The second big historical tome of the holiday (c.f. holiday reading no. 1 - Ed. it was "Masters and Commanders" by Andrew Roberts; review lost, I'm afraid), on a not unrelated subject but with an entirely different perspective. If you read either "Stalingrad" or "Berlin: the Downfall 1945" by Beevor, you will know pretty much what to expect: an astoundingly detailed narrative history of epic events, ranging from the personal anecdote of the soldier on the ground, to the actions of generals and staff officers at headquarters. The amount of research behind this is mind-boggling.
Overall, I have to say that I tend to get a bit lost in the detail: this or that battalion, division or whatever, and I kept having to flick back to the maps to make head or tail of what was going on. In fact, this difficulty (is it just me?) doesn't really matter very much, because the strength of the book is the endless authoritative and highly evocative detail. As a lay reader, I will accept that Beevor has done his research and allow myself to be immersed in the narrative detail of soldiers at war.
Ultimately therefore, for this reader, it is the impressions that count - and what impressions they are. Though the nature of the war related here does not (quite) match the utter barbarism of the Eastern Front, Beevor's account leaves you in no doubt that this was a mind-bogglingly savage and destructive episode. He communicates extremely well the confusion which often reigned during the invasion and which led, amongst much else to thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of unnecessary deaths caused by mistakes and "friendly fire". There were all manner of atrocities and war-crimes on both sides, albeit perhaps with different psychological origins, some great callousness about civilian casualties for the sake of military expediency, errors of judgement galore, ridiculous rivalries and conflicts between the allies and, yes, innumerable instances of heroism and self-sacrifice.
This WAS a most extraordinary endeavour, and one without which the world would certainly today be a very different place, probably a much worse one. But however necessary it was, this book, with its almost omniscient authoritativeness, is a great antidote to viewing the D-Day landings and the ensuing fight through any kind of romantic spectacles. It was necessary, but it was inevitably very, very nasty.
Beevor does not attempt to draw "big" historical conclusions. He sees is job as just to tell it like it happened. This is actually a little frustrating: the reader is left hungry for a little interpretation which never quite comes. But a few big ideas emerge clearly:
Logistically, this was an extraordinary undertaking. The scale of the resources and manpower and the effort to get them together were astonishing.
The actual landings, for all their horrors (especially on Omaha Beach) were less costly than military planners expected, but the month or so following was the reverse. A war of attrition, with huge casualties on both sides, developed. This was not expected, in some cases could have been avoided with better leadership, and led to enormous death and destruction in Normandy. Ironically, this hold-up may have been beneficial for the rest of France, because the battle didn't have to be fought there.
The Germans were undoubtedly the more effective and professional fighters. The Allies won because of their huge advantage in resources and because of their total domination in the air. Hitler's obsessive refusal to allow tactical withdrawal didn't help either.
Montgomery's reputation doesn't come out of it too well. He comes across as a massive egotist and not a particularly good general, obsessed with his image. The Brits were poorly served by his command.
De Gaulle was another irritating primadonna. His allies had to put up with him for big picture political reasons, but it must at times have been very, very hard...
Recommendation? If the subject interests you, read it.
(This is the last "Holiday Reading" book review. Philip Roth's "American Pastoral" is begun, but it won't be finished before the return to office life. I thought writing about the books I read was probably more interesting than relating the latest day at the beach or the latest meal out in Pescara, but who knows? Normal Facebook service will now, I suppose, be resumed.)
Overall, I have to say that I tend to get a bit lost in the detail: this or that battalion, division or whatever, and I kept having to flick back to the maps to make head or tail of what was going on. In fact, this difficulty (is it just me?) doesn't really matter very much, because the strength of the book is the endless authoritative and highly evocative detail. As a lay reader, I will accept that Beevor has done his research and allow myself to be immersed in the narrative detail of soldiers at war.
Ultimately therefore, for this reader, it is the impressions that count - and what impressions they are. Though the nature of the war related here does not (quite) match the utter barbarism of the Eastern Front, Beevor's account leaves you in no doubt that this was a mind-bogglingly savage and destructive episode. He communicates extremely well the confusion which often reigned during the invasion and which led, amongst much else to thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of unnecessary deaths caused by mistakes and "friendly fire". There were all manner of atrocities and war-crimes on both sides, albeit perhaps with different psychological origins, some great callousness about civilian casualties for the sake of military expediency, errors of judgement galore, ridiculous rivalries and conflicts between the allies and, yes, innumerable instances of heroism and self-sacrifice.
This WAS a most extraordinary endeavour, and one without which the world would certainly today be a very different place, probably a much worse one. But however necessary it was, this book, with its almost omniscient authoritativeness, is a great antidote to viewing the D-Day landings and the ensuing fight through any kind of romantic spectacles. It was necessary, but it was inevitably very, very nasty.
Beevor does not attempt to draw "big" historical conclusions. He sees is job as just to tell it like it happened. This is actually a little frustrating: the reader is left hungry for a little interpretation which never quite comes. But a few big ideas emerge clearly:
Logistically, this was an extraordinary undertaking. The scale of the resources and manpower and the effort to get them together were astonishing.
The actual landings, for all their horrors (especially on Omaha Beach) were less costly than military planners expected, but the month or so following was the reverse. A war of attrition, with huge casualties on both sides, developed. This was not expected, in some cases could have been avoided with better leadership, and led to enormous death and destruction in Normandy. Ironically, this hold-up may have been beneficial for the rest of France, because the battle didn't have to be fought there.
The Germans were undoubtedly the more effective and professional fighters. The Allies won because of their huge advantage in resources and because of their total domination in the air. Hitler's obsessive refusal to allow tactical withdrawal didn't help either.
Montgomery's reputation doesn't come out of it too well. He comes across as a massive egotist and not a particularly good general, obsessed with his image. The Brits were poorly served by his command.
De Gaulle was another irritating primadonna. His allies had to put up with him for big picture political reasons, but it must at times have been very, very hard...
Recommendation? If the subject interests you, read it.
(This is the last "Holiday Reading" book review. Philip Roth's "American Pastoral" is begun, but it won't be finished before the return to office life. I thought writing about the books I read was probably more interesting than relating the latest day at the beach or the latest meal out in Pescara, but who knows? Normal Facebook service will now, I suppose, be resumed.)
No comments:
Post a Comment