Blood, Tears, and Folly: An Objective Look at World War II

I think this book is a excellent book because it talks more of the British than the US. I have noticed in many, many books about World War II, that they mention, in passing of the British. I don't think it's right to heap the credit on the Americans and just put a dusting of credit on the British. Therefore, that's why this book is a excellent book.

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.

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.

Despite its subtitle, this is NOT an 'objective look' at World War II. Whatever else Len Deighton may be - and he is certainly a terrific writer - this book bristles with opinions and may fairly be viewed as a long argument, using very detailed analyses of weapons, events and personalities, to demonstrate that much of what is now taken for true about the war is myth. Deighton takes especial delight in puncturing certain British pomposities, and while he is not the first, he is certainly one of the best writers to turn the spotlight of a considerable intelligence on stupid and self-serving decision making. He shows repeatedly the human cost of decisions that seem to have been made out of misplaced allegiance to a particular branch of the service or from clinging to unfounded beliefs in the face of all conflicting evidence. He seems to be saying to his English audience that though Britain 'won' the war, it was only through exceptional sacrifice, accident and outside intervention.While this book can be enjoyed as a war history - heavy on specifics related to combat on sea, land and in the air and light on political and social aspects - it is especially interesting as argument. The comparison of weapons systems, especially in light of the brief histories that Deighton presents showing how each country had positioned itself (or not) for the war, allows the reader to see much that was already known in an entirely different light. We leave this book feeling as though we have really learned something new. No mean feat when we consider that this is the most written about war of all time.Deighton manages to make his use of detail and specific anecdote work by employing his skill as a story teller. And his story becomes more significant because it is really a very involved argument. This is a book that is satisfying on many levels and one I strongly recommend to anyone interested in the history of our era. One doesn't have to agree with Deighton's opinions to appreciate the clarity of his writing and thought. This is simply one terrific book.

Blood, Tears, and Folly by Len Deighton is described by the publishers as an "objective look at World War II", in fact the claim appears in the title. Whether it is totally objective is debatable, but it provides the reader with some fascinating, sometimes humorous, insights into the motivations and capabilities of the leaders on both sides. Rommel comes over as a man obsessed with his place in German history, but not nearly as much the genius as he is claimed to be. Goring is described as a vain drug addict who wears makeup and falls asleep during important conferences. Virtually everyone else, including Churchill, is displayed with all of their warts in plain view. According to Deighton, both sides entered the war with an astonishing lack of understanding of the use of air power...For example neither the Germans nor the British showed any insight into the capabilities of jet engine (invented years before), rejecting the principal out of hand until it was too late. Deighton also reveals that that the octane level of gasoline played an important part in the air war. The Germans apparantly lacked "a tiger in their tank" Senior officers in the British services are depicted as stubborn boneheads who spend as much time in inter-service rivalry as they do in warfare. The German leaders appear to be much the same. An excellent addition to anyone's history library, and well worth reading. However, there are some strange omissions...For example, Patton does not appear in the book, a rather obvious absence that reflects somewhat curiously on the claim of "objectivity".