Most helpful customer reviews
|
|
5.0 out of 5 stars
The Climatic Battle- And Why, Jun 28 2009
As readers of my Amazon reviews are aware, I have read and reviewed many books about World War II (for a list seem my Listmania: World War II). This is one of the best. Starting with an analysis of the defenders and the attackers, Author Stephen Ambrose lays out the scene, introduces the characters and tells the story. Ambrose's particular strength is to blend the "big story" of the strategists and generals with the "GI's story" of the individual soldier. This book is obviously drawn from numerous interviews of veterans, their families and civilians who remember the events of D-Day. Those familiar with other of Ambrose's works will recognize stories from those books woven throughout this one.
The reader of "D-Day June 6, 1944" will gain a deeper understanding of how D-Day came about, what it accomplished, what failed and why. There were many things that I had heard of, but this book fits the facts into the overall story. Many of the "German" Army troops defending Fortress Europe were, in fact, Russians, Poles and other "Ost" troops from conquered nations, most of whom were willing to fight only so long as German officers and NCOs were ready to enforce discipline at the point of a gun. Ambrose explains that this amphibious invasion was unprecedented in scope. Many of the technologies on which it relied were being seriously tested for the first time. He proposes that the most decisive Allied bombardment was the Transportation Plan carried out by the Air Forces, which effectively isolated the battle area from German reinforcements by destroying bridges, rail track and rolling stock. He finds this to have been much more effective than the air and naval bombardment which left the bunkers which survive to this day. Many have heard of the involvement of the paratroopers, gliders and those in the amphibious assaults. This book clarifies the role each played in the invasion.
Consistent with the theory that, before the battle is joined, planning is everything and, once it starts, planning means nothing, the early parts of this book concentrate on the plans and preparations for D-Day. Here we read of procurement, training, choice of targets and many other things that go into the planning of an enterprise such as this. Once the troops hit the ground, he focuses on the officers and enlisted men who brought about the success of that and following days though their own initiative and decisions. In this latter part of the book we read of men who rushed bunkers, the dazed, fighting and dead "Germans" they found there, the officers, including the oldest D-Day participant, Brig. Gen. Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., who started the war where they were landed, not where they were scheduled to land, and even the civilians who helped one side or the other. In completing the story, Ambrose does not forget the home folks in American and Britain.
Ambrose makes a strong case for the superiority of Allied Men of Arms. I think that many of us have the idea that Germans were the greatest soldiers in the war but that they were overwhelmed by American and Soviet numbers. Ambrose argues against this theory. He makes the case that the average American, Canadian and British enlisted man was a superior fighter to the "Ost" soldiers whom he faced. He points out that the democracies produced armies in which the officers and men could make decisions and adapt to changing circumstances and opportunities. German officers, terrorized by Nazi tyranny, were content to sit until superiors told them what to do. Even when the superiors did make decisions, they often miscalculated. The highly respected Rommel made what was, in Ambrose's mind, a fatal mistake. By putting so much of German effort into the Atlantic War, the Wehrmacht was unable to effectively respond once the Wall was breached, as it was in a day or less. Finally Hitler's own mistakes, primarily based on the belief that the real invasion would come at Pas de Calais, set Germany on the road to defeat and made D-Day, truly, the Climatic Battle of World War II.
Besides his extensive research, Ambrose graces his books with a writing style on a par with a top notch novelist. Through this book the reader will never become bogged down in details nor find his mind drifting. It holds the reader with riveting storytelling and an endless stream of facts which educate, surprise and, on occasion, amuse. For anyone with an interest in World War II, this book is a must.
|
|
|
1.0 out of 5 stars
Over zealous biast account.., Jun 26 2004
By A Customer
Having read many books covering WWII and D-day, I had picked up Stephen Ambrose D-Day book, and from the start it paints a very bias opinion relating to the Allies, Canadian and British. He starts off comparing Winston Churchill to a sick old man with waning influence, could this possibly be the same man who kept the morale of the british alive through the despairing dark days at the onset of the war and carried the people through with hope and belief to the end of WWII, there are various other paragraphs that scream to be contradicted but obviously Mr Ambrose lived in the American world of History ( here comes the calvary )and not Europe's.
|
|
|
3.0 out of 5 stars
Interesting material, average implementation., Jun 12 2004
By A Customer
After reading Band of Brothers, I came into this book with a confident expectation as to what I'd be reading. In D-Day, as in Band of Brothers, Ambrose did an excellent job of compiling oral testimonies from the soldiers involved, but his implementation is something to be desired. It's really too bad that Ambrose isn't as good of a writer/historian as he is an interviewer.The book begins through about 100 pages of introductory material which includes a synopsis of the political/war climate, some brief information about the respective commanders, an overview of the planning process, and other miscellany. This material is quite helpful in setting the background, though Ambrose asserts various things about democracy, totalitarianism, Britain, Nazi High Command, and Nazi strategy which seem questionable in truth (and in some cases, out of context). For example, Ambrose asserts in various ways and in various places that a democracy produces a better soldier than a dictatorship. Whether it is true or not, Ambrose was entirely incapable of proving either in a logical and objective way. He also challenged the commonly held notion that the German Army (in the entire spectrum of WW2) was not as effective as it is commonly believed to have been, despite having a kill ratio of 2 to 1 (his own words). This, too, was an assertion that he wasn't able to argue either way, as he dedicated only a couple sentences in this "persuasion," for what probably could fill an entire book. Unfortunately, this type of thing seems to be a recurring theme whenever Ambrose integrates his opinion. Overall, he sometimes tries to analyze things and ends up doing a poor job as the assertions are weakly, if it all, supported by argument, and I sometimes got the feeling that he was inappropriately overstepping his bounds in terms of context (surely some of the things he brought to the table deserve a much more exhaustive treatment than he was willing to give). However, These analyses are few and far between, and the subsequent 400 pages are very interesting and captivating, but that is solely due to the material itself. With laugh-out-loud sentences like, "That someone was spelled i-n-f-a-n-t-r-y," I sometimes thought that if it wasn't for the good testimony, I would surely put this book down in a second. Such is to be expected, I suppose, with the history factory that Ambrose was. He was known put many, many books out in a short amount of time, and one can only expect that they wouldn't be up to the caliber of, say, Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, especially since Ambrose doesn't have a gift for prose. There is also the issue, as other reviewers have mentioned, of whether Ambrose was being too US-centric in his treatment of the history, but that is beyond my knowledge. While this book does give the impression that it was written for US audiences only (bad move for a historian, in my opinion), I didn't get the feeling that the Brits and Canadians were "cheated" in anyway. So, if you're looking for an easy read that that concentrates mainly on the first person perspective of a soldier in the Normandy invasion and touches mildly on troop movement and strategy, then this is the book for you. Don't be too swayed by all my negativity, because despite all its shortcomings, it's still an interesting read. I, however, plan to supplement this book with one that concentrates mainly on strategy and troop movement.
|
|
|
Most recent customer reviews
|