Customer Reviews

The Bitter Woods: The Battle of the Bulge

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

There is certainly no shortage of excellent and detailed titles dealing with this subject, from Stephen Ambrose's own "Citizen Soldiers" to John Toland's "Battle" to Charles B. MacDonald's "A Time For Trumpets", yet this, too, is an excellent and inspiring cover of the events leading up to and including the Battle of the Bulge. This book follows in the vein of detailing at the unit level what the war was like for the man on the ground, and incorporates a lot of first person testimony a la Stephen Ambrose.

Thus, the reader is treated to a very thorough look at what the moment-to-moment experience was like from a number of the men who were there to fight it. As Col. Eisenhower was also a career military man following in his famous father's footsteps, he speaks with obvious authority and knowledge about the multitude of factors leading to the engagement on both sides, and one gains an appreciation for his expertise if not for his somewhat pedantic and limited writing skills. Still, the book is an interesting and accessible reading experience.

Of course, since I had already read a number of other titles covering the same ground, much of the material was repetitive, but my impression after finishing it was that "The Bitter Woods" is a very authoritative single volume on the campaign, and that it competes favorably with all the others, although I should not want to so limit myself to a single such source for this, one of the finest moments in American war history. It is stirring to read about the first hand experiences of the tired, overextended, and under armed units of the American forces as they first engage the overwhelming German juggernaut. Beaten to a pulp, they regroup, and surrounded, outnumbered, outgunned, and outmaneuvered, in a desperate hand to hand combat, fight back with hellish ferocity and beat the German forces back.

This account puts to the lie the idea that the only reason we won the war was superior number and endless logistics. Deprived of those two advantages during the extremely bad weather during the worst part of the battle, the U.S. Army simply outfought their German attackers. I personally would recommend you read this book hand in hand with the Toland book ("Battle"), for together they provide a really complete and quite varied look at all of the aspects of one of the most tenaciously fought battles on the western front of the European theater of the Second World War. Enjoy!

The Bitter Woods, historian John S. D. Eisenhower's insightful account of the Ardennes Counteroffensive in the winter of 1944, is one of the best books yet written about the Battle of the Bulge. Along with John Toland's 1959 classic Battle: The Story of the Bulge and the late Charles B. MacDonald's A Time for Trumpets, this volume is a must-read for World War II buffs.

The Ardennes Counteroffensive was the brainchild of Adolf Hitler himself. Even as Soviet forces raced toward Berlin from the east and the Western Allies advanced steadily toward the Rhine in the west, the Fuhrer squirreled away hundreds of tanks and artillery pieces plus thousands of soldiers -- some of them either old men over the age of 50 or young boys no older than 16 -- and planned a daring stroke reminiscent of the Third Reich's triumphs in 1939 and 1940. Three entire armies would strike the Allies in the "quiet" Ardennes forest region of Belgium and Luxembourg and drive to the crucial port of Antwerp. Hitler hoped to drive a wedge between the Anglo-Canadian armies in the north and the American armies in the south and cause inter-Allied political strife. At the very least, the seizure of Antwerp would slow the Allied advance just enough so Nazi Germany could develop "wonder weapons" and rain V-1 and V-2 missiles on London and other Allied cities. At the very best, the Grand Alliance would fall apart and Hitler might be able to negotiate a separate peace with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin.

But even though Hitler's offensive caught the Allies by surprise on Dec. 16, 1944 and created much havoc and confusion, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, supreme commander of the Allied forces, remained relatively calm. The Germans did penetrate the thinly held front and created a salient or "bulge" in the Allied lines, but Eisenhower and his field commanders (Bradley, Hodges, Patton and the various corps and divisional commanders) soon recovered and took decisive measures to contain the German assault.

