<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: A Narrow Margin of Victory?
Review: Russell F. Weigley, a military historian at Temple University, used Freeman's classic Lee's Lieutenants as an inspirational model for his effort to produce a one-volume account of the Allied campaign in northwest Europe in 1944-1945. While Allied forces are addressed the main focus of this book concerns American strategy, doctrine and operations. Weigley's hypothesis is that American war-fighting doctrine called for a war of annihilation against enemy armies by means of a "power-thrust" with massed armies and material, but that the actual conduct of the campaign deviated from this doctrine. Furthermore, due to mistakes made in the War Department, Eisenhower was forced to fight with inadequate means and according to Weigley, the US had mobilized "just enough resources to win by a narrow margin." Weigley's main hypothesis about the US "power-thrust" doctrine is similar to the modern-day Powell doctrine of massive force. Based upon study of the US Civil War and the First World War, American war planners envisioned overwhelming and destroying enemy armies by massive and sustained application of combat power. Unfortunately, Weigley concludes that this theory was undermined in reality by the coalition strategy and inadequate US military mobilization. The British, who were initially the senior partner in the alliance, preferred to avoid costly head-on battles against the main German armies in favor of indirect approach through the peripheries, like Italy and the Balkans. Yet even once the British acquiesced to an invasion of France, the lack of adequate forces inhibited the Allied campaign. Weigley states, that "the basic trouble was that the Anglo-American alliance had not given Eisenhower enough troops to carry it [Allied strategy] out safely," and the "mobilizing [of] a ninety-division army for the Second World War was not an altogether impressive performance for a superpower." Lack sufficient infantry replacements and a galling shortage of artillery ammunition in the Fall of 1944 greatly weakened the US armies at a critical point in the campaign. Lacking sufficient divisions, Eisenhower was unable to either mass his forces for a breakthrough or assemble a strategic reserve to deal with unexpected contingencies. When the Germans struck in the Ardennes in December 1944, the Americans were forced to throw in partly trained units and precious airborne infantry to stop tanks, exposing the 90-division army as a risky gamble. Weigley's argument about inadequate resources bears serious consideration, but the argument is incomplete. While it is a fact that Eisenhower lacked an adequate number of divisions in late 1944, the reasons were due more to lack of strategic priorities rather than poor mobilization policies in Washington DC. Although President Roosevelt had called for a "Germany First" strategy - and the British concurred - the Allied chiefs of staff had violated this preference by not ruthlessly trimming secondary and tertiary theatres. While Eisenhower was scrambling to come up with adequate troops in the Fall/Winter of 1944, there were 6 US divisions in Italy and 26 in the Pacific. The British were even worse, committing only 12 commonwealth divisions to northwest Europe but leaving 5 divisions in Italy and several more in Burma. Slim's 14th Army in Burma was allowed to waste 18,000 high-quality infantrymen in the fruitless "Chindit" operations. If the Chiefs of Staff had adhered to the "Germany First" strategy, they would have ordered a defensive posture with residual forces in Italy and Burma and scaled back offensive operations in the Pacific. Thus the problem was not inadequate resources, but failure to reign in competing strategies and practice economy of force. A positive feature of this work is the light it sheds on the virtually-forgotten operational-level US commanders of the Second World War, corps commanders such as Corlett, Haislip, Eddy and Middleton. Other than Bradley and Patton, most US wartime commanders tend to appear as ciphers, if at all. Despite the title, this book unfortunately misses the opportunity to present a study in command that would profile the US operational-level commanders. One issue that is apparent is the poor selection methods used to choose senior American commanders; George C. Marshall's famous list was a ridiculous method for a major power to select its combat leaders. Only Patton and Van Fleet of the 23 senior US combat commanders in northwest Europe had been wounded in action and many such as Bradley and Devers, had missed the First World War altogether. Patch, who lacked any combat experience, was chosen to command the 7th Army over the much-experienced Collins because Patch was a favorite of Marshall's. On the other hand, Marshall's whimsy excluded Van Fleet from senior command for most of the war, but Van Fleet went on to become a very successful combat leader in Europe and Korea. Weigley also tends to nurture the shibboleth about German combat superiority by stating that, "the German army remained qualitatively superior to the American army, formation for formation" for most of the campaign in northwest Europe. While there were painful episodes in the bocage and the Huertgen Forrest of German forces inflicting heavy losses on US units, the argument of German tactical superiority does not square with the facts. In September 1944, the much-maligned US armor units were able to smash four German panzer brigades in two weeks in essentially even-odds combat. In December 1944, the thinly-spread and badly-bruised 28th Division was able to delay superior German armored forces in the early stages of the Battle of the Bulge. While the Germans were certainly better than the Americans at quickly rebuilding units from odds and ends, German tactical superiority was at best confined to the elite panzer units by 1944. Furthermore, American troops demonstrated improved tactical ability by late 1944, having learned many lessons in the previous six months. Weigley's conclusion that, "in the end, it was its preponderance of material resources that carried its army through to victory in World War II," is out of synch with his "army of emptiness" and "inadequate force" arguments.
