Overlord

Rating:
Summary: Good account of the Overlord battle and its aftermath.
Review: As an American baby boomer, I knew little about the battle fought just after the Normandy invasion. This book describes the intensity of that fight, and touches on the Falaise Pocket.

Rating:
Summary: excellent insight vision
Review: I am an italian enthusiast of the battle of Normandy and I read a lot of books on this battle and I must say this is my preferit book. It's similar to the Cornelyus Ryan's "a bridge too far","the longest day" because it uses massively the tales of the soldiers to validate the various problems ,the armies who fought in Normandy had to face in order to try to win this battle that only on the russian front had fightings of a such an intensity. After you read this book you have a clear vision of the problems had the german ,british and american soldiers in two months of fightings. No other book explain,for what I read and I can assure you I read a lot about it,better this point of view and the tactical differences of combat between the german and allied armies. It can be defined an historical treatise for this reason. An excellent book even because it's easy to read and it catches immediately you at difference of other books probably more detailed but that can't offer this splendid insight view for a battle that it has been so important for this century.

Rating:
Summary: Balanced and objective masterpiece
Review: Max Hastings has with this book produced yet another masterpiece. Having read Carlo D'Este's brilliant "Decision in Normandy," I had doubts that anyone could do it better - but Hastings certainly has.
For several years, authors writing about the campaign have had a tendency to repeat comfortable half-truths and myths, and have conveniently forgotten all the problems that dogged the Allied advance. Much space has been devoted to the terrible bocage and to Montgomery's mistakes, but little to the fact that many of the Allied troops - American as well as British - fought poorly and were in the end regarded as unreliable by their own commanders.
Personally, I found it refreshing that the problems the Americans had were finally analized thoroughly. Irritatingly, the British have been blamed for just about everything that went wrong in the campaign, while the American failures(which were just as numerous as the British) have been "forgotten." That is what makes this book so refreshing! Hastings describes the lacklustre performance of numerous American units in great detail, and points out that the airborne divisions had to be kept longer in battle than what was originally intended because other American units fought poorly. At the same time, he describes the similar British problems with brutal honesty.

In the end, one gets a far better understanding of this battle. It becomes clear that the British attacks on Caen was the key to the battle, and that the reason that it took them so long to take it was that the Germans concentrated the bulk of their armour to stop them - leaving the unexperienced Americans a better chance to succeed. It also becomes clear that the Germans fought exceptionally well, and that their superiority over the Allied soldiers time after time frustrated the great plans of the Allied commanders. And above all, it becomes clear that Montgomery - that master of warfare - had to fight with his hands tied because of the lack of British replacements.

In all, a brilliant book from a brilliant author, and one which I will recommend to anyone interested in learning about this legendary campaign.

Rating:
Summary: Balanced and objective masterpiece
Review: Max Hastings has with this book produced yet another masterpiece. Having read Carlo D'Este's brilliant "Decision in Normandy," I had doubts that anyone could do it better - but Hastings certainly has.
For several years, authors writing about the campaign have had a tendency to repeat comfortable half-truths and myths, and have conveniently forgotten all the problems that dogged the Allied advance. Much space has been devoted to the terrible bocage and to Montgomery's mistakes, but little to the fact that many of the Allied troops - American as well as British - fought poorly and were in the end regarded as unreliable by their own commanders.
Personally, I found it refreshing that the problems the Americans had were finally analized thoroughly. Irritatingly, the British have been blamed for just about everything that went wrong in the campaign, while the American failures(which were just as numerous as the British) have been "forgotten." That is what makes this book so refreshing! Hastings describes the lacklustre performance of numerous American units in great detail, and points out that the airborne divisions had to be kept longer in battle than what was originally intended because other American units fought poorly. At the same time, he describes the similar British problems with brutal honesty.

In the end, one gets a far better understanding of this battle. It becomes clear that the British attacks on Caen was the key to the battle, and that the reason that it took them so long to take it was that the Germans concentrated the bulk of their armour to stop them - leaving the unexperienced Americans a better chance to succeed. It also becomes clear that the Germans fought exceptionally well, and that their superiority over the Allied soldiers time after time frustrated the great plans of the Allied commanders. And above all, it becomes clear that Montgomery - that master of warfare - had to fight with his hands tied because of the lack of British replacements.

In all, a brilliant book from a brilliant author, and one which I will recommend to anyone interested in learning about this legendary campaign.