But generals and colonels, no matter how skilled or determined, can't win battles alone. The Bitter Woods contains many accounts of brave GIs and junior officers who fought tooth and nail to slow and stop Hitler's last desperate gamble in the West. Readers who are just beginning to read about World War II will be in awe of the paratroopers of the 101st Airborne Division who helped hold the surrounded city of Bastogne, whose capture by the Germans was deemed by Hitler as a principal objective if his plan were to succeed. (Bastogne is where Brig. Gen Tony McAuliffe replied to the Germans' demand for surrender with the pithy one-word refusal, "Nuts!") The author, who graduated from West Point in June 1944 and is the Supreme Commander's son, writes about the stand of St. Vith's defenders, the combat engineers who blew bridges in front of the advancing panzer units, the ill-advised massacre of American POWs at Baugnez (the misnamed Malmedy Massacre) by SS troops and the harrowing baptism by fire of the green 106th Infantry Division, which lost two of its regiments in the largest American surrender since Bataan in 1942.

Eisenhower also writes extensively about the campaign in Northwest Europe both before and after the Battle of the Bulge, allowing both the new reader and long-time buff to place this, the largest single battle in U.S. Army history (there were, by January of 1945, over 600,000 soldiers involved), in the context of the liberation of Europe from Nazi tyranny.

Because the book was originally written in 1969, five years before the revelation of the Ultra secret, the account of the Allies' intelligence failure is not as well-explained as in the 1985 book by Charles MacDonald, but aside from that, The Bitter Woods still stands as one of the finest "case studies" of a major battle of World War II.

I've read this book more times than I can count. To me, that's the highest praise I can give. Eisenhower (the author) writes as an historian ought to, with no axes to grind in describing Montgomery's actions, etc. His firsthand knowledge of Army ways and wherefores holds him in good stead: the reader is being shepherded through the material by one in the know who always provides a down-to-earth rational perspective. The story he tells stands on its own as, alternately, a mystery, an excellent character study of the participants (particularly the commanders), and an exciting tale of an event that represented, in my mind, the climatic event of World War II in the European Theater.

COL Eisenhower initially wrote this book to be an analysis of American commanders in a moment of crisis. However, in writing the book, COL Eisenhower gradually changed the book from the analysis of leadership to that of telling the story of the Battle of the Bulge.

The book opens by telling the background of the players and the events leading up to the battle. COL Eisenhower brought up some interesting items (like how poor the US Intelligence arm was during the 1930's) and his opinion on some of the leaders. Unfortunately, while I consider his opinion to be a valid opinion, I found it very prejudice against different leaders, particularly General's Eisenhower (he found no fault with Ike's leadership or handling of the Bulge situation), Bradley (I felt his opinion of Bradley was that of a loyal lap dog), Hodges (very complementary toward him, seemed to feel he was the best Army level general we had), and Patton (his comments about Patton being a weak leader when dealing with a static situation was very interesting). COL Eisenhower follows this with a very good breakdown of what Hitler and his generals did to prepare for the upcoming battle.

COL Eisenhower then told the story of the battle. This was done different that most books I've read on the subject. Initially, he described the entire situation along the front, with the different breakthrough attempts by the Germans (a traditional telling shall we say), working north to south. Unfortunately, the subsequent chapters didn't follow the traditional tell what happened on that day. Instead, focused on telling one situation and how the leaders handled the situation. While good for an analysis of leadership, it makes for telling story of the battle a little harder on the reader (ok, it's December 21st, St. Vith is crumbling, what's the situation down south...). Something that I was very interested in, was how COL Eisenhower felt sorry for General Jones (commander of the 106th ID). This is something that I've never really seen before from other writers on this subject.

Part of the books description says that the book looks at leadership at all levels during the battle. This was something that I felt was done weakly at the lower-to-mid levels (squad to battalion). While COL Eisenhower does describe some of the actions different battlefield leaders made, most of the focus is on the higher leadership. I conceder this to be a weakness in the book.

Rating wise, this has been very difficult. Some parts of the book are very good and thought provoking, while others just lay there. On an Amazon rating of 1-5 stars, I have to give it 3 stars, mainly because it failed it's initial mission (providing a meaningful analysis of American leadership during a crisis) and it's secondary role (telling the story of the Battle of the Bulge) isn't as strong as other books on the subject (Battle by John Toland for example).

