Decision in the West: The Atlanta Campaign of 1864 (Modern War Studies)

Rating:
Summary: Not the last word.......
Review: This is probably the best book about the Atlanta campaign, however let nobody think it is the last word. I do not wish to repeat the positive aspects mentioned in the other reviews - the book is of panoramic sweep and quite insightful. My negative comment (which is really a response to the author's conclusions) is: is is really so bad that Sherman was a 'raider' rather than a 'battler'? Henry Hattaway and Archer Jones concluded in 'How the North won' that the raiding strategy adopted by Grant and Sherman was the eventual war- winning strategy that sapped the heart of the Southern war effort and morale. Looking at it this way shows that the Grant/ Sherman combination succeeded in 1864/65 where the Lee/ Jackson partnership had failed in 1862/ 63 i.e implement a victorious strategy. Grant, whose vision created this strategy and who found its most successful implementer in Sherman, deserves most of the credit. Castel seems to assume that the territory-occupying, battle-fighting strategy of pre-1864 was the way to continue, however he may be wrong in not crediting Grant and Sherman for inventing and implementing a new way of making war. The debate will no doubt continue.

Rating:
Summary: one of the best books on the Atlanta campaign
Review: This proves to be one of the best books ever written on the Atlanta Campaign. The research and details of the campaign proves to be superbly done and the author writes with great deal of clarity and understanding. The book provides a great deal of footnotes, its pretty clear that the author totally understand his subject matter. While it is very detail, its also very readable and that is an asset since this book can be read by almost any one who is interested in this subject.

The author wrote in his preface that he may be bit harsh toward General Sherman and he is. He also wrote that he is writing this book as if the event was unfolding and that is also good. However, the two approaches does not match since the author is very harsh toward Sherman but only due to hindsight and research that he can be so critical of Sherman. Sherman didn't benefit from the author's hindsights and research so he was making mistakes that the author pointed them out with great relish. Is this a fair approach? The author also seem to have a bone to picked with Liddell Hart's military biography of Sherman. He definitely don't like that book and made every effort to debunked it. While the author is hard on Sherman, he is also quite hard on the Confederate commanders, Johnson and Hood. It may sound like the author don't care for any army commander of any army during this campaign. I thought the book sometime read like two commanders were playing "dumb and dumber" act.

Still, it does go through the Atlanta campaign with an certain level of authority and it does helped clear up many elements of the campaign which have not been very clear before. Outside of the author's treatment of Sherman, Johnson and Hood, three stooges that can't do much right, the book does a great job.