Rating: 
Summary: The Army That Couldn't Shoot Straight
Review: In An Army at Dawn, Pulitzer prize-winning author Rick Atkinson, covers the North African campaign from the Torch landings in November 1942 to the final collapse of the Axis in Tunisia in May 1943. Atkinson combines meticulous research with a fine writing style to produce easily the most readable account on this often-neglected campaign. The author's primary conclusion is that this campaign marked "..a subtle shift in the balance of power within the Anglo-American alliance; the United States was dominant now, by virtue of power and heft..." However, this conclusion is not supported by the author's narrative. The Allies suffered over 75,000 casualties in the Tunisian campaign, of which 50% were Commonwealth, 26% were French and 24% were American. Furthermore, the initial battle performance of the US Army was hardly impressive, and Truscott, one of the best US commanders of the war, called the North African campaign "a mediocre performance." Atkinson shows how the North African campaign emerged as an ad hoc requirement, based mostly on political considerations and thrown together in seven weeks. The TORCH plan envisioned a joint Anglo-American occupation of Vichy French Algeria and Morocco, hopefully without resistance. Straight off, TORCH demonstrated the unreadiness of this American Army and its leaders for war. The Vichy French did resist for three days and killed 526 Americans. Attempts to seize the harbors of Oran and Algiers ended as debacles; the French opened fire and virtually annihilated the two US battalions in these operations. Fortunately, the Vichy French will to fight collapsed after three days and the rest of TORCH became an unopposed occupation. Atkinson writes, "The truth was that a callow, clumsy Army had arrived in North Africa with little notion of how to act as a world power. The balance of the campaign - indeed, the balance of the war -would require learning not only how to fight but how to rule." Before the American Army had much chance to assess its performance in Algeria and Morocco, Eisenhower directed the Allied forces to occupy Tunisia. However, the German response to TORCH was astounding; they rushed paratroops and tanks rapidly to Tunisia. The Allies were slow to move into Tunisia and the forces they did move, were hobbled by the fact that, "scant thought had been given to actions after the initial landings, and only sketchy staff work was available on terrain, logistics, and air support in Tunisia." The result was a tepid crawl into Tunisia rather than a bold lunge and - not for the last time in the war - brilliant improvisation allowed the Germans to frustrate the Allied plan. Atkinson places much of the blame for the failure on Eisenhower; "In truth, he spent at least three quarters of his time worrying about political issues, and that pre-occupation poorly served the Allied cause. Had he shunted aside all distractions to focus on seizing Tunis with a battle captain's fixed purpose, the coming months might have been different." Instead of ending the campaign early, the Allies had to settle for a six-month battle of attrition. Indeed, the Germans were able to temporarily gain the initiative and inflicted a number of drubbings on the over-extended Anglo-American forces at places like Tebourba, Medjez, Longstop Hill, Faid Pass, and Sidi Bou Zid. The results were appalling. US tanks continuously attacked in broad daylight across open ground and were slaughtered by efficient German anti-tank gunners. At Sidi Bou Zid, the 2-1Armor Battalion attacked with music playing from loudspeakers and lost all 52 tanks. The US Army in Tunisia fought with a host of disadvantages: under British command, with units committed piece-meal, employing faulty doctrine with inadequate weapons. The US Army fought 13 major engagements in North Africa and had only one clear-cut victory: the Battle of El Guettar. Atkinson's account will not please readers who favor "Band of Brothers" type hagiography; there were villains as well as heroes in the so-called "Greatest Generation." Atkinson notes that, "Arab shooting became a sport in some units..." and there were, "continuing cases of rape in the forward areas against Arab women." Drunken American troops terrorized some villages and VD rates in Tunisia were extremely