Rating: 
Summary: Out of his Depth
Review: Russell Weigley needs to stay away from the military history of combat operations. He is seemingly uncomfortable with it, and doesn't understand soldiers. He is at his best writing organizational histories or theoretical works, such as his History of the United States Army. His analysis is flawed in this volume, especially as it refers to the top American commanders and the military virtues and abilities of British general Bernard Montgomery. He is too worshipful of Eisenhower, whose military credentials I have yet to figure out, and is also too laudatory of Bradley, another combat neophyte at the beginning of World War II. Weigley does not give Patton his just due, which is unfortunate. Patton was the only allied general the Germans were afraid of. He led in the 'old Army' style and was a wounded and decorated veteran of WW I. An excellent tactician and strategist, he sw opportunity where Eisenhower and Bradley only saw danger and risk (Patton made the remark that when the two of them got together, they turned timid). Eisenhower and Bradley did poorly in the Ardennes in late 1944, and had their reputations and much esle saved by Patton's daring advance on Bastogne with four divisions, which surprised the Germans, relieved Bastogne, and turned the battle around. For this herculean effort, he received no thanks from either. Mant gomery's solid performance on the northern flank of the Bulge received little in the way of gratitude. Eisenhower as supreme commander couldn't lose the war, given the preponderance of men and equipment that he had. However, it was important how he won it. His timidity and plodding broad front advance failed to reach Berlin when he could have, and pulled patton out of Prague, which was promptly occupied by the Russians and doomed the Czech's to occupation, plundering, and more suffering. Much of the problems of the cold war can be laid at Eisenhower's feet. Weigley fails to bring any of this out, thereby selling certain gallant gentlemen, in addition to Patton, very short on their contributions in Europe. This volume has some value as the events are correct. As an analysis of generalship, it is poor-as military history, it fails.
Rating:
Summary: Blundering to Victory
Review: This book is an in-depth, critical critique of the western campaign in Europe after D-Day. Although as dry as the technical journals used as source material, the first three chapters contain the bulk of Weigley's thesis. After a lengthy comparison, he clearly states that the Wehrmacht, even as last as January, 1945, was the best army in the world. "With unvarying consistency it had achieve proportionately greater results than any other army for the numbers of men and divisions it employed." It took the vast industrial power of the United States, and the combined arms of the British Commonwealth, Soviet Union, the U.S. and France to finally break the Germans. The Wehrmacht survived and won with a highly trained and competent officer corps and strong unit loyalty among the men. The U.S. Army was woefully short in these traits. Disgusted French and British officers referred to the Americans as "our Italians" during the campaign in North Africa. The U.S. Army transformed itself into a modern, professional fighting force through its service schools. The Army's concept of war was heavily influenced by its greatest generals up to that point in time: Grant and Lee. Since Grant won, his influence was stronger in the Army. Americans tried to emulate his approach to war by trying to use artillery in a head-on confrontation in an effort to destroy the enemy. Although Grant's influence was predominate, there were generals like George S. Patton, Jr. and John S. Wood, who were swayed by Lee's legacy of maneuver for oblique attack. It is then no surprise that the only part of the U.S. Army that the Germans respected was the artillery and that Patton was the general they feared the most. Given this overall effort of trying to destroy the enemy with a mass of shells, logistics was extremely important to the Americans. Indeed, Weigley devotes two chapters to the role that logistics played in slowing down the allied advance. The Germans, as a result, had enough time to regroup and prevent an allied breach of the Reich. Supply shortages became critical during the Battle of the Bulge, when U.S. units began to run out of ammunition. Weigley's portrayal of Eisenhower is not quite as harsh. He had a talent at getting people to work together. Ike, however, vacillated on several strategic decisions. He also treated allied armies as being interchangeable entities. Weigley's Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery is a bold and creative leader, given the severe manpower problems the British faced at this point in the war. Monty, however, had little strategic vision and inflamed national tensions in the allied command with his public belittling of the Americans. Patton is treated as a brilliant, but able general. Like many other military historians, Weigley argues against claims that President Franklin D. Roosevelt won the war by lost the peace. He, however, makes this contribution not with an emphasis on strategy, but on quality. Many historians have argued that alternative strategies would not have avoided the Cold War. Weigley, instead, contends that without the Soviets the Americans could never have beaten a force as good as the Wehrmacht. There are two shortcomings in this impressive study. Weigley presents the Germans as monolithic. The three German land forces--the Wehrmacht, the Waffen-SS, and the Luftwaffe paratroopers--did not fight in the same fashion as one another. Also, he fails to take into account the effect that Hilter's purge, which followed the failed attempt on his life, had on the Wehrmacht. Many officers were arrested and executed after July 20, 1944. All in all, an impressive read with much merit.