Eisenhower has a way of bringing you right into the fight. He covers in great detail the extreme conditions the American GI faced in winter battle. I have read over 25 books on WWII and this is a good one. My one complaint is the book uses so much military jargon that it can be overwhelming for a non military person. He should at least explain in the beginning some of the military terms used. For example, how many men in a platoon, division, etc...(I have the same complaint about most WWII history books). Overall this is a good read for anyone interested in WWII.

This is considered one of the four great books on the Battle of the Bulge. The others are John Toland's Battle, Hugh Cole's official US Army History: The Ardennes: Battle of the Bulge and Charles B. MacDonald's A Time for Trumpets. I have read all but Hugh Cole's book and will review each of them.

The Bitter Woods starts with a good background of the breakout from the Normandy beachhead and takes you up the start of the Bulge. Eisenhower gives you a strategic view of the events leading up to the Bulge. He discusses the strategy that the Allies were using against the Germans. His book gives you much more background of the operations before the Bulge than either Toland's or MacDonald's.

As this book was written in 1968, the knowledge of the Enigma intercepts was not released yet. Eisenhower is still able to discuss the deception operation that the Germans were able to successfully conduct against the Allies.

Once Eisenhower gets to the battle he does a good job of taking you to soldier level battles. MacDonald does a better job but he doesn't set the strategic context as well as Eisenhower. All of these books are detailed enough that they keep you referring to the maps to understand what was happening.

Eisenhower also gives more details of other events that happened during and after the the Bulge such as the German offensive Operation Nordwind. Finally Eisenhower shows the strategy that led to the end of the war in Europe.

Eisenhower provides many details about the leadership. He personally knew them and his father was able to provide many personal details.

While Eisenhower knew both General Omar Bradley and Field Marshall Montgomery, I felt he did a pretty good job of describing the personality conflict between them and did not defer from taking on the issue.

If you are looking for a good book on the Battle of Bulge that places it in its historical context, discusses the leadership, and gives you the big view as well as individual actions, the Bitter Woods is the best book of the three.

The detailed account of the Battle of the Bulge is well written and exhaustive. The description of the personalities involved are excellent particularly given the author's personal connection to most of them. Overall an outstanding read. The only drawback is that at times I found the geography and the various unit displacements hard to follow even with the sector maps provided.

The Bitter Woods is the story of the Battle of the Bulge. Eisenhower succeeds in presenting a clear and concise history of the famed Nazi offensive, though the vastness of the battleground and the number of men involved can make keeping track of the action a daunting task (in defense of the author, neither the huge amounts of men involved, nor my lack of geographical knowledge of Belgium are his fault). Also, he sometimes uses jargon which a non-student of WWII might not know (what is a German burp gun?).
Not to sound as if I am damning The Bitter Wood with faint praise, I would like to say what is right with the book. Eisenhower's organization of the facts could not have been done any better. The inclusion of maps of each engagement greatly help the reader follow the action (though a full size fold-out map of the entire theater would have been welcome). Also, his knowledge of the personalities involved (on both sides, and especially Ike's) make the reasons behind the Allied victory easy to understand.
Exhaustive without being exhausting, The Bitter Woods is what all historical novels should be.

John S. D. Eisenhower's "The Bitter Woods: The Dramatic Story, Told At All Echelons - From Supreme Command to Squad Leader - of the Crisis That Shock the Western Coalition: Hilter's Surprise Ardennes Offensive" is a tour-de-force piece of historical literature. As a former WWII junior officer and son of the Supreme Commander, John Eisenhower writes from a solid first (and extremely close second) hand experience as a soldier in the Allied forces that defeated the Axis forces in NW Europe. More than just a former soldier and son of the leader of the armed coalition of victors, Eisenhower emerges with "The Bitter Woods" as a military historian of the first class. Few accounts of the Battle of the Bulge (as Hitler's Ardennes offensive was oft referred in Allied press accounts and writings since) are as thoroughly researched and broad reaching.

