Max Hastings

I can't come up with the British officer's name (perhaps someone can help here with the identity) who said words to the effect, "We fought across Europe using a maximum amount of explosives and a minimum amount of finesse."

It is illogical to assume that just because the German supreme leader got his country woefully over-extended in a war, that means the British had a better army. This is not to imply that the British soldier wasn't brave and dedicated-they were indeed. However, they had problems with air-ground coordination (better by 1944), infantry-tank cooperation, and a lack of skills in infiltration tactics.

 

I can see why deep experts, the people who have studied war in granular detail, might be a bit sniffish about Max Boot's work and give voice to a quibble here and there. But for the rest of us, his broad grasp and stylish writing put us in the picture right where we want to be.

 

I find that your preconceptions shape how you see an author/book.
If you believe in the innate superiority of the German soldier and numbers alone decided the war then you will love anything translated from German, Max Hastings, Keegan Reynolds etc.
You are comforted by the fact 'experts' reinforce your view.
Hasting's makes more than a few errors and his conclusions are simply opinion. His view is very much the cold war view of WW2 written by the defeated Generals.
If you read Terry Coop you find other opinions.

 

I believe any US officer could say the same thing. Why single out the Commonwealth for this criticism?
Have you seen the devastation of the villages and towns in the path of COBRA?

 

I agree and when I see someone saying it I will point out their error.
Who said it and where did they say it?

You make a common error. Clearly you have a somewhat less than flattering picture of the Commonwealth in Normandy.
I say your conclusions are mistaken and you take that to mean I claim a superiority for 'my team'.
I did not.
I do however take great exception to baseless criticism and anyone pointing out a specific 'fault' of the commonwealth better make sure their own team did not have the same fault because I will highlight it.

 

If we look Max Hasting's works he basicly advocates in tactical and equal terms German Army and German fighting men performed much better. They were much more experienced , better trained , better led and better armed with high quality arms in small scale tactical basis. BUT he continues like that : Armies or soldiers of Western democracies were not devoid of courage , sacrifice , training , experience or good leadership. They were just by products of their societies. Actually a lot of Allied generals recognized what they were : Citizen Soldiers , civilians in uniform. Ordinary people who wished to finish the job and continue their lives in a peaceful society. An British infantryman said : "German loved the war. We did not" Now that is an exegeration. German soldiers were not war junkies. They also disliked the war. Just memoirs from Eastern Front proves this. And nor each of them were Superman as popular history mixed entertainment portrays them to be. It is just "Germany was preparing short them total knockout fast campaign type wars (press summarized this as Blitzkrieg) since 19th Century." They were essantially half militarized ever since Kaiser became Emperor in Hall of Mirrors in 1871. Ever since German states were united and Reich was created in 1871 German Armed Forces grew in size , in quality , in efficiency because Army almost became sacred and untouchable in culture and society , free to pursue its on interests and autonomous in the name of German nation without any civilian oversight. One French statesman actually said : "In every state army serves state but in Prussia state serves the army" That nails it. And their superiorty in military efficiency lays not because they were superman. They were just started first in developing and preparing short term fast victorious campaigns against unprepared foes. Their organizational structure , officer training , battlefield instincts , initiative taking , battleplans all were products of a preparation of 60+ years. And they were just ahead a few key points in arts of modern warfare. That's it. Once Allies learned these key points , neutrilized them or copied them what did German herrenvolk had ? Nothing. Their state started and continued the war in a criminally unprepared way in economy , logistics and strategy. Their initial fast victorious campaigns were won because they were preparing for that kind of invasions , aggressions for long time and they won their first successes against enemies who were much less prepared than them in tactical , strategical and political aspects. That speaks so much better for Allied societies (even for Russians who were under a little better despotism than Germans ) Allied soldiers fought yes sometimes ameteurishly and mediocre or bad command but they got the job done and returned their former lives. It was easy that the total victory they won got above their heads and start another war between each other. Cold War might have turned to hot war. It did not. Because they were under better leaders and better political systems and mostly more sensible commanders who stayed away from freakish military adventures. Germans whose militarized society and state let them down at the end.

Besides were every German soldier a Fallschmjager (paratrooper ) who fought in Monte Cassino or a SS tank ace like Michael Wittmann who attacked a British advance column with a few Tiger tanks and got away with his life ? (that attack was irresponsibly reckless by the way. He lost all four in tanks in that engagement. When he tried to pull same feat a few weeks later he got himself and everyone under his command killed ) LOL. When Allies landed in Normandy they were opposed by a lot of low quality OST battalions ( Polish or Russian POWs who were pressed in Wehrmacht for not to starve in camps ) A german general said "When we ask Poles or Russians to fight in France against British and Americans for Germany we ask a little bit too much" Ridicilousness of whole situation did not escape even from him. Even those elite panzer troops or infantrymen screwed up their counter attacks in any Allied bridgehead during war because they were foolish enough to operate under the range of Allied air superiorty and naval gunnery and against an enemy in prepared position who fought back and learned a few things about destroying heavy panzers advancing without infantry cover (that was how 12th SS "Hitlerjugend" Division attacked during June 1944 in Normandy and got mauled. They were not above tactical mistakes themselves either )

 

Indeed my impression is that the US relied on it even more than the British. Doing so made a lot of sense. It was the area where the western allies had a huge advantage over the Germans and using it saved US and British lives.