high. US leadership in Tunisia was also sorely lacking, particularly Fredendall, the first commander of II Corps. Although assessed by George C. Marshall as "a capable trainer," Fredendall turned out to be an incompetent and moral coward. After the Kasserine debacle, Patton replaced Fredendall, which Atkinson sees as a mixed blessing. Patton fans may be dismayed by Atkinson's assessment that "For all Patton's melodramatics, his influence on the esprit and discipline of II Corps was marginal." Furthermore, Patton's tactical plan at the second engagement of El Guettar, in late April 1943, was "badly flawed" and resulted in over 3,000 US casualties in less than a week. There were some bright spots in the otherwise sorry state of the US Army in the North African campaign. Atkinson notes that the Field Artillery performed well as did the Rangers. Atkinson notes the US armor raid on Djedeïda airfield in November 1942 destroyed 37 German aircraft - probably the only major combat success for the diminutive Stuart tank in the Second World War. The Americans also enjoyed an advantage in signals intelligence. Atkinson fails to make the case that the US participation in the Tunisian campaign affected the relative balance of power in the Anglo-American alliance. Indeed, his narrative demonstrates that the Americans were the junior partners in Tunisia, with the bulk of troops coming from the Commonwealth and French armies. Other factors, such as Lend Lease and US participation in the Battle of the Atlantic had far more impact on the nature of the alliance than a token ground deployment. Does Atkinson really believe that if no US troops had fought in Tunisia that this would have greatly altered the US position in the world? Nevertheless, Atkinson's account is certainly the most thorough and interesting narrative available on the North African campaign of 1942-1943.
Rating: 
Summary: A worthwhile account of a lesser known but crucial campaign
Review: An Army at Dawn chronicles the Allied campaign in North Africa, a bloody affair that was a necessary precursor to the Allies' ultimate victory in Europe. This campaign had strategic importance. It gave the Allies dominance in the Mediterranean. It changed the dynamic of the war. Before North Africa, "the Axis had been advancing inexorably on all fronts. . .." By the end of the campaign, "only in the U-boat campaign did the Axis retain anything like a sustained offensive . . .."
North Africa also was a crucible for American generals and soldiers. In this book, Eisenhower evolves from a political general to a ruthless commander-in-chief. Soldiers and officers gained "combat experience in five variants of Euro-Mediterranean warfare: expeditionary, amphibious, mountain, desert and urban. Troops had learned the importance of terrain, of combined arms, of aggressive patrolling, of stealth, of massed armor. They now knew what it was like to be bombed, shelled, and machine gunned, and to fight on." As important, to American soldiers the North African campaign made the war "'a grudge fight, a personal matter.'"
The Allies learned from the beginning. The execution of the landings on North African beaches reflected their amphibious inexperience. Had they been opposed at the beaches by a determined enemy instead of the Vichy French -- if they had landed first in France, as once contemplated -- the result would have been catastrophic. The result in North Africa was not inevitable: mistakes were made. For the experience gained, the Allies paid a fee in blood.
The author gives account of the participants from top to bottom (selective, of course) -- from FDR and Churchill to soldiers in the field. The writing is engaging and the maps are helpful. This book is recommended.
Rating:
Summary: One of the best books on WWII, ever.
Review: What makes this book so good is not only the outstanding scholarship of Rick Atkinson, but in the elegant manner he uses it to make effective points, not just to decorate his text to show that he's done his homework. What makes this book important is that it deals with the little discussed transition of America from an impotent military to a superpower and how messy the transition was. What makes it moving is how all the players are brought to life. And finally, it reads like a first-class adventure novel. You can't ask for much more.
Rating:
Summary: Unbiased and objective
Review: In the first volume of his Liberation Trilogy, Rick Atkinson, former assistant managing editor of the Washington Post, provides an excellent examination of the Anglo-American invasion of North Africa in 1942. Though told from a predominantly American point of view, Atkinson is unflinching in his objectivity and the reportage of facts. Atkinson reveals to us the Allied war effort in all its glory and ineptitude. From the raging Anglophobia so common amongst American generals to the upperclass snobbery of the British high command, the author shys away from nothing. This account is a far cry from the sugarcoated "history" presented by Stephen Ambrose, who always portrayed American soldiers as plastic saints who could do no wrong on some sanctified crusade. This is WWII history at its best. At the heart of the story is the relationship between the British and Americans. The US Army's performance in North Africa did little to impress the British who had been fighting the desert war for the past two years. Eisenhower's generalship was also a concern not only with the British, but with the American Chiefs of Staff. The is a story of evolution; how to nations came together and created the most powerful military alliance on earth. It's a tale worth reading. The descriptions of combat and the many maps will enthuse any armchair general. What eventually becomes clear is that neither the US nor Britain could have triumphed without the other's help. It's a remarkable work... one of the best books on World War II in recent years.
Rating:
Summary: An Army at Dawn and Webster's Dictionary
Review: An Army At Dawn is a great WW II read. Very factual and entertaining. Probably because I have only two years of college, I spent more time looking up words used by Rick Atkinson...words he used simply to impress readers with the fact that he used to be a managing editor at The Washington Post and a Pulitzer Prize winner. I'm sure while he was managing editor he would never have permitted a reporter to use the words he uses in this book; words no one has ever heard of.
Rating:
Summary: An Excellent account of the War in North Africa
Review: Rick Atkinson has been writing military history for about a decade now. He started with books on West Point (which covered Viet Nam rather thoroughly) and the Gulf War, and now he's turned his sights on World War II. He definitely has a modern appraisal of war: the one previous reviewer who complains about Atkinson not recounting any acts of "selfless heroism" by U.S. troops is basically correct. The difference is in focus, though, not that Atkinson doesn't want to portray American soldiers as brave. He doesn't recount any instances of selfless heroism on the part of Germans, Italians, or British soldiers either. To Atkinson, war is a nasty, merciless, vicious, bloody mess, where mistakes cost lives, and almost everyone makes these mistakes, at least starting out. For one thing, while the book does concentrate a good deal on the front-line soldiers and their ordeals, it spends more time concentrating on the command structure of the U.S. Army, and its compatriots and opponents. While he doesn't name *every* regimental commander, he sure names a lot of them, and the division commanders in the American army at least are described in some detail. Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., son of the first president Roosevelt and cousin of the second one, gets a wonderful portrait that makes you sympathize with him, and almost gives you the feeling you know him, though he died in 1944. The author's particular favorite among the generals (he's said this in an interview) is Terry de la Mesa Allen, the commander of the 1st Infantry Division (and Gen. Roosevelt's boss), but even he isn't spared when he makes an unwise attack and loses several hundred casualties. There are things the book doesn't cover, that's true. It makes almost no mention of the technical difficulties American troops had when first confronting the Axis armies, and almost no mention of the inferiority of early equipment like the Stuart tank or early tank destroyers. When later equipment arrives (the M-10 Wolverine for instance) you only know it when the American army has some destroyed. Atkinson, however, is much more interested in the people, and especially the leaders, than he is in the gizmos. I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It's not that long (less than 600 pages of text) and the narrative flows wonderfully. There are numerous anecdotes that are priceless: Italian soldiers surrendering carrying dirty pictures in their pockets along with the address of a cousin who lives in Detroit or Brooklyn, Patton complaining at Casablanca that the president's Secret Service agents all smelled of liquor, Ernest Harmon (the second commander of the 1st Armored Division in the campaign) is described as a cobra without the snake charmer. The narrative flow is wonderful, the maps illustrate the action well. The only quibble I did have was wondering which actions involving the British Army he was choosing to include, or exclude. Never could tell what his criteria was. That aside, and the note about the author not wanting to emphasize heroism, this is an extraordinary and compelling book, perhaps the best on World War II in a decade, perhaps even longer.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant in the Tradition of Cornelius Ryan
Review: "An Army At Dawn" is some of the most exceptional, accessible World War II writing I have ever come across. In his Wall Street Journal review, the erudite Max Boot compares "An Army At Dawn" favorably to the legendary works of Cornelius Ryan ("A Bridge Too Far," "The Longest Day," "The Last Battle"). I heartily agree. Rarely has a 530-page tome held me in thrall the way this book did. Rick Atkinson presents a brilliant account of the U.S. Army's baptism by fire on the shores, plains and mountains of North Africa in 1942-43 -- the campaign in which the commanders learned to command (or were relieved), the officers learned to lead, and the troops developed an impassioned enmity for the Axis enemy. In many years of reading, I have found that journalists (like Cornelius Ryan) often make the best historical writers. Rick Atkinson -- a former Washington Post reporter/editor whose story-telling prowess was abundantly demonstrated in "The Long Gray Line" -- follows in that tradition. Please do not be intimidated by the book's girth; even the World War II novice will find "An Army At Dawn" to be a fast-paced, engaging, often spellbinding narratve.
