Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.35 AVERAGE
4.35 AVERAGE
This is another excellent book by Max Hastings. He does an excellent job not only of surveying World War II as a whole, but also presenting perspectives not typically examined by authors in this genre. Hastings discusses events such as the Indian famine of the period and its effects on its colonial status, as well as the same status of other states ruled by European imperial powers. He does an excellent job of illustrating how the war was not one of black and white "good vs. evil," but clearly shows that both Axis and Allies were capable of atrocities. Necessarily, he demonstrates more of these events on the Axis side, as there were certainly more of them, but he also shows how the Allies were certainly not the paragons of virtue they portrayed themselves and thought themsleves to be. This is a must read for anyone who has read Hastings previous works or anyone interested in the time period.
Another excellent one by Hastings.
Honest about both Mac and Monty. Honest about some other British failures, especially through crappy generals other than Slim.
Although straight-up history, he does present a couple of very interesting alt-history scenarios, above all, these two:
1. What if Goering never launched the Battle of Britain? Hastings isn't just talking about "the Blitz" when the Luftwaffe switched to civilian targets. He's talking about the whole schmeer. Instead, Hitler leaves Churchill in splendid isolation. (Max doesn't say whether or not this would also mean pausing U-boat attacks.) The idea is that, with a new "sitzkrieg" and France gone, the British get tired of the war soon enough.
2. Italy stays out. Its "stab in the back" on France changed everything. Had Hitler known the Duce was going to go in, already that early on, he might have bought Italy off with a sliver of the Nice area on pain of death of him staying out. If Italy does stay out, Northwest Africa (Torch) is a blind alley, doubly so because the British Eighth Army isn't fighting in Libya and Egypt. Oh, sure, it could be done, but where next? Corsica for a hugely tricky amphibious landing?
3. Going after Malta. Max argues that, rather than paying the price of the airborne losses on Crete, even if Germany was invading mainland Greece, that Malta was a better (and probably safer) target.
There's really no good counterfactuals in the Pacific other than the Japanese guessing before Midway that their codes had been broken. Even that, though, would have only delayed the inevitable. And US submarine work, and airplane mining work in the home islands (which the USAAF hated) would have caused horrendous starvation losses with the US perhaps not being close enough to drop The Bomb, and No. 2, easily.
There is one error early in the book, and it's actually kind of big.
Poland getting into war with the nascent USSR after WWI was not all Trotsky trying to extend universal revolution. Rather, Poland, under Pilsudski, started it by trying to put puppets in Lithuania and Ukraine. He personally disavowed the old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, but others dreamed. And that entity put a puppet tsar on the throne in Moscow in the early 1600s.
In May 1920, Polish troops got as far as Kiev, in Ukraine, for example.
The book is still a 5-star, this aside, but you have to watch Max at times. This is just another example.
Honest about both Mac and Monty. Honest about some other British failures, especially through crappy generals other than Slim.
Although straight-up history, he does present a couple of very interesting alt-history scenarios, above all, these two:
1. What if Goering never launched the Battle of Britain? Hastings isn't just talking about "the Blitz" when the Luftwaffe switched to civilian targets. He's talking about the whole schmeer. Instead, Hitler leaves Churchill in splendid isolation. (Max doesn't say whether or not this would also mean pausing U-boat attacks.) The idea is that, with a new "sitzkrieg" and France gone, the British get tired of the war soon enough.
2. Italy stays out. Its "stab in the back" on France changed everything. Had Hitler known the Duce was going to go in, already that early on, he might have bought Italy off with a sliver of the Nice area on pain of death of him staying out. If Italy does stay out, Northwest Africa (Torch) is a blind alley, doubly so because the British Eighth Army isn't fighting in Libya and Egypt. Oh, sure, it could be done, but where next? Corsica for a hugely tricky amphibious landing?
3. Going after Malta. Max argues that, rather than paying the price of the airborne losses on Crete, even if Germany was invading mainland Greece, that Malta was a better (and probably safer) target.
There's really no good counterfactuals in the Pacific other than the Japanese guessing before Midway that their codes had been broken. Even that, though, would have only delayed the inevitable. And US submarine work, and airplane mining work in the home islands (which the USAAF hated) would have caused horrendous starvation losses with the US perhaps not being close enough to drop The Bomb, and No. 2, easily.
There is one error early in the book, and it's actually kind of big.
Poland getting into war with the nascent USSR after WWI was not all Trotsky trying to extend universal revolution. Rather, Poland, under Pilsudski, started it by trying to put puppets in Lithuania and Ukraine. He personally disavowed the old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, but others dreamed. And that entity put a puppet tsar on the throne in Moscow in the early 1600s.
In May 1920, Polish troops got as far as Kiev, in Ukraine, for example.