 

A few more points about superiorty of German Army. Did you know that Max Hastings and Rick Atkinson (who is the writer of Liberation Trilogy : An Army At Dawn , Day of Battle and Guns at Last Light) are great friends ? At least they appear so. Both of them were war correspondents and embedded journalists (Hastings in Falklands War , Atkinson in Iraq ) In youtube there are several clips of them (especially Atkinson speaks highly of Hastings ) even one they talk each other about theie wartime experiences. That being said Atkinson (I think justly) dismisses Hastings' view of superiorty of German army or German soldier over equal size of an Allied force or soldier as irrevelant. "So...?" shrugs Atkinson. "Did that make Germans victorious ? No. Because global total war is much more than one to one military efficiency or sportsmanship match. It is a clash of systems. Which system proved to be right one in transporting , deploying a series of huge armies overseas (in several theaters around the globe !) sustaining them , feeding , clothing , providing necessary no excessive amount of weaponary , ammunition and created a large scale winning strategy ? Axis or Allies ?" Now I do not find works of Atkinson faultless. His Liberation Trilogy is just too US centric (unlike Hastings whose Overlord/Armageddon/Nemesis gives a look to everyone Americans , Brits , Canadians , Germans , Japanese etc ) But in terms comparing military and total war comparision Atkinson is mostly right. Since when war supposed to be a even game , a sportsmanship , chivalrious affair , a romantic adventure etc anyway. You use your assets and your aces advantages in best way , utilize your resources with least amount of mistakes or casaulties (another moral advantage of Allies was they tend to save , spare lives of their combat personnel as much as possible for practical reasons while trying to achieve their strategic goals. Not burying 300.000 men in Stalingrad because of an idelogical pissing match with Stalin might have been a good idea ) Don't you think if Germans or Japanese had same material resources or firepower they would not use it ? It actually shows ignorance or weakness of Axis leaders and High Commands. Japanese militist generals thought that after capturing South East Asia and South Pacific it would be impossible for US to recover them. Yamamato who saw and travelled west and USA suggested otherwise. That did not listen because that did not fit their narrow militaristic/nationalistic ideology. They believed seishin moral power was everything. In that sense I think Allies proved better because they tended to preserve the lives of their soldiers. Not every Japanese or German was highly proffesional soldier willing to die for Emperor or Fuhrer. A lot of them wanted to live too. When things began to south for Allies in later stages of war and German or Japanese generals threw their mens lives away a lot of their men saw the writing too. I am right now reading memoirs of U-Boat commander and surprised that so many German naval personel actually despised Doenitz and Hitler in last years of war and complained the way war was conducted or sustaining it when the writing was on the wall. Not everyone born as a soldier hero. And there is nothing wrong in utilizing superior materiel quantity , production or firepower. It is stupidity of Axis not to count them into equation before they declared war on most industrilized and most populized and resource rich states of world.

It is just popularized history or entetainment history tended to lionize especially Germanic blond herrenwolk image because of their outlook and achievemets throughout the war (especially in initial stages against weaker opponents in one way to another or against immensely powerful opponents in material or firepower in later years of war) because war was seen as a sporting match where everyone supposed to be equal , chivalrous concept , an abstract game or romantic adventure with absolute good or evil (with good have no advantage and evil has every resıource like a fictional tale ) historical facts tended to be more twisted about Axis and Allied war efforts. When war supposed to be on equal terms ? Do you think Allies were equal in experience , training/drill , military culture and efficiency in tactics honed for decades , equipment designed for tactical needs with Germans ? It is not surprising Allies were still catching up even in later stages of war. Do you think quantity supposed to be everything and Allies supposed be victorious because of that ? Better weapons (in some aspects ) in front makes you a war winner ? Militarized society is invincible ? Just because Germans got better results at front with less resources (that dazzles people most about WW2) did not make them war winners. They threw that advantage because of bad strategy , (non existent strategy ) , impossible war goals and economic , logistical inepititude.

 

People who refer dismissively to "popularized history" sometimes mean readable history. But the ordinary reader is unwilling to wade through dense hedgerows of inelegant prose to find out what happened; they prefer broad strokes to pointillist detail. I look at the likes of Boot and Atkinson as people I hire to read the original sources and interview people who were there to give me a finished product that adheres to the rough shape of the truth and doesn't bore me silly half way through the first chapter. Are they always right in the details? Of course not; they're only human, and there others plenty of others out there in a position to point out where they went wrong. Even the people who dig the deepest into detail to prove why this tactic or that strategy was wrong-headed can find themselves challenged as to the facts. The hot skirmishes I've seen since visiting this website are proof of that.

