Rating: 
Summary: Classic Keegan
Review: Read this wonderful history of WWII, then read Stephen Ambrose's, THE VICTORS, then read the new WWII novel, THE TRIUMPH AND THE GLORY. These three books about the greatest conflict in human history compliment each other so well, the writing is so eloquent, the respective styles are so compelling, and the common subject matter so fascinating, that you will find yourself lost in time, returned again to the desperate years of that epic struggle.
Rating: 
Summary: Skeletal Military History, left me cold
Review: The bulk of this book was the driest military history, a succession of unit numbers and rivers to be crossed. Keegan gave me little sense of the human experience of the war, which didn't seem to be where his interest lay. I welcomed the thematic chapters, especially the "Stategic Dilemma" ones, as a relief from ceaseless characterizations of units as "of (or not of) the first quality." I'm sure this is a decent example of military history, and I'd recommend it to someone who wanted that. I would never, though, recommend this to someone as a general history of the war; this is for military buffs, and it's almost exclusively strategic in scope, so even someone especially fascinated with the tactic or machines of the war would be somewhat dissatisfied. Keegan's few human moments have to do almost exclusively with the personalities of generals. After I was done with this, I felt positively dry, as if I'd clinically examined the war without feeling anything. I went back to the store and bought the gorgeous new paperback of "The War, 1939-1945 A Documentary History." The first person accounts in the latter book are sometimes indescribably moving, and proved an antidote to the coldness of Keegan's two-dimensional units on the map.
Rating: 
Summary: Great Read can be dry at certain points.
Review: The First World War, which Keegan also wrote, was kind of a disappointment. So when I spotted The Second World War i was a bit hesitant but once i flipped through the first few pages and saw detailed maps of the campaigns i decided give it a shot. What The first world War lacked The Second World War made up with even better writing and more detailed maps so at least you know where the conflicts take place. It's sometimes a bit dry in some chapters and drags, but most of the book is for the most part readable and easily understandable. highly reccommended.
Rating:
Summary: second only to Churchill
Review: The Second World War was the greatest single event in human history. It contained more drama and urgency, and altered the reality of the world more than any war before or since. In "The Second World War," John Keegan describes in thorough, but not overwhelming, detail every aspect of the war, including the military, political, and economic realities facing the combatants. He divides the war into six sections, by geography and chronology, and begins the sections with a chapter on the strategic decisions facing the leader who had the initiative at the time, which sets the table perfectly for the events that unfold in the rest of the sections. The book also includes examples of five specialized types of battle that took place in the war. This is a very good read, especially if you are interested in all aspects of warfare.
Rating:
Summary: second only to Churchill
Review: The Second World War was the greatest single event in human history. It contained more drama and urgency, and altered the reality of the world more than any war before or since. In "The Second World War," John Keegan describes in thorough, but not overwhelming, detail every aspect of the war, including the military, political, and economic realities facing the combatants. He divides the war into six sections, by geography and chronology, and begins the sections with a chapter on the strategic decisions facing the leader who had the initiative at the time, which sets the table perfectly for the events that unfold in the rest of the sections. The book also includes examples of five specialized types of battle that took place in the war. This is a very good read, especially if you are interested in all aspects of warfare.
Rating: 
Summary: Well-written WWII introductory opus, but watch for flaws....
Review: The Second World War was the largest, bloodiest conflict in history. It was fought on three of the seven continents and involved every major power of the time. Some of the combatant nations (most notably France and Italy) changed sides at least once between 1939 and 1945, and by the time Japan surrendered on August 15, 1945 over 50 million men, women, and children were dead, millions more were wounded and/or uprooted, homeless, and bewildered by the war's effects. Indeed, those of us now living in the early 21st century are still living with the aftermath of World War II; many of the crises we now face can be traced to decisions made during or shortly after the war.John Keegan's The Second World War is a one-volume general history of the 1939-45 conflict, and it should be read more as an introductory text rather than a comprehensive "this-is-the-book-that-explains-the-whole-darned-thing" opus. It's too short (595 pages, not counting the bibliography or index) for that. Instead, it is structured in six parts, starting with Hitler's early campaigns in Poland and the West in 1939-40 and culminating with Japan's surrender in midsummer of 1945. Each part is divided into a few chapters that focus on themes and strategies...with attention given to a particular type of warfare in form of an example. For instance, for "Air Battle," Keegan cites the Battle of Britain. For "Airborne Battle," he uses Crete as his centerpiece. The book is strongest when Keegan goes into detail about such things as the evolution of armies from the 19th century until the war starts in September 1939; he is particularly adept when explaining the revolutionary changes in European military organizations, particularly after the integration of the railroad and mass-production techniques from 1860 on. Keegan takes a potential snore-inducing subject -- Surplus and war-making capacity, say -- and makes it interesting to the average reader. His experience as an instructor at Sandhurst and his writing skills allow Keegan to weave a coherent narrative tapestry that depicts World War II in all its terrible yet mesmerizing spectacle. As good as this book is, it is not without its flaws. Perhaps his research assistants blundered on occasion, or the publisher's deadline loomed too near when Keegan completed The Second World War, but I spotted a few errors of fact or terminology. In Part V: The War in the West, Keegan writes this about Operation Market-Garden: "Market, the seizure of the bridges at Eindhoven and Nijmegen [in Holland] by the American airborne divisions, proved a brilliant success. Garden, the descent of the British 1st Airborne Division on the more distant Rhine bridges at Arnhem, did not." In fact, Market was the code name given to the entire airborne half of the operation, while Garden referred to the British ground force (XXX Corps) assigned to relieve and reinforce the paratroopers. In another chapter, Keegan labels the SS mobile task forces used to round up and execute tens of thousands of Jews in the East with the term Sonderkommando. This, too, is inaccurate. The German SS units Keegan writes about were called Einsatzgruppen. Sonderkommandos were Jewish concentration camp inmates given the awful duties of emptying the gas chambers and crematoria in such hellish places as Auschwitz and Treblinka. Obviously, few books ever escape the odd typo or small factual error, but there are enough of these gaffes to distract or confuse the reader. Nevertheless, John Keegan's book is worth reading, flaws and all.
