Rating: 
Summary: Excellent fox-hole eye view of the Battle of the Bulge
Review: Too much World War II history is told from the perspective of Generals. In recent years, of course, there has been an explosion of narratives that focus on the GIs in the foxholes. Stephen Ambrose's Citizen Soldiers is the classic of this recent literature. (There is an analogy in the movies, by the way. "The Longest Day" and "The Battle of the Bulge" are mostly officer level stories, in contrast to "Saving Private Ryan.") But John Toland's magisterial "Battle: The Story of the Bulge" was one of the earliest examples of the genre of GI historys. Written in 1959, in fact, BATTLE was way ahead of its time. Many of the themes of GI history are present here, such as the emphasis on grunts and the isolation of too many commanders.A core theme of BATTLE is that the Bulge was a crucible in which the American army came of age as a warrior team. American military tactics have long emphasized firepower and technology. (Desert Storm was hardly a novelty.) In large part, this focus has lead to a persistent myth that the British and Germans were better soldiers and that the US won only by virtue of material superiority. BATTLE proves that this is just a canard. BATTLE demonstrates that for much of the Bulge, the US units were out-numbered and out-gunned. But the GIs dug in, held, fought back, and won. And the Bulge became a battle America's foes ought to study with care. Given my considerable admiration for BATTLE, why did I knock off one star? First, I had a hard time keeping track of the plot, as it were. Toland's narrative is a little hard to follow in some places. The maps provided are inadequate both qualitatively and quantitatively...there are too few and those that are included are quite primitive. The lack of an Order of Battle is also a problem, as it the absence of a glossary. Second, a couple of important aspects of the Bulge are inadequately developed. The highly controversial Malmedy massacre gets only abbreviated coverage. Ditto Monty's mishandling of the northern front and the difficulties that resulted for the Allied coalition's unity. The lack of strategic insight, of course, is not atypical in the GI history genre. Despite those quibbles, this is a masterpiece of narrative history. Any student of World War II will find it of great interest. Highly recommended.
| 