 

I'm almost the opposite. I think that just about everyone was superior, just at different things. For instance as I mentioned above the British and American artillery systems were far supperior to just about everyone elses. If you look at the details the British were supperior to the Americans in some areas and inferior in others but over all they were roughly on a par. On the otherhand the German tactical system and the way they formed their units (at least until it broke down) was clearly supperior to the allied. As for the Soviets they and the Japanese showed a willingness to sacrafice that other countries wouldn't even consider. However it's clear at the highest level the allied military was supperior to that of the Axis the proof being the final result.

 

I am not dissing Hastings or Atkinson because they are "readeble". On the contrary I am glad writers skilled like them are writing about WW2 and introducing war and its concept to general public in an easy to read way. Their works are great. They really display horror of that era and conditions those men were in. It is just the way some of them could be interpeted to reinforce "Nazi Supermen" or "German Army was the finest , excellent in war" myths. If they were so perfect why they lost the war ? German apologists or some revisonist excuses are gaining more and more revelance in public and popular image of history. Some say "Allies cheated" Cheated why because they used only advantages the had , utilized aces they could like firepower , numerical superiorty , material abudance. If it is cheating so be it. I am glad they saved so many of their men by doing that and I am sure Allied fighting men on front did not complain about extra firepower or more motorized vehicles , air superiorty if it could save their lives in engaging with an enemy which had defensive ground advantage , high quality weapons and had high proffesional skill in both defense and offense. They couldn't be improvisors or expoiters in battlefield like Germans on battlefield. They simply couldn't , they were not prepared or trained that way for that long. So they covered these disadvantages in other aspects. They couldn't take casaulties like Russians or Chinese ( I am sure they would love to have these luxuries like material or firepower. In battlefield they used their only advantage they had : manpower quantity and their societies suffered terribly for that ) Western societies and political systems couldn't handle that. So that makes any American , British , Canadian , French , Commonwealth soldiers efforts much more impressive in my opinion. Unlike Russians or Chinese their homeland were not in direct danger in short term but they prevailed anyway.

Germans did not win every tactical engagement and Allied triumph can not be attibuted to only material , numerical and firepower superiorty. It is as just some Allied failures despite these advantages seem incompatance and disappointing in light of they were suposed to be "good guys". Allied sucesses with these conditions seem "unfair". And some German victories in face of adverse conditions and with a friction of enemy resources seem so dazzling in hindsight.

 

I'm on page page 274 of 'Inferno' . He writes about several U-boat officers by name and quotes them and them comes up with the following from left field with no names or footnotes. Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't. I'll just skim the rest of this one as he's thrown a lot of these in before. I'm sorry I spent $35 on it

In 1944 an experienced U-boat captain ordered his officers to remove a picture of Htler from a bulkhead saying, "There will be no Idolatory here." He was denounced, accused of undermining the crew's fighting spirit, arrested and executed.

 

Dave,
Kusch:
http://www.uboat.net/men/kusch.htm

 

Thanks for that, VP. That was an interesting story about a brave man. And it was filled with the names and details that I enjoy reading about.
I would have expected Hastings to at least include the man's name and a footnote. Maybe I'm being too critical

 

Havn't read his work but looking on new's reports on his book Nemisis: The Battle for Japan, By their reports on his writings of his research into the AMF/AIF Im not sure I want to spend the money on one of his books, According to said reports at one point in the book he goes on to say that not enough Australians died in the Pacific. While not knowing thefull context I find it difficult for such a statement in any context to make any sense. Only a moron in my view would complain that not enough soldiers died (If I or the new's reports on said statement are incorrect please correct me).

 

"...not enough Australians died in the Pacific."

I believe that is what his Australian critics say that he says. From what I remember, he makes the point that the Australian soldiers performed gloriously in the early and mid parts of the war, but came to an inglorious end when they didn't want to be sent to fight in Burma, and the Americans did not utilize them to finish Japan, but side-lined them in pointless mopping-up operations which needlessly shed Australian blood.

I do believe that he does exaggerate with some of his claims here, but he does have a point - that Australian ground troops, for many reasons, were essentially "side-lined" from 1944 on.

 

I read the book when it first came out, but that's what I remember as well. He specifically emphasized the "mopping up" operations.

 

Oh I agree the Aussie were side lined to mopping up thanks to Dougout Doug but I disagree with Hastings assesment of the apperant low marol amongst the Diggers and mutinous behaviour.

Sounds as if he is a decent writer but lacking in the research department.

 

From what I remember, he blamed their low morale on the fact that they were relegated to what were essentially useless operations later in the war. I'm going to dig out the book later and see if I can find the relevant chapter. I honestly didn't find what he said that offense, and saw where he was coming from (and I'm part Australian).