OT - Book (Non Fiction) Review/Recommendations Thread

[swaghauler]

I've been going back into the old library for a training class I recently ran and have to recommend TWO books to the forum here. They are Massad Ayoob's...

StressFire I [Combat Pistol] (ISBN- 978-0936279039)
StressFire II [Combat Shotgun] (ISBN- 978-0936279114)

These are the definitive texts on using those weapons systems and form the foundation of the US Army Pistol Marksmanship training as well as the Shotgun Training Course for USMC FAST teams.

There are also videos on YouTube that you might like.

[Raellus]

Spain in Our Hearts, by Adam Hochschild is about American (and British) volunteers in the Spanish Civil War. It's pretty light on descriptions of battles and combat, but paints really compelling portraits of folks that risked their lives to fight for a cause that they believed in. It also does a really good job of describing the everyday life of foreign volunteers in Republican Spain. This is where it is most applicable to T2K- for most of the war, the International Brigades were poorly supplied in almost every area- food, medicine, and, especially, modern weaponry. They had to do as much as they could with very little (less and less as the war wore on).

Although the book focuses on those who supported the Republican cause (Hemingway and Orwell, to name the most famous), it also profiles a couple of Americans who supported the Nationalists (i.e. fascists), including the CEO of Texaco.

It's a really well-written book- much better (although less exhaustive) than Antony Beevor's, The Battle for Spain, which, IMHO was uncharacteristically dry (and I'm a huge fan of his later work).

I was originally drawn to the Spanish Civil War when I started thinking about whether the U.S.A. could experience and ideologically-driven civil war in the near future. After reading these two books, and following the national news for the last 17 years or so, I've concluded that the possibility is not as remote as I once imagined...

[Matt Wiser]

Antony Beevor's latest is what I'm tackling now..The Battle of Arnhem: The Deadliest Airborne Operation of World War II.

Two things stand out, and they're both about the highest-ranking prima donna in the ETO: Montgomery. 1) His pride and vanity led to the operation, which should never have been attempted, failure to listen to the Dutch Underground or the Dutch Brigade fighting with the British-some of whose officers knew the ground-and ANY Dutch officer in prewar staff training who proposed an attack up the same road XXX Corps took was automatically failed, and dismissing intelligence that suggested things not just at Arnhem, but along XXX Corps' advance, were not what he thought them to be.

2) That same vanity, until the day he died, would not allow him to admit that the whole operation had been a disaster. Eisenhower said it best: "Monty's a psychopath. He will never admit to anything wrong, everything has gone right, and he has never made a mistake." Monty was his own worst enemy, though his Chief of Staff knew it, but he would never admit it.

[Raellus]

I enjoyed his Battle of Arnhem.

Yeah, there seems to pretty broad consensus among modern WW2 historians (Beevor, Hastings, Atkinson, to name a few) that Monty was pretty good at set-piece battles as long as they unfolded according to plan, but pretty shit when it came to operating on the fly. If a plan didn't work as intended, as in the case of Market Garden (and Epsom, and Goodwood), he couldn't adjust and improvise his way to victory.

His baffling failure to clear the Scheldt Estuary and thereby in actuality to open the port of Antwerp arguably delayed the Allied victory, and allowed the Soviets to reach Berlin first.

Monty was indeed an egomaniac, who would take credit for any success, could never admit to making a mistake, and believed that he alone was qualified to lead the Allied armies in the field. Most of his men loved him, but most of his fellow field officers- American and British- couldn't stand the guy.

He was probably the British Empire's most overrated general of WW2 (if not of all time), and is a strong candidate for most overrated general of all of the Allied armies during the war.

[Legbreaker]

Monty was not at fault when you look at the actual evidence. The plan was good, if risky, but there was one weak link that screwed it all up.
Firstly Beevor missed some very important facts, although overall the book is good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr92BwihIoU
According to John Frost.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C_HoMVhKAI
Then, if you're interested in seeing an unbiased assessment using all the available materials...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTUC79o4Kmc&t=4s

ABOUT TIK

History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. I also want to dispel the myths and distortions that ruin our perception of the past by asking a simple question - “But is this really the case?”. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). I’m therefore approaching this like I would an academic essay. Lots of sources, quotes, references and so on. Only the truth will do.

[Raellus]

Yes he was, if you look at the actual evidence.

First off, I think it's interesting that you put more stock in some rando* Monty apologist making Youtube "the real story" videos than the bulk of eminent WW2 historians (3/4 I mentioned being British). Also, Frost isn't unbiased. If anyone had a dog in the fight, he did.

BTW, have you read any of the books Mr. Youtube historian cited? If you don't accept Ryan, Hastings, Beevor, and Atkinson's analysis (to name but a few), I'm probably not going to be able to change your mind, but here is the evidence:

Montgomery's whole plan hinged on linking up with the airborne divisions at the bridges quickly, but there was only one MSR- an elevated highway with soft shoulders, running through woodlands and little towns, crossing several canals and rivers- between the start line and Eindhoven, Nijmegen, and Arnhem.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that if that MSR can be obstructed or cut for any length of time, the Airborne divisions- especially the one at the end of the line- are going to be hung out to dry. Monty grossly overestimated the ability of an armored corps to advance along a single axis through country that was far less than ideal for tanks, and simultaneously underestimated the German's ability to interfere with the planned advance. The plan, on paper, only survives a cursory glance. Look closely, you will see that it was deeply flawed on multiple levels.

Also, downplaying intel that there was at least one SS Panzer division in the Arnhem area was foolish, to say the least. Cornelius Ryan agrees.

Plus, the whole plan wouldn't even have been necessary if Montgomery had cleared the Scheldt estuary in the first place. Failure to do so meant that the Germans could prevent the Allies from using the port of Antwerp (which was captured 90% intact), and they did. This prolonged the Allies' supply problems. Market Garden was an attempt to puncture the German defenses before supplies ran out. This was only an issue because Antwerp remained closed due to Monty's oversight. As it turned out, Market Garden burned through the Allies existing supply stockpile, necessitating a freeze on major offensive operations that allowed the Germans the breathing space to prepare Wacht am Rhein (the Ardennes counteroffensive).

For Market Garden to have succeeded, everything would have had according to plan. What are the odds of a plan surviving contact with an enemy, especially one as competent as the Wehrmacht/Waffen SS? It was a gamble that set the Allies back months (by burning the last of its fuel supplies) and led to the Hongerwinter in Holland.

Ike deserves part of the blame for approving the plan, but Monty, as the advocate, architect, and administrator, deserves the lion's share. Monty was a pompous tool.


*Differently biased is not "unbiased".

[Legbreaker]

Oh dear. You didn't watch any of that did you.
FYI, he's an actual historian who's probably put more time into researching WWII than pretty much all the rest of us here combined.
I suggest you watch the videos I suggested, then perhaps a few more and THEN get back to me.