Rating: 
Summary: An Amazing Look At World War II
Review: "Blood, Tears, and Folly" is simply one of the best books on World War II ever published. For those already familiar with the basic dimensions of the war, Deighton's book magnifies key elements which shaped the conflict and defined the times. For instance, Deighton explains how Germany's lack of a strategic bomber force was a major contribution to the Luftwaffe's defeat in the battle of Britain. Deighton also tears down the myths surrounding Erwin Rommel and explains in detail the breakdown of the German offensive in Russia. Rarely has an author made detailed history so easy to read and understand. If your looking for a simple study of the overall war look elsewhere, but if you wish to learn more about key moments, men, weapons and strategies of all the major powers, Deighton's book will amaze and delight.
Rating:
Summary: An enlightening book about the "Dark Side" of war
Review: (by E.M. Singer, author of "Mother Flies Hurricanes")A book about the "Dark Side" of war seems kinda weird, but Deighton does it up in spectacular style. As Adolph Hitler said, "This war will be won by the side that makes the fewest mistakes" (or words to that effect), and fortunately Adolph's side made the most. (Did you know that the Bismark was sunk because of an over-protective parent?) But the Allies also pulled off some real howlers, and Deighton deftly skewers the good, the bad, and the ugly...
Rating:
Summary: The bumblers' crusade
Review: A generation of self-congratulatory propaganda about the Crusade in Europe was rudely jolted by two books written by hard-minded historians. The first, A.J.P. Taylor's The Origins of the Second World War, scythed away the view that Hitler was solely responsible for western Europe's greatest political error. The second is this result of Len Deighton's extensive research on the politics, diplomacy and mechanics of that conflict.Blood, Tears and Folly may be considered an off-shoot of his other works, both fiction and non-fiction, on the years prior to the war and of the actual fighting. He rightly subtitles this book "An Objective Look" in response to the many years of laudatory histories and memoirs deluging both the reading public and history classrooms. Deighton has a realistic view of history, dealing carefully and dispassionately with the issues at all levels. He knows that success in war is often due to chance decisions. He also knows, and tells us clearly, that the decision-makers must reach their conclusions from an informed and dispassionate foundation. This isn't a common feature among military "leaders" and probably even more rare among politicians dealing in foreign affairs. This book is more than a journalist's account of an historical period. It's a clarion call to keep a watchful eye on your leaders. Too often, and certainly in the period of this book, long-term policies remain unconsidered while striving to accomplish immediate gains. Prejudices abound, guiding men into foolish decisions for which many will pay the ultimate price. Deighton appears to be whacking the British here. However, keep in mind that the Empire of Victoria Regina remained the dominant force in the world and the British never tired of saying so. That attitude was the pivotal folly of British politicians, although America's buying into the idea was just as foolish. If anything made World War II inevitable instead of the aberration logic suggests it should be, it's this outlook. The world, particularly Western European nations, resented Britain's arrogance. It had led in large part to World War I. Unable to learn anything from the causes of that conflict, British policies simply repeated old mistakes in new ways, a misplaced pride leading to a new fall. Deighton manages to carefully balance Britain's short sighted attitude about European affairs with various other elements that will impact the course of the war. He has an exceptional ability to make what ought to be the most mundane topics, machines and technologies, into fascinating elements of the story. Familiar to us now, things like radar and rockets were innovations then and their successes were due to the people working with them. Deighton's ability to delve into the personal viewpoint adds significantly to the enjoyment of this book.
Rating:
Summary: Fact versus Legend
Review: Although criticized for being an "amateur" historian, Deighton's works are oddly professional. Interestingly, they are based on the study and analysis of researched facts rather than popular legend. "Blitzkrieg", "Fighter" and "Blood, Sweat and Tears" compare very favorably to works such a Alistaire Horne's "To Lose a Battle" and other honest looks at the war. Not many know that the battle of France was not simply a case of France raising the white flag--it was a huge fight with over a quarter million French combat casualties and thousands of German losses. In the same way, few people realize the intense rivalry that existed within the Luftwaffe's leadership that effectively guaranteed that the obsolescent ME 109 would remain Germany's main fighter right up to May 1945. These are the sort of things you learn with Len Deighton. One question remains: when will he cover 1942-45? GOOD LUCK Len Deighton!