Eisenhower starts his book by providing short, but informative, biographies of the top commanders on the Allied and German sides (unnumbered pages in the 1995 DaCapo Press paperback version reviewed here), followed by an insightful Forward (pp. 17-23) in which he describes the genesis of the book and his views on how "The Bitter Woods" might fit into the literature dedicated to the Bulge. Even if one does not read "The Bitter Woods" in its entirety the Forward alone is worth a look for budding historians and historical authors as a potential guide to understanding ones own work and its worth.

While Eisenhower does not cover in detail the German side of the equation that led to this greatest of American armed conflicts, he is mindful to place the conflict in perspective, both from the Allied and German sides. In fact, 'Book I' of "The Bitter Woods" (pp. 27-102) covers the event leading up to the Ardennes conflict, minus the actual pre-attack preparations (covered in 'Book II'; see below). He deals with strategic and tactical errors made prior to the battle on both Allied and German sides, and sets the stage for the rest of the book, which represents a detailed accounting of the action from grunt to Ike's command.

In 'Book II' (pp. 105-176) Eisenhower details how the Germans prepared for their Ardennes Counteroffensive, and how the Allies missed their chance to snuff the attack before it started. While much of the discussion on the German side remains as valid today as it was when Eisenhower first penned "The Bitter Woods" in the late '60s, his analysis of Allied blunders might be considered by some to be less thorough. It is fair to point out to readers that when Eisenhower wrote "The Bitter Woods", Ultra, the Allied deciphering of German coded communications, was still a Western secret and no historian was yet privy to all of the INTEL that the Allies had at the time of the Ardennes Counteroffensive. In this regard if Eisenhower does miss the mark a bit it is not from a failure on his part in researching or writing the book, but rather from the time in which the book was written, relative to what exactly was available in terms of Allied intel reports. Having said all this it is still arguable that even with Ultra intel the Allies still could not have effectively divined Hitler's intentions (while not the overt intention of the book, "The Ghost Front" by Charles Whiting effectively demonstrates this latter thesis), especially given the Allied mindset that the war was effectively over and the Germans were incapable of mounting a serious offensive, along with the fact that the Germans quite effectively limited use of radio and wire messages during the lead up to D-day (16 December 1944). Thus, in the end despite having a less than complete Allied intel picture, Eisenhower's analyses of Allied blunders are still on fairly solid ground.

In 'Books III (pp. 179-257) and IV (pp. 261-375)', Eisenhower gives his prose to a discussion of the bulk of the battle (16-26 Dec). In particular, Eisenhower presents a lucid and moving, not to mention highly readable, account of the initial attack and breakthroughs the Germans achieved in critical sectors of the US V and VIII Corps sectors and the brave stands of pockets of US forces in stemming these initial breakthroughs. Robert Merriam ("Dark December"), John Toland ("Battle of the Bulge") and Charles MacDonald ("A Time for Trumpets") have also done these events justice with their historical writings. When Eisenhower's accounts are added into this mix one gets a quite full account.

'Book V' covers the US and Allied (Eisenhower gives fair - not too little and not too much - credit to the contributions of Monty's 21st Army Group) final reduction of the German forces west of the Rhine, as well as a chapter entitled 'The Final Analysis', in which he tries (quite effectively) to place the battle in perspective of the ETO and ultimate defeat of the Axis forces in Europe. Like the 'Forward', this final chapter alone is worth reading on its own independent of the great material that precedes it.

In the end "The Bitter Woods" is a 5 star effort that should be read by ALL interested in the greatest of US Army battles, one that to this day exists in the American conscience.

I have read Col John Eisenhower's book and found it rather interesting. He seems to borrow some items from Toland and McDonald, but is rather factual in it's content and is a very well written book. As always most historians spend most of their ink writing about armies, Corps and divisions. The small units tend to fall through the cracks.