Rating:
Summary: Well-written WWII introductory opus, but watch for flaws....
Review: The Second World War was the largest, bloodiest conflict in history. It was fought on three of the seven continents and involved every major power of the time. Some of the combatant nations (most notably France and Italy) changed sides at least once between 1939 and 1945, and by the time Japan surrendered on August 15, 1945 over 50 million men, women, and children were dead, millions more were wounded and/or uprooted, homeless, and bewildered by the war's effects. Indeed, those of us now living in the early 21st century are still living with the aftermath of World War II; many of the crises we now face can be traced to decisions made during or shortly after the war. John Keegan's The Second World War is a one-volume general history of the 1939-45 conflict, and it should be read more as an introductory text rather than a comprehensive "this-is-the-book-that-explains-the-whole-darned-thing" opus. It's too short (595 pages, not counting the bibliography or index) for that. Instead, it is structured in six parts, starting with Hitler's early campaigns in Poland and the West in 1939-40 and culminating with Japan's surrender in midsummer of 1945. Each part is divided into a few chapters that focus on themes and strategies...with attention given to a particular type of warfare in form of an example. For instance, for "Air Battle," Keegan cites the Battle of Britain. For "Airborne Battle," he uses Crete as his centerpiece. The book is strongest when Keegan goes into detail about such things as the evolution of armies from the 19th century until the war starts in September 1939; he is particularly adept when explaining the revolutionary changes in European military organizations, particularly after the integration of the railroad and mass-production techniques from 1860 on. Keegan takes a potential snore-inducing subject -- Surplus and war-making capacity, say -- and makes it interesting to the average reader. His experience as an instructor at Sandhurst and his writing skills allow Keegan to weave a coherent narrative tapestry that depicts World War II in all its terrible yet mesmerizing spectacle. As good as this book is, it is not without its flaws. Perhaps his research assistants blundered on occasion, or the publisher's deadline loomed too near when Keegan completed The Second World War, but I spotted a few errors of fact or terminology. In Part V: The War in the West, Keegan writes this about Operation Market-Garden: "Market, the seizure of the bridges at Eindhoven and Nijmegen [in Holland] by the American airborne divisions, proved a brilliant success. Garden, the descent of the British 1st Airborne Division on the more distant Rhine bridges at Arnhem, did not." In fact, Market was the code name given to the entire airborne half of the operation, while Garden referred to the British ground force (XXX Corps) assigned to relieve and reinforce the paratroopers. In another chapter, Keegan labels the SS mobile task forces used to round up and execute tens of thousands of Jews in the East with the term Sonderkommando. This, too, is inaccurate. The German SS units Keegan writes about were called Einsatzgruppen. Sonderkommandos were Jewish concentration camp inmates given the awful duties of emptying the gas chambers and crematoria in such hellish places as Auschwitz and Treblinka. Obviously, few books ever escape the odd typo or small factual error, but there are enough of these gaffes to distract or confuse the reader. Nevertheless, John Keegan's book is worth reading, flaws and all.
Rating:
Summary: Perhaps the best one-volume critical history of WWII
Review: There has been too much written about World War II; it was
not the only war in history, though the most destructive. Why, then, another volume on this over-examined period? Because, in short, this one treats the period with a critical
eye that few other authors have summoned. Keegan, formerly
a lecturer at Sandhurst and now a correspondent with the
Daily Telegraph, brings to the subject an eye that questions
heroism, jingoism, cliches and old assumptions which have
been reinforced in retelling. His chapter on resistance movements
during the war is chilling and depressing, but a needed anti-
dote to the Hollywood renditions of "French Underground" history that tells lies and half-truths. Keegan blends all
aspects of the war in a superb mixture of tactics, strategy,
logistics, industry, horror and humanity. The book is divided into chapters which pick up topics of
the war, such as the naval war, war industry production, air
wars, background, etc. These topics are arranged in such a
manner as to meld the chronology of the war into these topics.
The result could sometimes be less satisfactory for a person
who wants a straight "What-happened-when" treatment, but
those can be found elsewhere. This book will question many
of the assumptions we all hold about the war, and look them
directly in the eye. Perhaps, after all, more does need to
be written about the Second World War. But it needs to be
written by authors who are more like John Keegan.
Rating:
Summary: Great!
Review: This book is an excellent, well-written and thoughtful overview of World War II. Keegan makes interesting judgements about key decisions and events, such as the Atlantic War and the Barbarossa Invasion. I think he presents a fine balance of the various theaters of war, and includes interesting descriptions of the common soldiers and activities on the home front as well as the major leaders. The Prologue gives useful background on world events leading up to the War. After reading other histories of the same events, I believe that this is the most insightful, best-written general account of World War II.
Rating:
Summary: Copious tactical detail; very little about the nature of war
Review: This book is full of an amazing amount of detail, so much that it is difficult to imagine how one person could conceivably collate that much information. However, the writing style is often very difficult to read, mostly due to a dreadful lack of punctuation to split up the frequently long sentences into intelligible thoughts. Beyond that, there is also the fact that the brutal and absurd nature of war itself is scarcely touched upon. Keegan gives literary lip service to the horror of people killing each other in vast numbers to control pieces of land, but continually returns to the ethos of the saber rattler, forgetting that there can never be honor in war.
|
