<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Not a bad book overall!
Review: A very well researched book; the author uses multiple interviews with vets from both sides as well as official accounts. It was a very gruesome campaign and the author overall does an excellent job of describing it.The false claims the previous reviewer refers to about the "harderst fought battle of WWII and the 350,000 dead are on the dust cover and not the author's view, blame the publisher's marketing department. At any rate some people should be more impartial and learn to put their political views aside when reviewing books.
Rating: 
Summary: Outright fiction!
Review: According to this book the Battle for Monte Cassino was comparable to Stalingrad in scale and horror. 350,000 dead or wounded- a sixth month battle in the rubble. This is absolute HORSEHOCKEY!!! Use Makumbe's Rule for revisionist modern history- Divide by Ten. The battle for Monte Cassino in the Real World was a horrible waste of time and effort in a marginal theater of WW2. Around 45,000 (according to most history books)casualties on both sides- not even comparable to a few weeks at Stalingrad or even the Battle of the Bulge for that matter. There's a trend in modern popular history which mirrors modern political discourse- exaggerate, obfuscate and claim credit where none is due- repeat often enough and horsepuckey becomes fact. This book is a weird offshoot of the Western Allies Won WW2 School which is in total denial of the truth that 80% of German casualties occured on the Eastern Front and horrible as WW2 in Western Europe could be it was in NO WAY comparable to war in the East. This book seeks to make this comparison anecdotally and through the use of statistical gerrymandering- DON'T BELIEVE IT!
Rating:
Summary: Thunder at Cassino, no, but a good description
Review: Mr. Parker has done a good job describing the campaign to capture Monte Cassino. Using a mixture of his own analysis and veterans experience (ala Stephen Ambrose) to describe one of the bloodier battles of WWII. Mr. Parker describes the men and events surrounding the 4 battles for Monte Cassino. Of particular interest in his text, is his dislike for General Mark Clark (understandable) and his like for General Alexander. Of particular rememberance while reading the book though is the descriptions provided by the veterans.
What I did find interesting in the book is that Mr. Parker goes to greater lengths than most writers to describe the 1st battle for Monte Cassino, and includes the British push on the coast just prior to the 36th ID giving it a go. Something that stung me in reading the book is how the allied commanders focused on bashing their heads against dug in troops. Look, all four battles were slug outs. The first battle (for the Americans) was really a recon in force for the allies. What was disappointing in the 2nd and the 3rd battles is that the "elite" 2nd New Zealand and 4th Indian Divisions used very non-elite methods to achieve the ends (note, in the 3rd battle, this corp committed 7 battalions out of a possible 25 to achieve their goal). I have to wonder what would have happened if Patton had been in charge down there rather than Clark.
Something Mr. Parker pointed out was that because of destruction of the montessary, GFM Kesselring chose to not fight in other cities and historical sites in Italy. A very interesting note.
Despite how welly written the text is, I found myself wishing that Mr. Parker had provided more analysis of the battle and fewer transitions from the overarching battle down to personal accounts. I seriously wish that more writers would follow in the steps of Cornelius Ryan than Stephen Ambrose! I also wish that Mr. Parkers text had provided additional maps as to the area and the operations occuring. Basically, a weak 4 star book. Amazon, you really need to provide half star ratings.
As for the first review, consider the quote in the book from a german solider who'd fought at Stalingrad and Monte Cassino; he considered Monte Cassino to be the harder fight.
Rating: 
Summary: Poorly fought battle: well-written book
Review: This book interested me for two reasons: 1: my father was one of those unfortunate souls trapped on the Anzio beachhead that was involved in the Monte Cassino operaton, and 2: being Polish I've always felt proud that the monastery was finally taken by Polish troops. That being said, I will admit that I enjoyed reading this book, as it revealed again that high ranking oficers well behind the front lines look at maps on walls and send men out to die without thinking through their "strategy". This was most likely carnage that could have been largely avoided, and was only successful due to the simple courage of the men on the front lines. Both Allied and Aixs fighters were interviewed for this book, and it's quite important to hear from these men, who are dying off every day. Their stories should not be lost to history, for both the victors and the vanquished have something important to impart to us about the horror and cruelty of war, even a "just war".
<< 1 >>
| 
