Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(19)
4 star:		(12)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

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.

Perhaps Deighton realized while writing this book that he had bitten off more than he could chew. He devotes six roughly equal sections to various components of the war. As a Yank, I must give him a little slack for focusing the subject of the book on the European war, and in fact I think that the section on the Pacific/Japanese war would better have been left out of the mix (and perhaps replaced with an additional section on Europe).

As I was reading the book, it really struck me how much Deighton was going out of his way to expose the manner in which the Axis lost the war, rather than the way in which the Allies won it. A thorough examination of mistakes and miscalculations by the senior leadership provides some good insight into why lady luck always seemed to be with the Brits.

Overall, I would recommend this book thoroughly, especially the section on the battle of the Atlantic, in which Deighton gives some startling figures as to the number of ships sunk and men lost over the course of the war in keeping the British and Russians supplied.

Interestingly enough, there are many myths that Deighton makes great effort to dispell, and these do provide some additional interest for the book. I suppose that this makes it somewhat novel, and provides a bit more of an objective view of the war and how it was fought than is traditionally presented. Even so, when I read book after book that provides conflict with Deighton, I ask myself if he was right. At least he made me think about it.

Worth reading, and oddly enough a fairly brisk read despite its length.

This book is essentially a multitude of various articles about differing aspects of the early years of World War II. Each article in itself I enjoyed reading and learned a lot of new facts as well as a great deal of political intrigues that occured. There are numerous maps of the various war zones throughout the book that acompany specific articles as well as a variety of illustrations of weaponry. The only thing I did not like about the book was there was no real "flow" between a great many of the articles. The book is however broken into six main areas, each of which contains similar articles (the fall of France, battle of the Atlantic, Barbarossa,etc.).

This book is more a collection of oddities and insights into the various political games played by the governments and militaries of the various warring nations. In this respect it was very interesting (although as a previous English reviewer noted Mr. Deighton is very critical of the English in particular in this book. Funny, Mr. Deighton is English!).

I would definently recommend this book to any WWII buff. It is not a play by play chronology of the war; rather it is more detail and insight into a variety of events of the war. A person who already has a good knowledge of the war would get a great deal more out of this than someone reading about WWII for the first time.

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.

I wish I had read this book first before I launched into reading about WWII history. It provides a wonderful perspective missing from all the other, more pedantic histories - especially Churchill's history of WWII.

(by E.M. Singer, author of "Mother Flies Hurricanes")A book about the "Dark Side" of war seems kinda weird, but Deighton does it up in spectacular style. As Adolph Hitler said, "This war will be won by the side that makes the fewest mistakes" (or words to that effect), and fortunately Adolph's side made the most. (Did you know that the Bismark was sunk because of an over-protective parent?) But the Allies also pulled off some real howlers, and Deighton deftly skewers the good, the bad, and the ugly...

This book corrects many widely held appreciations. (1) Rommell wasn't a genius, but impetuous and overreaching; much of his success came from reading Allied signals. (2) German generals overcredited the effectiveness of Russian artillery for their defeat. (3) The German campaign in Greece didn't delay invasion of Russia or cost Germany the war. (4) Churchill was vain-glorious. (5) Hitler was taking amphetamines for a heart ailment! Consistent with his theme, Deighton is least forgiving to those who falsified or destroyed records from self-interest. Well researched, and broader in reference than most military history, the book critically evaluates personalities, strategies and key decisions. It is unusual for its point-of-view--the professional intellegence analyst who estimates dispassionately, deleting passion to comprehend reality. A hard-headed contribution to what was done or left undone, and written with skill.

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".

Len Deighton refers to himself as an amateur historian, but in the same breath reminds us of the words of his friend A.J.P. Taylor that an amateur historian is an historian nonetheless. And as amateurs go, Len Deighton is one of the best. His previous books on World War II have offered novel insights and combined with sharp writing.

In "Blood, Tears and Folly" Deighton takes a critical look at the leaders of WWII and many of their decisions, strategic and tactical. He challanges the notion that Rommel was a great general, arguing that he he was a fine divisional commander who wasn't up to the challange of managing Afrika Corps, and it was Rommel's mismanagement as much as anything that resulted in his defeat.

While he finds plenty of fault in every country's leaders, political and military, most of Deighton's criticism is reserved for his own country's ministers and generals. He is particularly incensed at the rigid class system in Great Britain that resulted in positions of command being given out based on birth, punished innovation, and nearly lost the war before it began. Deighton has harsh criticism for for men like "Bomber" Harris, who wasted thousands of lives pursuing a strategy that produced few results, and denied close air support to troops who needed it.

All in all an excellently argued, well documented and entertaining piece of work that belongs in the library of anyone interested in WWII history.