Rating: 
Summary: Stick to your novels
Review: Deighton built his reputation by writing action novels, and proves here the old nostrum that one should stick with what he does well. The devil, they say, is in the details. Deighton isn't really careful about these, excelling only when he plays revisionist historian with the broad issues surrounding the "good" war. For example, he takes unwarranted swipes at the Pope whenever he can, possibly revealing more about his prejudices than his research. He occasionally seems confused about geography, as when he says "the Germans used bases in Czechoslovakia to attack Poland from north and south, as well as from the west." (p. 167 hardcover) I was unaware of the annexation of East Prussia to Prague. At any rate, skip this one in favor of one by a professional historian, such as Leckie's Delivered from Evil.
Rating:
Summary: Best First Book on WWII
Review: I wish I had read this book first before I launched into reading about WWII history. It provides a wonderful perspective missing from all the other, more pedantic histories - especially Churchill's history of WWII.
Rating:
Summary: Fascinating look at World War II
Review: Len Deighton does an excellent job in looking at nearly all aspects of the Second World War. One of its strongpoint is that he provides a lot of background in addressing the problems and events of the Second World War. In order to understand why the Battle of France was fought the way it was, he takes you back to the First World War, the lessons "learned," and events in the various armies between the war. To shed light on the Battle of Britain and the Blitz, he brings you the bombings of London in WWI, and what was thought of that at the time. In many cases, in order to understand why generals and admirals commanded their troops to do certain things, and why certain types of equipment were or were not available, you had to understand the mind set of the time, and the history they were drawing upon. Another strength of the book is its look at the personalities of the people involved, which as much as anything else helped determine who won or lost. From Churchill to Rommel to Zhukov, you have to understand to an extent their personal motivations, how they interacted with their subordinates and superiors, and the lessons they had learned earlier in life. Churchill for instance was shaped by early life experiences in Cuba prior to the Spanish-American War and during the Boer War, and by his serving as the civilian head of the Royal Navy. The book is pretty harsh on the British. While clearly liking the British (he is British himself), and greatly impressed by the courage of many of her warriors, again and again he lays into them for shortsightedness, petty infighting, turf wars, and failure to learn from battle. All and all a good book. Less good for an overall history of the war, but better to understand some of the background of the war, some of the personalites involved, and why the two sides did not do better than they did.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent critique of WWII leadership
Review: Len Deighton refers to himself as an amateur historian, but in the same breath reminds us of the words of his friend A.J.P. Taylor that an amateur historian is an historian nonetheless. And as amateurs go, Len Deighton is one of the best. His previous books on World War II have offered novel insights and combined with sharp writing. In "Blood, Tears and Folly" Deighton takes a critical look at the leaders of WWII and many of their decisions, strategic and tactical. He challanges the notion that Rommel was a great general, arguing that he he was a fine divisional commander who wasn't up to the challange of managing Afrika Corps, and it was Rommel's mismanagement as much as anything that resulted in his defeat. While he finds plenty of fault in every country's leaders, political and military, most of Deighton's criticism is reserved for his own country's ministers and generals. He is particularly incensed at the rigid class system in Great Britain that resulted in positions of command being given out based on birth, punished innovation, and nearly lost the war before it began. Deighton has harsh criticism for for men like "Bomber" Harris, who wasted thousands of lives pursuing a strategy that produced few results, and denied close air support to troops who needed it. All in all an excellently argued, well documented and entertaining piece of work that belongs in the library of anyone interested in WWII history.
Rating:
Summary: Blood, Tears and Folly
Review: Outstanding - an absolute must read for any WWII buff. Deighton gives an inside look at the key strategies, decisions, personalities, weapons and battles of the war.
Rating: 
Summary: An Interesting Perspective
Review: Perhaps Deighton realized while writing this book that he had bitten off more than he could chew. He devotes six roughly equal sections to various components of the war. As a Yank, I must give him a little slack for focusing the subject of the book on the European war, and in fact I think that the section on the Pacific/Japanese war would better have been left out of the mix (and perhaps replaced with an additional section on Europe). As I was reading the book, it really struck me how much Deighton was going out of his way to expose the manner in which the Axis lost the war, rather than the way in which the Allies won it. A thorough examination of mistakes and miscalculations by the senior leadership provides some good insight into why lady luck always seemed to be with the Brits. Overall, I would recommend this book thoroughly, especially the section on the battle of the Atlantic, in which Deighton gives some startling figures as to the number of ships sunk and men lost over the course of the war in keeping the British and Russians supplied. Interestingly enough, there are many myths that Deighton makes great effort to dispell, and these do provide some additional interest for the book. I suppose that this makes it somewhat novel, and provides a bit more of an objective view of the war and how it was fought than is traditionally presented. Even so, when I read book after book that provides conflict with Deighton, I ask myself if he was right. At least he made me think about it. Worth reading, and oddly enough a fairly brisk read despite its length.
| 
