World War II in the West - Ten Essential Books

[@mikkoveijalainen7430]

Wow, I read Weigley's book years ago. It gave a really good insight on the US Army's WW2 era doctrine.

[@donaldfedosiuk1638]

Wow! John Lukacs, Alistair Horne, Carlo D'Este, Russel Weighley, Martin Blumenson -- you REALLY know how to put a reading list together! Thank you!

[@codycarlsonph.d.5591]

Thank you. Much appreciated.

[@stevenkeen3481]

I also found the Huertgenwald history by MacDonald to be really chilling, and having lived in Koblenz for some time I would visit the area to go hiking. It is still a very rugged and remote area, and was always very sobering to imagine the conflict that took place there. Thanks again for the great reviews and discussion Cody!!!!

[@codycarlsonph.d.5591]

Thank you, sir. I appreciate your perspective.

[@donaldfedosiuk1638]

An old friend who was an academic historian and who could have forgotten more history in an afternoon than I've read in a lifetime, gave me a copy of the Macdonald book years ago. He said it was probably the best thing on the Huertgenwald he'd ever come across.

[@dhmcarver]

Dr. Carlson, I came to this channel from your Discriminating Gamer Caesar: Rome v. Gaul review. Delighted to start working through the videos here. I have just in the last few months started reading seriously about WW II, beginning very old school with Cornelius Ryan. (I realize Ryan was a reporter, not a scholar, but I felt the urge to start with him; how you described Anzio made me think of how Ryan discusses Montgomery and Market-Garden). I have Rick Atkinson’s Liberation Trilogy on deck, and a couple by James Holland. I will have to add to my shelves the ones of these I don’t already have - I am guessing they are more specialist (versus popular) history. “Ten Armies in Hell” looks particularly intriguing - I learned some about the fight for Monte Cassino when I visited there many years ago. On Horne, I have read a couple of his general histories of France and Paris, but not To Lose a Battle - looking forward to that one. (I should probably read his A Savage War of Peace as well.)

[@codycarlsonph.d.5591]

Horne is great. A Savage War of Peace is another great book of his that is worth reading. Several years ago I met Holland and Caddick-Adams at some lectures they were giving on D-Day. Someone forgot to bring the power point clicker so I had to sit in the balcony with the projector and computer and click through Holland's talk when he signaled. Great fun.

[@asmodeus0454]

Russell F. Weigley wrote excellent, lucid prose in _Eisenhower's Lieutenants._ So did Trevor N. Dupuy in _Hitler's Last Gamble._

[@codycarlsonph.d.5591]

Haven't ready Hitler's Last Gamble, but really enjoyed his work on the German General Staff.

[@stevenpage9269]

Read one, (War off the Generals) saw many i want to read. Ill probably start with "To Lose a Battle". Thanks Again, Cody.

[@codycarlsonph.d.5591]

Happy to help!

[@denroy3]

Atkinson, I've read his work, very good. The one on North Africa, 'An Army at Dawn'.

[@codycarlsonph.d.5591]

Great book.

[@fbobmosdal]

Cody you magnificent bastard, I think you're going to cost me some money. :) Nice channel and I will check out your board gaming channel too.

[@codycarlsonph.d.5591]

Thank you, sir. Glad you liked it!

[@fbobmosdal]

@@codycarlsonph.d.5591 Well! Battle of the Huertgen Forest was only 99 cents on Kindle. I think I can afford that. :)

[@stevenpage9269]

I've called him the same thing! LOL.

[@codycarlsonph.d.5591]

@@stevenpage9269 Ha!

[@denroy3]

I believe I've read the overall French Commander didn't have modern communications at his command center, everyone was hand delivering messages, which made command and control a joke.

[@codycarlsonph.d.5591]

Are you referring to 1940? Sounds about right.

[@denroy3]

@@codycarlsonph.d.5591 yea, believe it or not, I was watching the old BBC docuseries 'The World at War'. Galland I believe it was, didn't have "modern" communications at his headquarters, they were using messengers, but not telephones. I'm trying to recall all the issues, but yes, 1940.

[@codycarlsonph.d.5591]

Sounds like Maurice Gamelin. Adolf Galland was Germany’s head of fighter command. Youngest general of the war if I recall at 29.

[@denroy3]

@@codycarlsonph.d.5591 good grief, I knew that...I admit I was drawing a blank and like an idiot didn't just Google it. Lol. Thanks.

[@Hero-lo3kt]

Germany 1945 by Richard Bessel is worth a read too.

[@codycarlsonph.d.5591]

I’ve not read that one, although I enjoyed his Nazism and War, a text I use in my course on Nazi Germany.

