Thomas F. (hardtack) -
Helpful Score: 2
I have read more books on World War II than I can remember, but have never come across one book that covers the entire war so well [Oops! See below] in its 1,224 page. I have the revised second edition.
The book covers the resistance in occupied countries, the economic and social effects of the war on the home fronts, the code wars, America's active involvement in the fighting against Germany before 7 December 1941, and other areas usually not covered in books about the war. I've only noticed a few mistakes. For example, the authors repeat the story of Polish cavalry attacking German tanks. This tale was exposed as false many years ago.
I thought that the British authors would give more space to the war in Europe than to that in the Pacific theater, but this is not the case. In fact, the war in the Pacific is actually covered in slightly more pages than the war in the European theater.
[At this point I was just half of the way through the book.]
Later... I'm a couple of hundred pages into the second half of the book that deals with the Pacific theater and I'm still waiting for the action to start. The authors go into great detail about the causes of the war. If you are a serious student of WW II this is good, but if you were looking for more about the campaigns, you might consider skipping these chapters except for the first two. Those are essential to understanding the mindset (arrogance, if you will) of the Japanese and why they plunged this part of the world into such a bloodbath.
Still later... I am about 75 pages from finishing this book and somewhat disappointed in the authors' coverage of the war in the Pacific. I am not demanding day by day coverage of the American role, but so much is left out on the actions and reasons for what the U.S. commanders did that if someone were not already well read in that area, this book would not provide the necessary information to provide a good history.
I read a review elsewhere that the first edition was criticized for not amply covering the Pacific Theater and hoped this revised 2nd edition would resolve that problem. While I think the authors did a good job on covering the British role in south and southeast Asia, providing information that was essential for understanding what happened in India, Burma and the initial British losses in Malaysia, they also revealed that their understanding of or interest in the American aspect of the Pacific war was superficial.
A few of the little things that tipped me off to this was calling 3,000 U.S. Marines a "battalion," when such a force is a regiment; stating that the American mounted a "significant defense" of Guam when it was actually only a token defense; and stating that 26,000 Marines died on Iwo Jima when about 5-6,000 were killed and the rest were wounded. They compounded this last error by spelling Iwo Jima as "Iwojima."
Then there were the major errors: calling Douglas MacArthur an "artist at warfare" by stating that he inflicted terrible casualties on the Japanese while keeping his low. Even by 1989, the date of this second edition, historians realized that the press releases from MacArthur's headquarters were often stretches of the truth [read "The Ghost Mountain Boys" for a perfect example]. Or stating that when President Truman told Stalin at a conference that he had an atomic bomb, that Stalin just believed it was a bomb with much more dynamite. Even by 1989, it was known that spies in the Manhattan Project had kept Stalin informed of the bomb and its development.
They also called the clearing of the northern part of Okinawa a hard fought battle, when it was actually almost a walk-through by the veteran Marine divisions. The southern part of Okinawa was where the horrendous (no other word could describe it) fighting took place for both the U.S. Army and the Marines. As a former officer in the Marines once stationed on Okinawa, I know of what I speak.
An unbelievable, major oversight was totally ignoring the Filipino resistance against the Japanese, almost from the fall of the Philippines through to Japan's final surrender. This effort was one of the great resistance movements in history to an invader and had a significant impact on the Japanese war effort. Yet the authors had extensively covered European resistance to the Nazis in great detail, so they knew how important such an effort was. They also stated that MacArthur supplied Bataan with sufficient food supplies and medical facilities before retreating there, when the opposite was true.
Finally, the authors make a point of condemning the use of the atomic bombs on Japan when even the Japanese now realize that this act gave the nation a way to save face and surrender, which saved the live of tens of millions of Japanese, if not the entire nation. Not just my perspective, but one embraced by numerous historians.
All this was disappointing as the authors did such a great job on the European Theater. I felt that much of the text on the Pacific Theater, especially that referring to the American actions, was rushed to print in answer to the criticism that the first edition ignored the Pacific.
