a couple of years since I read it I feel that anyone attempting to write something similar to Shelby Footes narrative [which i have read. very impressive] would be committed to a volume of work far in excess of the three volumes written by shelby. Remember that Shelby tried to cover the political events leading up to, and during the civil war, not just the battles. Any author attempting this for WW2 would be presented with an herculean task. Stirring battles scenes and labyrinthian power politics, covering all the parties involved. Though it would be nice if someone tried As for a book with good battle maps, there was one that i remember the title of, but I'm buggered if i can remember the authors name. "It never snows in September" An excellent book that covers Operation Market Garden, from the german perspective. Once again written by someone in the british armed forces. If anyone hear knows the name of the author I would be grateful...would like to get my hands on it again. regards ------------------ BERKUT <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As always feel free to query, deride, or just nod knowingly<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 "It Never Snows in September" was written by Robert J. Kershaw, and was published by Ian Allan Publishing (UK). It's a great account of the whole course of Market-Garden, with particular emphasis on German responses to the landings. I believe I just saw in a catalog that the book is being brought back into print. Apparently, Kershaw also has a book about Barbarossa (also from Ian Allan), but I can't recall the title right now. Has anyone read this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasoncawley@ameritech.net Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 The Sidi Rezegh Battles, 1957. Best book on the actual tactics I've read. Some of them limited to the desert, most not. Not a lot of room for myth. Another useful source on the same period is Kriebel, who was on the staff of 15th Panzer. And just as an aside, has some choice things to say about Rommel's tactical ineptitude, and how everyone worked around it by just ignoring him when he ordered things that didn't make any sense. Operationally they swore by him, of course. One fellow mentioned that when generals write books you get a lot of "then these guys went here" and not much "human warmth". That is because human warmth is mostly given off by mythology and related piles of horsefeathers. Even the general's accounts are full of it, compared to the real deal. Colder than ice. Another fellow mentioned the U.S. official histories. They are solid, because they tell you what happened and include real levels of detail and confusion. But you have to filter out some boilerplate and the medal citations sprinkling the narrative to get a balanced view. But they want to know the truth enough to cite staff on both sides. The truth of the matter the only unvarnished view you will ever get of what really happened in any given case, is from the operations staff people on both sides. Professional historians only write things at all when they are grinding an ax or selling their brand of soap. Generals are all politicians, in other words professional liars. Most line veterans had no idea what was happening beyond what they could see. If you want to find out what happened, you have to go to the guys that planned it, and see what the heck they were trying to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Oberly Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 Jason, has some choice things to say about Rommel's tactical ineptitude, and how everyone worked around it by just ignoring him when he ordered things that didn't make any sense. Operationally they swore by him, of course. I know you just threw this out as an aside,but I think that would be true of just about *any* higher commander.I'm sure the staffs of,say,Patton or Manstein would similarly roll their eyes if they would try to take charge tactically-it was not their job. It reminds me of Stonewall Jackson's nice operational Shenadoah campaign,which contrasts starkly with his much overrated tactical ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasoncawley@ameritech.net Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 I agree, it wasn't their job. But a lot of them didn't know it - LOL. You know, Patton pontificated about tank guns, which he didn't know from his anatomy. Rommel did things like order an engineer *battalion* to attack an Indian infantry *division* dug in behind a 15 mile-long minefield - mounted in their *trucks*. This is not just "not my job", this is the "boss with ego that ignores reality" number. Plenty of commanders seem to have had it, one way or another. They were saved by their staffs and field officers, who mostly managed to figure out when to trust the strutting peacocks and even be inspired by them sometimes - and when to tell them to take a flying leap. Not a myth. Just real deal stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 I read Steel Inferno quite some time ago and I can't say it left much of an impression. The author had some interesting points here and there, but it wasn't spectacular by any means. I think sometimes any book dealing with the SS and armor is automatically elevated to the status of great military history by some folks at least. Kershaw's It Never Snows in September left a better impression, but he's no Keegan. It appeared to be poorly edited and the prose was rather drab. The information is good particularly in German response around Arnhem, but the author's style really detracts from the whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claus B Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 Originally posted by Ari Maenpaa: Also Reynolds himself is/was a professional british soldier. Wouldn't he be one of the least likely persons to belittle the British accomplisments during the war? Still it's clear that he is impressed by the performance of the Waffen-SS troops. Maybe there are a good reasons for that. Other than just being biased. The fact is that that Reynolds description of the Villers-Bocage battle is severely flawed because he did not consult all the relevant sources on the whereabouts of 2nd Panzer on June 13th. Instead of consulting the division history or the papers of the division commander, he choose to build his case exclusively on the statements of a staff officer with I. SS-Pz Korps. Whether Reynolds overall conclusions are right or wrong are immaterial here - the issue is that his research is flawed. If he omits to consult important and available material on one battle, then I start to wonder about his research. And if his research is flawed, then the conclusions based on this research may also be flawed. There are factual errors in Reynolds' book and people should be aware of that. Claus B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts