Rating: 
Summary: Monumental World War II Political History
Review: One Big History of the World WarI have been reading books about the World War for nearly 50 years. This book is one of a kind. But it's not written for everyone. First I will point out some limitations of this book. Then I will list some of the strengths that make this book unique. Limitations. Weinberg is a clear writer, but not flashy. The material is carefully organized but it moves at a deliberate pace. Put simply, this is not exciting reading, especially at 900 pages!
If you loved Ambrose, McCullough, or D'Este, you may dislike Weinberg. Weinberg believes in a form of historical writing that downplays the role of individuals. Roosevelt, Hitler, Stalin, Rommel, Churchill, Mussolini, Chang Kai Shek, Hirohito are all in attendance, but their personalities, their quirks, and their
habits , hardly enter into the story. Instead, these men represent movements, states, ideologies, etc. Weinberg never uses direct, pithy quotes. That takes something out, compared to other popular history. Weinberg doesn't say anything he can't back up. Many chapters contain 200 footnotes or more. Those footnotes
could drive you crazy. Weinberg does not present the War as simply a clash of Good versus Evil. He sees a much more complex picture of motives and actions at play. Few parties to the conflict emerge with their honor wholly intact. Weinberg does not write much about leaders, battles, etc.
Don't get me wrong. The leaders and battles are there, but
W is only interested in the big picture aspects of battles, not
in leaders, heroes, clever tactics, etc. I don't see these limitations as very important. A reader can
get all that exciting stuff from popular books. Instead, Weinberg has produced a book that mainly appeals to World War addicts and scholars. I'm not sure I would recommend this book to readers who don't already have a good general grasp of the War. Now the strengths: Weinberg organized his material in such a way as to show the War in an integrated whole. He covers the whole World, Asia,
Europe, Mediterranean, even Africa and South America. In doing so he shows many interconnections that I had never previously considered. For instance, the book shows the close relationship between Japan and Germany. His writing is very tight. He discusses his topics systematically, thoroughly, and logically. He likes to set out lists of considerations, or reasons that I find illuminating.
For example, why did Hitler consistently reject offers of additional collaboration from Vichy France? Weinberg is realistic in his judgments. Although his overall viewpoint about the morality of the War is rather conventional, he's unafraid of making harsh judgments. For instance, W shows how the neutrals; Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, etc acted in greedy and self-interested ways, looking for war profits, wanting territorial gains, desparate to keep their independence. W is not given to moralizing. As I stated, his own views are clear, not hidden. But he does NOT find many instances where moral or ethical considerations carried much weight with the combatants or occupied nations. He's a believer in "RealPolitik" like Kissinger. W is not a military man, but he's writing about military operations. His grasp of those operations is satisfactory, although he must avoid details. He's excellent at showing how military operations relate to the larger war situation. For example, he shows how Germany sent 200,000 troops to Tunisia just when Germany needed them more at Stalingrad. Weinberg reaches some controversial conclusions about perennial "hot" issues: · Most Germans supported Hitler straight through. It's not
realistic to talk about a German resistance.
· Many adult Germans knew enough about the treatment of Jews, captives, and slave labor to understand the horrific nature of their government. They acquiesced.
· Hitler's overall plans for the future of Europe were much
more radical than most people understand -- even today.
· With a few exceptions, populations in the occupied countries did not mount serious resistance efforts. They willingly collaborated. (ex. Yugoslavia, Poland, USSR).
· The Wehrmacht knew fully about the Jews, the slave
labor, the crimes against occupied countries. It's no good
to argue that "we didn't know."
· The Western Allies knew about the Genocide by 1942. They did not act because there was little they could do, and, in the US especially, the government did not want to get into a political situation where the opposition could label it "A War to Save Jews." Anti-Semitism was still strong in US. etc etc etc. To sum up, this book represents a terrific achievement. It represents a huge body of research. He must have taken 10 years to write it, with the help of 10 assistants. None of the other books to take on the Whole Enchilada come close. It will probably stand as the "standard" treatment for 50 years, until many more closed archives are finally opened.
Rating:
Summary: A little heavy going but splendid
Review: This is only for those who are seriously interested in World War II and it should be read only by people fairly familiar with the basic history of the war. A beginner will get lost in Mr. Weinberg's details and thoroughness. The maps are poor and there are no pictures but the author's mastery of the subject makes up for that. Mr. Weinberger has his preferences : for instance, he is no friend of Montgomery, generally treats the British military with contempt and positively seems to hate Wehrmacht generals for covering up atrocities they did not disapprove of - an opinion I happen to share - but also for writing "self serving memoirs" as though memoirs could be anything else than self serving ! But these are minor details in an otherwise splendid book, an absolute must for anyone wishing to gain a clearer understanding of this planet's history between 1939 and 1945. The book is long, the writing sometime a little heavy, but every 920 page is worth the reader's full attention.
Rating: 
Summary: Great History
Review: This is the best History of WWII I have ever read. It covers all theatres. It ties efficiently and clearly diplomacy, strategy, combat, logistics, politics, organization, coordination between the powers (or lack thereof, as was almost always the case with the Axis), management of the enterprise within and between all the major players: military, diplomatic, governmental, industrial, commercial, economic. It is a long book......but everytime one ends a section, one has the feeling that a very interesting and complex matrix has been revealed, and that all the implications of whatever happened were established and left ready to be picked up later on in the narrative. One is left with an understanding not only of WHAT happened .... but WHY, and what effects such matter will have beyond its confines....... The book makes one realize what a complex and interrelated the conduct of a war is, particularly in such large scale. That it could have been managed at all, let alone effectively, is one of humanity's greatests accomplishments and probable regret. Thus the the narrative thrusts forward, narrative, never pedantic, written clearly and and with grace. Some reviews have decried the fact that the work does not cover the experience of the fighting men themselves.....what was the war like to them (grunt perspective). That is not the intention of this book. Never decry an author for not writing the book you think ought to have been written. This book tells the tale it is supposed to tell, and it does it brilliantly, exceeding all expectations. Two quibbles: I would have liked more maps. I think it was a mistake to put all the maps at the end of the book.... as one has to go back and forth.......and it is NOT a thin book. Not being a thin book, I strongly recommend you get the hardbound edition......I'm afraid heft will shorten its life. This is a book one wants to keep.
| 