Rating:
Summary: Find out what happened after the Longest Day
Review: This book fills in a nice gap of WWII history in that it covers the initial battles that followed immediately after D-Day. Max Hastings does an excellent job of trying to figure out why certain parts of the Allied plan went so well, while others seemed to take forever. Additionally, he interviewed numerous Germans involved with the Normandy command in order to give perspective on what the German Army was experiencing and how this affected the outcome of certain battles.

I really enjoyed the new material and research that Hastings reveals as he tells the tale following D-Day. His treatment of the US Army is pretty balanced (some units fought well, while other "green units" had a tough time fighting the Germans), and I think he draws some interesting conclusions. His point that American Paratroopers and Ranger units were essential to the success of many battles highlights the success (and misuse at times) of these units.

Hastings goes into great detail about why the British/Canadian army struggled so much to take Caen. He has some critical words about Montgomery performance (he promised much, but deliverd little), but concludes overall that the British had a much more difficult fight against a stronger part of the German defense. I really enjoyed this section of the book because I have not read much about this part of the battle.

Hastings does talk at length about the mistake of letting the German Army escape at Falaise, although he concludes that the US Army would not have been able to close the gap with the units available. I do not totally agree with this conclusion, but it makes for interesting discussion.

I recommend this book for anyone interested in the ETO, especially Operation Overlord. If you are looking for a book specifically about D-Day, this is not the best one, in that it covers all of Operation Overlord, not just the invasion.

Rating:
Summary: Overlord Review
Review: When I read history, I want to know both sides of the story. Reading one viewpoint is usually more about propaganda and less about history. Max Hastings satisfies this requirement. When digging into the facts of both the Western Allies (Americans, British, Canadians, Poles, and French) and the Germans and their less enthusiastic allies, Hastings describes bravery and honor on both sides. In addition, you get the warts that many historians gloss over (British reluctance to even embark on a mainland invasion, fairly equal amounts of shootings of POWs by both sides, and others). Most interesting is his indepth look at the contentious relationship between Montgomery and the Americans. Hastings points out that despite lackluster elan demonstrated by British and Canadian forces, it is true that Montgomery (and the USAAF) facilitated the final breakout of American forces (Cobra) by holding down the cream of German forces in Normandy, namely the Waffen-SS Panzer Corps, especially the very aggressive 12th SS Hitler Jugend (Youth) division. Hastings points out that with the exception of scattered German Parachute troops, American forces were tied down by mostly underequipped units made up of old survivors recovered from wounds on the eastern front, so-called volunteers from territories annexed by the Germans on the eastern front, and late-war scrapings of German manpower. Only later in the Normandy campaign did the Americans face some first-rate units, namely 2nd Waffen-SS "Das Reich", whose impact was weakened by constant losses from Allied fighter-bombers before reaching the scene of battle and whose battle-plans were intercepted by Ultra and thus lost the element of surprise (Mortain offensive). Hastings also makes a very interesting point, which does more to praise the U.S. airborne troops recently portrayed in HBO's excellent "Band of Brothers" series. These paratroopers were supposed to be sent back to England once the Allied foothold on the Continent was secured, but because of poor performance by regular infantry divisions, these paratroopers were forced to take the lead again and again in order to make headway against stubborn German resistance. The invaluable contributions made by American Airborne and Rangers and British Commandos should lay to rest the criticisms made by the regular Army leaders that special forces were a drain on top-notch manpower that should have gone to regular units. Though one could argue that these men could have raised the fighting proficiency of regular infantry units, the esprit de corps generated in elite combat units would still be absent. All in all, one gets the impression that Allied victory in Normandy was inevitable given the total Allied superiority in resources (especially air and naval power), but enough unknowns were still in play to make the outcome interesting. One thing is certain, Hitler's manic micromanagement of German strategy certainly was more of a benefit to the Allied cause than anything the Allied General's planned themselves (with the exception of the entire misdirection campaign aimed at confusing the Germans as to the actual location of the invasion), especially following the bomb plot which almost took Hitler's life. German Generals who knew what to do to save their armies were left powerless to watch Hitler destroy them in his own stupid strategies. I believe it humbling to admit that Allied victory in Normandy had more to do with the failings of the Nazi power structure than any magnificent feat of arms displayed on the battlefield, though the Americans certainly demonstrated more willingness to accept losses and risks than their British & Canadian counterparts.