Most Helpful Customer Reviews
13 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Grampa gives thumbs down, December 8, 1999
By A Customer
I certainly concur with other reviewers that Charles Whiting has an ax to grind, especially in regard to the American officers. My grandfather was a replacement in the 106th Division who somehow escaped encirclement and ended up in a half-track with the 634th AAA through St. Vith, Hurtgen, Remagen, and finally ending up in Pilsen, Czechoslovakia. My grandfather read the book after I did and he was not impressed with Whiting's rather absolute assessment (to the negative) of the 106th and its commanding officers. Truly, the events that took place on the Belgian-German-Luxembourg front during November and December were dizzying but officers such as Jones and Cavender can not assume as much culpability as Whiting confers. My grandfather was on the front lines during these months and the US Army reacted to the German assault with the resources available at the time. Surely, the men in the 106th and 99th lacked ammunition (especially the ever-critical anti-tank mines that could have slowed down the German counteroffensive), supplies, and food. The weather prevented air support and the fate of the 106th was essentially sealed by nature of their position. Individual units and combat teams performed with distinction throughout this time period along the Ardennes frontier, attesting to the flexibility of the US troopers pointed out by German officers such as Von Luck. The 'British perspective' on the Ardennes campaign was apparent in contrasting philosophies touted by Patton vs. Montgomery, a rift that was ultimately settled by Eisenhower. World War II was not the perfect war that many make it out to be but Whiting should tone down his bias against US officers - from Eisenhower down to Gen. Jones and Col. Cavender. As General Grant exclaimed, 'War is Hell.' For example, he makes the 82nd Airborne look so grand in comparison to the 106th. My grandfather's half-track served with the 82nd Airborne from St. Vith through Hurtgen. Attached remnants were generally assigned the worst duties such as setting up tank traps at night on outlying roads while the 82nd garrisoned in the comfort of the town. Bill Mauldin jokes about these 'garritroopers.' The 106th should not be written off as a bunch of flunkies, milktoasts, and cowards. I would recommend Dupuy's St. Vith: Lion in the Way which provides a more thorough and fair account of the situation, strategically and tactically. I do think that Mr. Whiting makes a good contribution to military history through all his works on the ETO but I hope that the demonizing of US officers is toned down. Respectfully, Frederick J. Lawrence
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
7 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Typical Whiting: fun and flawed, January 14, 2002
If you've read one book by Charles Whiting, you've read them all. Literally. I've never encountered an author of history books who so shamelessly plagarizes his own material, down to anecdotes, quotations, even entire paragraphs or pages of text. Large chunks of two other Whiting books I've read, "Siegfried" and "Adrennes: the Secret War" are mixed up with "Death of a Division" and some of what is included, most notably the last chapter, are almost completely irrelevant to the story in hand and seem to have been put in because Whiting had the material on hand. Additionally, Whiting has two traits which are not befitting a reputable historian: his obvious blanket-bias against the senior US Army leadership, and his refusal to annotate or footnote his work. When he makes assertions, adduces quotes, or lists figures, he only rarely reveals how he came by the information. Example, when comparing the situation of the 106th US Infantry in the Ardennes to that of the British 1st Airborne division at Arnhem, he states categorically that the British "killed 3,300 Germans." Now, I have read Cornelius Ryan's "A Bridge Too Far" and at no point in the book is he able to state German casualty figures with any accuracy at all. And Ryan's research of the Arnhem battle was far more exhaustive than Whiting's was of the battle of the Schee Eifel. Having said all of this, I did enjoy reading "Death of a Division" for two reasons. One, Whiting's writing style is very readable and fast-paced, almost like a novel, and his work on this subject is one of very few in the last 50+ years, which is suspiciously odd considering that the Battle of the Bulge is one of the most documented conflicts in US military history (it is no secret there was a massive, from-the-top-down cover up of the earliest days of the battle, including destruction of documents and falsification of records). His final judgement on the 106th is very harsh, considering the odds they faced, their inexperience, and the apparent failure of any of their senior officers to act in the critical moments, but it does seem that the two regiments in question should have been able to hold out longer, or to break out of the German trap. Both the American and German commands agreed on this....overall, I enjoyed the book as a read, though I am always suspicious of Whitings' motives and his scholarship. I find it curious that none of his books -- and he has written many -- center around the British army in which he served, and his criticisms of Allied commanders always land squarely on the guys from our side of the pond. "Death of a Division" is a quick and easy read that sheds some light on a very shadowy moment in US military history, but I wish somebody more objective and credible would take a crack at it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A somewhat acid account of American command at the Bulge, March 13, 1998
By A Customer
This book, published in the United States with the title, _Decision at St. Vith_, purports to center on the destruction of the 106th Infantry Division during the first days of the Battle of the Bulge. Whiting, who is a prolific writer of Second World War books, tips his hand, however, in his forward which reveals "malice intended" towards the American high command which was admittedly surprised by the offensive. Whiting, himself a British veteran of the war, criticizes the American command from Eisenhower on down. In doing so, much of the book is unfocused. Whiting is never quite sure whether he is writing a critique of command, an elegy for the 106th Division, or a history of the battle itself. This is a shame, because Whiting is a good researcher, and despite his obvious bias against the American high command, he does have something of value to say about the battle and its conduct. Despite his obvious loathing of Eisenhower and Bradley, Whiting respects the American GI and does not disparage the heroism of individual American soldiers. Quite to the contrary. Part of the value of this book is that it takes up combat in front of and around the vital road junction of St. Vith, Belgium, which was every bit as strategically important as Bastogne. Too many Americans think the Bulge was the stand of the 101st Airborne Division and the winter counter-attack by Patton's Third Army. Whiting's book centers on some of the bitter fighting by unsung units that blunted the impetus of the initial German advance in what was the northern part of the Bulge. This should definitely not be the only book one reads about the battle, but it is informative and gives another, if a somewhat caustic, point of view.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