[@3rdmillenniumfuture607]

Another great list. Thanks very much taking the trouble to put this together, I will definitely get round to reading all of these. I have three questions if you happen to see this: 1. 1939-45 probably have the greatest number of books per year of any in history. These are some "essential" books. Do you have any advice on what qualities differentiate books such as these from those that you would not recommend? So "what to look out for when choosing a history book?" (of any period I guess not just WWII). 2. Your comments about the last book France 1940 reminded me of a documentary series shown on the BBC in 2018 as part of the commeration of WWI. One of its episodes focused on the differences between the Allied and German infantry tactics in the latter stages of the war in particular highlighting the much greater degree of autonomy afforded to their junior officers even then. Would it be a fair summary to say that the German military learned all the right lessons from WWI and the French all the wrong ones so that in effect the events of 1940 were largely predetermined by what happened in their respective military establishments? 3. Do you have any opinions on the precursor to the Falaise Pocket, the fact that the Sword beach objective to either capture or neutralise Caen was not achieved and the subsequent attempts to do so were unsuccessful? Were these impossible aims or could another commander with, perhaps, different troops have succeeded where Montgomery did not?

[@codycarlsonph.d.5591]

1. Generally, I like a book that emphasizes analysis over simple narrative history (I do occasionally enjoy a narrative history, particularly if it is a subject I am not well versed in). Because of this, I tend to prefer history books written by actual academic historians as opposed to journalists or amateur historians, (although this is not always the case - for instance James Scott's work is brilliant). But much of the basic history of WWII I already know, so I'm much more interested in a new interpretation or argument than just a lively chronology. 2. I think that is a bit of an oversimplification. After the French defeat in 1871, the French military was seen as the great tool through which France would have its revenge on Germany. One of the lessons that both France and Germany learned from the Franco-Prussian War was that the side that could sustain the attack - even in the face of overwhelming resistance and rising casualties - would win the day. This was largely due to their experience at Gravelotte/Saint-Privat. When WWI began, the French, infused with a new sense of élan, had a very aggressive mindset. Very quickly, however, it became evident that throwing men at the Germans was a recipe for disaster, and adopted a more conservative approach. After the mutinies of 1917, the French army went over almost wholly to the defensive. The tremendous loss of life and horrors of the trenches put a stamp on the French that did not go away. The loss in 1940 should not have happened. The Allies had more men and better equipment. But from the beginning, French morale was in the toilet. The great fear was that 1940 was going to be a repeat of 1914, and the Germans seemed invincible after their conquest of Poland. By contrast, it was now the Germans who sought revenge for their defeat and humiliation in 1918-1919, and they were infused with élan. Because of this, the Germans had worked to create much better command and control over their forces than the French, and were much more willing to take risks. The conservative and timid French military leadership was essentially paralyzed by the German onslaught, mounting only one brief counterattack of any real weight at Arras, but even that was not enough to stem the tide. Anyway, hope this answers your question. 3. I've always had a certain amount of sympathy for Montgomery in Normandy. The British high command told him that he did not have anymore infantry replacements on the way. Once he spent his forces they were gone. Therefore, he had to act conservatively in the campaign. Further, Montgomery's front was the closest to Paris, so of course the Germans were going to stubbornly defend the area. Where Monty loses me is in his disingenuousness about the campaign. For instance, he tried repeatedly to break through to the Falaise plain beyond Caen, but just did not have the strength. When Bradley launched Operation Cobra, which turned out to be a stunning success, Montgomery stated that his attacks on German positions around Caen were just meant to be diversionary attacks to lure German strength away from Bradley's front. I don't know that another British commander could have taken Caen in those critical weeks, given the constraints the British military labored under. Perhaps it was impossible. I do not think Monty was a first order military genius, but nor do I think he was an overrated fool. He was a competent, sometimes brilliant leader that had a very difficult mission that any other commander would have been hard pressed to fulfill. Like Patton, his biggest problem was his own ego, his need to self-promote, and his tendency to distort the truth to justify his failures. Again, hope this answers you question.

[@terrysmith9362]

Montgomery faced 8 divisions ans 700 tanks whereas the Americans faced 2 divisions and 200 tanks. Thats not disengenous. Have you read the Alanbrooke diaries yet?

[@codycarlsonph.d.5591]

@@terrysmith9362 I have read the Alanbrooke diaries. I also noted above that the Germans stubbornly defended the Caen area. As I also mentioned, I have quite a bit of sympathy for Monty's position in front of Caen.

[@terrysmith9362]

then you should appreciatr that there is an alternative to the Hollywood version (AKA Stephen Ambrose) which you seem to support. I suggest that you read again to fully educate yourself as to what a true military genius thought of events and people in real time

[@terrysmith9362]

Read Charles Whiting various books to get a different perspective and to understand why so many Brits and Canadians made angry comments on your Marshall Eisenhower and Patton presentation