Rating:
Summary: Blundering to Victory
Review: This book is an in-depth, critical critique of the western campaign in Europe after D-Day. Although as dry as the technical journals used as source material, the first three chapters contain the bulk of Weigley's thesis. After a lengthy comparison, he clearly states that the Wehrmacht, even as last as January, 1945, was the best army in the world. "With unvarying consistency it had achieve proportionately greater results than any other army for the numbers of men and divisions it employed." It took the vast industrial power of the United States, and the combined arms of the British Commonwealth, Soviet Union, the U.S. and France to finally break the Germans. The Wehrmacht survived and won with a highly trained and competent officer corps and strong unit loyalty among the men. The U.S. Army was woefully short in these traits. Disgusted French and British officers referred to the Americans as "our Italians" during the campaign in North Africa. The U.S. Army transformed itself into a modern, professional fighting force through its service schools. The Army's concept of war was heavily influenced by its greatest generals up to that point in time: Grant and Lee. Since Grant won, his influence was stronger in the Army. Americans tried to emulate his approach to war by trying to use artillery in a head-on confrontation in an effort to destroy the enemy. Although Grant's influence was predominate, there were generals like George S. Patton, Jr. and John S. Wood, who were swayed by Lee's legacy of maneuver for oblique attack. It is then no surprise that the only part of the U.S. Army that the Germans respected was the artillery and that Patton was the general they feared the most. Given this overall effort of trying to destroy the enemy with a mass of shells, logistics was extremely important to the Americans. Indeed, Weigley devotes two chapters to the role that logistics played in slowing down the allied advance. The Germans, as a result, had enough time to regroup and prevent an allied breach of the Reich. Supply shortages became critical during the Battle of the Bulge, when U.S. units began to run out of ammunition. Weigley's portrayal of Eisenhower is not quite as harsh. He had a talent at getting people to work together. Ike, however, vacillated on several strategic decisions. He also treated allied armies as being interchangeable entities. Weigley's Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery is a bold and creative leader, given the severe manpower problems the British faced at this point in the war. Monty, however, had little strategic vision and inflamed national tensions in the allied command with his public belittling of the Americans. Patton is treated as a brilliant, but able general. Like many other military historians, Weigley argues against claims that President Franklin D. Roosevelt won the war by lost the peace. He, however, makes this contribution not with an emphasis on strategy, but on quality. Many historians have argued that alternative strategies would not have avoided the Cold War. Weigley, instead, contends that without the Soviets the Americans could never have beaten a force as good as the Wehrmacht. There are two shortcomings in this impressive study. Weigley presents the Germans as monolithic. The three German land forces--the Wehrmacht, the Waffen-SS, and the Luftwaffe paratroopers--did not fight in the same fashion as one another. Also, he fails to take into account the effect that Hilter's purge, which followed the failed attempt on his life, had on the Wehrmacht. Many officers were arrested and executed after July 20, 1944. All in all, an impressive read with much merit.