Still, if you are a serious student of World War II, this book is worth reading, as the authors do a good job on many of the aspects of the southeast Asian war regarding the British.
I'll keep it on my shelf.
The book covers the resistance in occupied countries, the economic and social effects of the war on the home fronts, the code wars, America's active involvement in the fighting against Germany before 7 December 1941, and other areas usually not covered in books about the war. I've only noticed a few mistakes. For example, the authors repeat the story of Polish cavalry attacking German tanks. This tale was exposed as false many years ago.
I thought that the British authors would give more space to the war in Europe than to that in the Pacific theater, but this is not the case. In fact, the war in the Pacific is actually covered in slightly more pages than the war in the European theater.
[At this point I was just half of the way through the book.]
Later... I'm a couple of hundred pages into the second half of the book that deals with the Pacific theater and I'm still waiting for the action to start. The authors go into great detail about the causes of the war. If you are a serious student of WW II this is good, but if you were looking for more about the campaigns, you might consider skipping these chapters except for the first two. Those are essential to understanding the mindset (arrogance, if you will) of the Japanese and why they plunged this part of the world into such a bloodbath.
Still later... I am about 75 pages from finishing this book and somewhat disappointed in the authors' coverage of the war in the Pacific. I am not demanding day by day coverage of the American role, but so much is left out on the actions and reasons for what the U.S. commanders did that if someone were not already well read in that area, this book would not provide the necessary information to provide a good history.
I read a review elsewhere that the first edition was criticized for not amply covering the Pacific Theater and hoped this revised 2nd edition would resolve that problem. While I think the authors did a good job on covering the British role in south and southeast Asia, providing information that was essential for understanding what happened in India, Burma and the initial British losses in Malaysia, they also revealed that their understanding of or interest in the American aspect of the Pacific war was superficial.
A few of the little things that tipped me off to this was calling 3,000 U.S. Marines a "battalion," when such a force is a regiment; stating that the American mounted a "significant defense" of Guam when it was actually only a token defense; and stating that 26,000 Marines died on Iwo Jima when about 5-6,000 were killed and the rest were wounded. They compounded this last error by spelling Iwo Jima as "Iwojima."
Then there were the major errors: calling Douglas MacArthur an "artist at warfare" by stating that he inflicted terrible casualties on the Japanese while keeping his low. Even by 1989, the date of this second edition, historians realized that the press releases from MacArthur's headquarters were often stretches of the truth [read "The Ghost Mountain Boys" for a perfect example]. Or stating that when President Truman told Stalin at a conference that he had an atomic bomb, that Stalin just believed it was a bomb with much more dynamite. Even by 1989, it was known that spies in the Manhattan Project had kept Stalin informed of the bomb and its development.
They also called the clearing of the northern part of Okinawa a hard fought battle, when it was actually almost a walk-through by the veteran Marine divisions. The southern part of Okinawa was where the horrendous (no other word could describe it) fighting took place for both the U.S. Army and the Marines. As a former officer in the Marines once stationed on Okinawa, I know of what I speak.
An unbelievable, major oversight was totally ignoring the Filipino resistance against the Japanese, almost from the fall of the Philippines through to Japan's final surrender. This effort was one of the great resistance movements in history to an invader and had a significant impact on the Japanese war effort. Yet the authors had extensively covered European resistance to the Nazis in great detail, so they knew how important such an effort was. They also stated that MacArthur supplied Bataan with sufficient food supplies and medical facilities before retreating there, when the opposite was true.
Finally, the authors make a point of condemning the use of the atomic bombs on Japan when even the Japanese now realize that this act gave the nation a way to save face and surrender, which saved the live of tens of millions of Japanese, if not the entire nation. Not just my perspective, but one embraced by numerous historians.
All this was disappointing as the authors did such a great job on the European Theater. I felt that much of the text on the Pacific Theater, especially that referring to the American actions, was rushed to print in answer to the criticism that the first edition ignored the Pacific.
Still, if you are a serious student of World War II, this book is worth reading, as the authors do a good job on many of the aspects of the southeast Asian war regarding the British.
I'll keep it on my shelf.
