Overlord

Hastings strips away the mythology of the "triumphant" march across Western Europe from D-Day to the Falaise Gap. We see instead often confused, all too timid generalship, poor training and worse execution that may have lengthened the European war by months. Hastings is the very best of the current crop of WWII historians. Jerry

When I read history, I want to know both sides of the story. Reading one viewpoint is usually more about propaganda and less about history. Max Hastings satisfies this requirement. When digging into the facts of both the Western Allies (Americans, British, Canadians, Poles, and French) and the Germans and their less enthusiastic allies, Hastings describes bravery and honor on both sides. In addition, you get the warts that many historians gloss over (British reluctance to even embark on a mainland invasion, fairly equal amounts of shootings of POWs by both sides, and others). Most interesting is his indepth look at the contentious relationship between Montgomery and the Americans. Hastings points out that despite lackluster elan demonstrated by British and Canadian forces, it is true that Montgomery (and the USAAF) facilitated the final breakout of American forces (Cobra) by holding down the cream of German forces in Normandy, namely the Waffen-SS Panzer Corps, especially the very aggressive 12th SS Hitler Jugend (Youth) division. Hastings points out that with the exception of scattered German Parachute troops, American forces were tied down by mostly underequipped units made up of old survivors recovered from wounds on the eastern front, so-called volunteers from territories annexed by the Germans on the eastern front, and late-war scrapings of German manpower. Only later in the Normandy campaign did the Americans face some first-rate units, namely 2nd Waffen-SS "Das Reich", whose impact was weakened by constant losses from Allied fighter-bombers before reaching the scene of battle and whose battle-plans were intercepted by Ultra and thus lost the element of surprise (Mortain offensive). Hastings also makes a very interesting point, which does more to praise the U.S. airborne troops recently portrayed in HBO's excellent "Band of Brothers" series. These paratroopers were supposed to be sent back to England once the Allied foothold on the Continent was secured, but because of poor performance by regular infantry divisions, these paratroopers were forced to take the lead again and again in order to make headway against stubborn German resistance. The invaluable contributions made by American Airborne and Rangers and British Commandos should lay to rest the criticisms made by the regular Army leaders that special forces were a drain on top-notch manpower that should have gone to regular units. Though one could argue that these men could have raised the fighting proficiency of regular infantry units, the esprit de corps generated in elite combat units would still be absent. All in all, one gets the impression that Allied victory in Normandy was inevitable given the total Allied superiority in resources (especially air and naval power), but enough unknowns were still in play to make the outcome interesting. One thing is certain, Hitler's manic micromanagement of German strategy certainly was more of a benefit to the Allied cause than anything the Al

I am an italian enthusiast of the battle of Normandy and I read a lot of books on this battle and I must say this is my preferit book. It's similar to the Cornelyus Ryan's "a bridge too far","the longest day" because it uses massively the tales of the soldiers to validate the various problems ,the armies who fought in Normandy had to face in order to try to win this battle that only on the russian front had fightings of a such an intensity. After you read this book you have a clear vision of the problems had the german ,british and american soldiers in two months of fightings. No other book explain,for what I read and I can assure you I read a lot about it,better this point of view and the tactical differences of combat between the german and allied armies. It can be defined an historical treatise for this reason. An excellent book even because it's easy to read and it catches immediately you at difference of other books probably more detailed but that can't offer this splendid insight view for a battle that it has been so important for this century.