Rating: 
Summary: The Best Single Volume History of the NW European Campaign
Review: This book is exactly that as it provides a wealth of detail that others merely gloss over. This book is not a tired recitation of the standard WWII European theatre timeline = D-Day, nothing much, Cobra, Race Across France, nothing much, the Battle of the Bulge, marking time, The Rhine, German Surrender. The author presents a thorough operational history of all facets of the campaign including details on such little studied topics as; a.)The Cherbourg Peninsula campaign b.) The Aachen / Roer fighting in Oct. '44 c.) The Hurtigen Forrest fighting d.) Operation Dragoon - the invasion of Southern France in Aug. of '44 e.) The Colmar Pocket f.) Patton's Palatine campaign of '45 g.) The role of the French Army in Alsace and Lorraine In addition the author fixes American strategy in the tradition of the "find 'em, fix 'em and destroy 'em" approach to strategy that dates back to US Grant and the Civil War. And he demonstrates the shortcomings of that strategy. Logistics and troop shortages are not neglected either as the author clearly demonstrates that, although the United States possessed much more potential combat power than Germany, the US Army was oftentimes outnumbered (or possessed only a thin superiority) at the point of attack. Original plans at the outbreak of war (for the U.S.) in 1941 called for an American army of 210 divisions. In fact only 89 were formed and not all of those went to NW Europe. The disparity between plans and execution is effectively analyzed by the author. This last point is an important one because it puts to rest that tired old saw that the US Army and their allies simply overwhelmed the 30% of the German army that faced them in the West while all the "real" fighting was done in the East. The book is invaluable because it casts light on those "other" combat commanders - at Corps and Division level - that we hear almost nothing about. Men like Collins, Corlett, Gerow, Eddie, Robertson, Allen, Van Fleet, etc., (the real heroes of the struggle) finally get their due. I would be remiss if I did not mention the author's treatment of that WWII international superstar Bernard Law Montgomery. I feel Weigly is very evenhanded when it comes to Monty. He gives credit where it is due and clearly points out those instances where Monty promises much and delivers little. This approach will surely upset both sides of the debate on Monty's true contributions to the Allied effort. His partisans, weaned on a steady diet of Monty hagiography, will see the author taking sides against their man. Monty bashers will not get enough satisfaction from Weigly's evenhanded approach. In conclusion, f you are interested in this period and have not read this book - get it.
Rating:
Summary: The Best Single Volume History of the NW European Campaign
Review: This book is exactly that as it provides a wealth of detail that others merely gloss over. This book is not a tired recitation of the standard WWII European theatre timeline = D-Day, nothing much, Cobra, Race Across France, nothing much, the Battle of the Bulge, marking time, The Rhine, German Surrender. The author presents a thorough operational history of all facets of the campaign including details on such little studied topics as; a.)The Cherbourg Peninsula campaign b.) The Aachen / Roer fighting in Oct. '44 c.) The Hurtigen Forrest fighting d.) Operation Dragoon - the invasion of Southern France in Aug. of '44 e.) The Colmar Pocket f.) Patton's Palatine campaign of '45 g.) The role of the French Army in Alsace and Lorraine In addition the author fixes American strategy in the tradition of the "find 'em, fix 'em and destroy 'em" approach to strategy that dates back to US Grant and the Civil War. And he demonstrates the shortcomings of that strategy. Logistics and troop shortages are not neglected either as the author clearly demonstrates that, although the United States possessed much more potential combat power than Germany, the US Army was oftentimes outnumbered (or possessed only a thin superiority) at the point of attack. Original plans at the outbreak of war (for the U.S.) in 1941 called for an American army of 210 divisions. In fact only 89 were formed and not all of those went to NW Europe. The disparity between plans and execution is effectively analyzed by the author. This last point is an important one because it puts to rest that tired old saw that the US Army and their allies simply overwhelmed the 30% of the German army that faced them in the West while all the "real" fighting was done in the East. The book is invaluable because it casts light on those "other" combat commanders - at Corps and Division level - that we hear almost nothing about. Men like Collins, Corlett, Gerow, Eddie, Robertson, Allen, Van Fleet, etc., (the real heroes of the struggle) finally get their due. I would be remiss if I did not mention the author's treatment of that WWII international superstar Bernard Law Montgomery. I feel Weigly is very evenhanded when it comes to Monty. He gives credit where it is due and clearly points out those instances where Monty promises much and delivers little. This approach will surely upset both sides of the debate on Monty's true contributions to the Allied effort. His partisans, weaned on a steady diet of Monty hagiography, will see the author taking sides against their man. Monty bashers will not get enough satisfaction from Weigly's evenhanded approach. In conclusion, f you are interested in this period and have not read this book - get it.
Rating:
Summary: This is a very in depth book.
Review: This is one of the best books on the Allied European campaign. Weigley analyses almost all of the main issues of the campaign. Beginning with the tactics and strategies that the opposing sides used, he goes on to the weaponry, and of course the battles themselves. While he doesn't get into the how the soldiers felt etc., he does give the main battles alot of detail going down to the regiment action many times. The main drawback of the book is that the maps are poor and if you don't have a good picture of the battles before you read the book it is hard to follow the book. I also found that because of the book goes down to the regiment, it took a couple of readings to understand it. The main asset of the book is that Weigley put alot of original analysis into the book. As far as the Montgomery controversy goes, Weigley is quite even handed. He appreciates Monty's abilities, but doesn't accept all of Monty's claims at face value. If you have already read other books about WW II like Wilmot's Victory in Europe or Bradley's memoirs, this is a great follow up.
<< 1 >>
|