Rating:
Summary: A great book about an important chapter in history
Review: I had the great pleasure recently of hearing Atkinson, the author, give a lecture on this book. The passion that he has for this subject was just simply electric. He took the time in the lecture to expand on the personalities of the leaders he focuses on in this book. It really complimented a great book. The book itself is a great read. It may seem daunting at 700 pages but the book flows and reads with such a great flow that the pages just seem to whisk by. Atkinson doesn't just relate the events of the campaign in North Africa in WWII he tells the story of many of the principal and many of the peripheral players. The real story of the campaign in North Africa is really about the players involved. Atkinson took four years to research this book and the detail of this book shows it. Most of the books on the European theatre in WWII have focused on Northern Europe (France, Luxemburg, Germany, et al) and avoided North Africa. This can partly be attributed to the ugly fact that when the North African campaign was begun by the U.S. the Vichy government fought alongside the Axis. This book tells an unapologetic history of that side of the war and should be appreciated and studied by anyone with a passion for WWII, U.S. or military history.
Rating:
Summary: Accurate. Most of us are doing the best we know how...
Review: I've got a lot to do. Yet Mr. Atkinson has forced me to put my affairs on hold until I finish his 700 pages. The United States could no more "decide" to field a professional, effective fighting force than a first grader could "decide" to be a college student. Arming a crowd is not all it takes to make an army. I was not aware what an important chapter North Africa was in the largest war the U.S. has ever fought. The description of our learning process is fascinating.
It's not a flaw that Mr. Atkinson has been mistaken for a journalist by the professional reviewers. As if the job of history requires a scholar. Critics tend to forget we are no longer in school. They've forgotten that a work can be entertaining without being fiction. Mr. Atkinson is a first-rate storyteller. I won't repeat what was covered in the excellent reviews by the professional critics. I agree. But I'm not concerned by what has been labeled "melodrama" or "journalism". Men were dying by 10 or 1,000 at a time. The British really did lose an empire that they had spent 350 years building, and became a second-tier power. The French were humilliated, occupied and never have learned to cope with it as a nation. The Germans were better soldiers, and the Itallians were not. Topology is certainly key, although I think Logistics is just as underated and unrecognised(I've got opinions, too). The description of what occured is well told and an important part of that conflict. I see parallels as we prepare to nationalize my brother's National Guard unit for this conflict today. I just bought him a copy of the book. I hope it gives him a perspective as his unit gears up to be shipped out.
Rating:
Summary: will be another alls quiet on the western front in 100 years
Review: i havent been able to stop reading and am 250 pages into my 3rd nite! it would have been a little better had the book started with a chapter devoted to the war up until the american involvement in the torch operation. there was a brief introduction which alluded to alamein and tobruk which we know were major campaigns in africa. these battles were never covered with the detail provided with other lesser known battles. mainly the chaos of war and well made plans going sour for unforseen reasons. there is an emphasis on the common soldier as well as the general's egocenticities. much humor mostly of the dark variety can be found throughout. many quotes from private's are used from which we can only give the author poetic license. plenty of maps. overall an extraordinary acheivement and i can't wait for the next 2 vols! maybe he will write about the pacific war as well!
|