The book is still a 5-star, this aside, but you have to watch Max at times. This is just another example.
informative
reflective
slow-paced
What a spectacular book! Hastings keeps his eye on the big picture: illuminating the most important aspects of the war and providing expert and balanced commentary. His writing never gets bogged down in boring details and troop movements - this book is a real page-turner!
What comes through most is the tragedy of it all. And the senselessness of war. Hastings paints a devastating picture of the war and its impact of Europe and Asia. It was indeed the greatest tragedy in the history of the world. No question. Quite possibly the biggest tragedy of the war was that Stalin emerged as the biggest winner; for the people living in his vast sphere of influence, the misery would continue for another 50 years.
Reading it as Russia invades the Ukraine, and hearing Putin’s words justifying his invasion, which sound eerily like Hitler’s, is quite terrifying. I hope we have learned from the past.
What comes through most is the tragedy of it all. And the senselessness of war. Hastings paints a devastating picture of the war and its impact of Europe and Asia. It was indeed the greatest tragedy in the history of the world. No question. Quite possibly the biggest tragedy of the war was that Stalin emerged as the biggest winner; for the people living in his vast sphere of influence, the misery would continue for another 50 years.
Reading it as Russia invades the Ukraine, and hearing Putin’s words justifying his invasion, which sound eerily like Hitler’s, is quite terrifying. I hope we have learned from the past.
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
informative
medium-paced
If you're going to read one history of World War II, read this one.
It focuses more on the overall picture than any campaign, country, or battle, but does a marvelous picture of trying to view the whole. There's mercifully little on the major players and a refreshing focus on how people who weren't leading nations or armies viewed the war, with excerpts from letters, diaries, and so on.
It won't make you an expert, but you'll enjoy it and know a lot more than you do now.
It focuses more on the overall picture than any campaign, country, or battle, but does a marvelous picture of trying to view the whole. There's mercifully little on the major players and a refreshing focus on how people who weren't leading nations or armies viewed the war, with excerpts from letters, diaries, and so on.
It won't make you an expert, but you'll enjoy it and know a lot more than you do now.
Probably the most outstanding historical volume I've ever read. Superbly well written and a wonderful human view of the conflict.
informative
medium-paced
Hastings's goal with this book was to depict the Second World War through the eyes of ordinary people caught up in the maelstrom, to show the horror of industrialized total war. There have been shelves of books written about Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin, or great battles like D-Day and Midway. But these were exceptional people, and exceptional moments. What of the rest of us?
Hastings demolishes any legend of a 'good war'. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan fought to ensure genocidal dominance over their hemispheres. The Soviet Union was a brutal totalitarian state that opportunistically hoped that the capitalists would weaken each other before Stalin's own war in 1943 or so, before Nazi invasion preempted that strategy. Churchill fought to secure a fading British Empire, with its own brutality, racism, and incompetence. France surrendered, and a solid majority of French citizens collaborated with the Nazi regime. American didn't want to fight the war till Pearl Harbor. And the war certainly wasn't about stopping the Holocaust.
As a broad and synthetic work, Inferno doesn't delve deeply into any particular moment. The chapters are organized chronologically and thematically. Hasting pushes a few broad points. Russians did most of the fighting and dying. The US and British forces had material supremacy, which compensated for a weakness in close quarters combat. And most people were scared, bored, hungry, and confused. The war was not glorious, and the world suffered immensely.
There are some elements that I disagree with. Hastings believes Nazi soldiers were categorically superior to Allied ones, and his argument that sailors could not be brave in the same way as soldiers is not one I'd care to repeat near a Navy veteran. For all that, this is a stark and stunning work of military history.
Hastings demolishes any legend of a 'good war'. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan fought to ensure genocidal dominance over their hemispheres. The Soviet Union was a brutal totalitarian state that opportunistically hoped that the capitalists would weaken each other before Stalin's own war in 1943 or so, before Nazi invasion preempted that strategy. Churchill fought to secure a fading British Empire, with its own brutality, racism, and incompetence. France surrendered, and a solid majority of French citizens collaborated with the Nazi regime. American didn't want to fight the war till Pearl Harbor. And the war certainly wasn't about stopping the Holocaust.
As a broad and synthetic work, Inferno doesn't delve deeply into any particular moment. The chapters are organized chronologically and thematically. Hasting pushes a few broad points. Russians did most of the fighting and dying. The US and British forces had material supremacy, which compensated for a weakness in close quarters combat. And most people were scared, bored, hungry, and confused. The war was not glorious, and the world suffered immensely.
There are some elements that I disagree with. Hastings believes Nazi soldiers were categorically superior to Allied ones, and his argument that sailors could not be brave in the same way as soldiers is not one I'd care to repeat near a Navy veteran. For all that, this is a stark and stunning work of military history.