Customer Reviews

Dirty Little Secrets of World War II: Military Information No One Told You...

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

The US army actually had more ships than the US navy? Polish cavalry never actually fought German tanks? These and other tidbits of historical trivia are compiled in this book. Ranging from odd facts such as the number of inkstamps used by Nazi Germany to the debunking of popular myth like the supposed failure of the Maginot Line, this tome is a good addition for the library of any WWII buff.

I really enjoyed the book and I think a great deal of time went into its research; however, I think it was a bit substandard in form. Much to much attention is spent on conveying meaningless statistics. Moreover, there are a number of grammatical errors, especially dangling prepositions.

The factor that removed it from the four star range for me, was the inherent conflict with the following:
On page 330 the authors write: "While it is widely known that the submarine was crucial in destroying Japan's merchant marine during the Pacific war, it [is] often overlooked that U.S. subs sank only 45 percent of enemy merchant shipping. Aircraft accounted for most of the rest."

However, on page 338 our authors state: "The decisive weapon in the war against Japan was the submarine." The Authors then present a table showing that submarines accounted for 55% of Japanese merchant shipping loss while aircraft only account for 33%.

These assertions of fact cannot coexist. Which is true?! I shall always wonder.

I'm not sure if I rank as a casual reader of military history- in the last two years, I've read in detail about a dozen books on the last World War, and about that number casually as well-but I picked up Dirty Little Secrets. It's been a welcome addition to my small library of books on this period since then.

It is easy for military historians to discount some of the "revelations" in it as either not new, or just plain factually wrong. It is true indeed that the authors of the book are somewhat biased in their writing- a fact that they're not ashamed to admit, as one would be able to read in the first few pages- and may be difficult for casual readers to accurately discern whether some fact is indeed the whole truth, or just a plain misrepresentation. Even then, the book is still highly enjoyable to read, as the authors have a lively writing style that's not intimating. Without make a final judgement to the how accurate to fact are the authors' stance on some issue, I still found their opinions a refreshing read, for example on Neville Chamberlain's "appeasement" policy.

Finally, it's equally easy for new readers to the genre to get into, and best of all, the organisation of information in it is well suited to a person casually reading selected pages of the book, as opposed to having to read it from front to back in order to make any sense out of it. The book may thus not be suited for expert readers of this period; but for the casual reader, it may well be worth a look.

The material in this book is based on many secondary sources and not fully researched as pointed out by one of the authors. In a discussion group A. Nofi pointed out that it was totally unlikely any German aircraft flew the Atlantic in preparation to bomb New York. Yet some one pointed out that this is one of the "dirty secrets" in his book after Mr. Nofi critisized other historians for using this reference. His response to why his book had errors like this on June 29, 1999 was: "That was then. This is now. Since then we've dug a mite deeper. If we do a second edition, we'll insert "claimed" as appropriate." --A. Nofi. There are other little tidbits in this book based on similar sloopy research. The book is interesting, but as Mr. Nofi has pointed out - unreliable! Still a nice gift for the buff.

"Dirty Little Secrets of World War II" is a relatively recent (1990s) book that -- judging by its title -- should tell us something interesting that we don't know already about the war.

The trouble with this book is that its information isn't well-researched (the bibliography is a ghost town) and it isn't very well-written, either. Also, a lot of the purported "secrets" are no secret at all, and have been pretty well known facts for decades prior to this book's publication (i.e, the "secret" that Adolf Hitler was a non-smoking, teetotaling vegetarian with a tendency toward mysticism, or that, at the end, the Nazis used 15 year old Hitler Youth kids as soldiers).

Furthermore, what few "secrets" there are in this book often aren't very interesting.

Added to that, there are many instances in this book where the authors are just plain wrong, which is inexcusable considering that this book was written in the 1990s. For example, when discussing aviation fuel for RAF and Luftwaffe fighters during The Battle of Britain, the authors make the claim that the Hawker Hurricane was "the equal" of the Bf-109E, and that the Supermarine Spitfire was "superior," and that the RAF's better aviation fuel made the disparity that much greater.

WRONG. The Hurricane was recognized early as totally inferior to the Bf-109 barring turning circle and ruggedness by the RAF tacticians, who tried as far as possible to avoid letting the Hurricanes mix it with the Messerschmitts. This is a well-known fact backed by research, and not a random claim by men who didn't do their research. As to the Spitfire, independent Luftwaffe and RAF evaluations of captured aircraft more or less confirmed what everyone already knew -- and STILL knows -- that the Bf-109E and Spitfire Mks 1 and 2 were very closely matched, with neither being able to claim outright superiority. As far as the fuel situation, this is an interesting claim, but a claim is one thing -- backing it up is another, and the authors fail to do so. Sorry.

Later in the book, the authors claim that the AK-47 assault rifle was "modeled after" the German SG-44 of 1944.

WRONG. The outward appearance of both rifles delineate a superficial resemblance, yet the firing mechanisms of both rifles were different. A well known fact that the authors should have researched.

The authors make the claim that Operation Market Garden (Allied airborne operation over Holland in September 1944) landed "right on top of two crack SS panzer divisions."

Had these guys bothered to open a history book (either in English OR German), or even bothered to watch "A Bridge Too Far" they'd have found out that the two "crack divisions" mentioned in their book were not the elite, prepared divisions hinted at in the text, but rather shattered, depleted, severely understrength units recovering after a lengthy commitment on the Eastern Front.

The author make the claim that Soviet fighters' armament of "2 12.7 mm machine guns and a 20mm cannon" was light compared to the Bf-109.

... Whose standard armament was 2 13 mm machine guns and a 20 or 30 mm cannon, making the armaments relatively equal.


These are just a few out of many, many instances where the well-informed reader is left scratching his or her head.

Where are these guys getting this information?

They have their right to have an opinion, but they're stating things like they're researched facts, and they're not.

The authors also make frequent statements that make no sense. For example, they claim that the "crew of a B-17 and its personal equipment would weigh only 1 ton."

Okay, so let's estimate that all ten crewmen were on the light side at only 150lbs. Then factor in their oxygen, their heavy suits, their flak vests, and other sundries.

Comes to a lot more than 2000 lbs.

Also, the book is written in this irreverent, smart-alecky tone that may jar with some readers, because it isn't clever or witty and the repeated, obvious attempts at levity are really annoying.

The book gives the impression that it will be a serious, scholarly volume that can take its rightful place alongside other respected works, but it just goes to show us the old aphorism holds true -- you can't judge a book by -- well, you know the rest.

Unfortunately, the authors don't seem to.


Skip it.

Despite the title there are no earth shattering disclosures of anything in this book. This is not a book for the serious military scholar. It is a book for those with a passing interest or hobby in the history of World War II. I found it to be an enjoyable book that I read simply as a leisure activity. Its' format, which is broken down into sections of around a paragrapch and generally never more than a page or two, make for ease of reading. It does have value as a tool for generating thought on WWII topics. In closing this book was alot of fun to read and anyone who is not a serious military historian will likely find the information presented to be somewhat illuminating and will appreaciate the authors' straightforward reader friendly writing style.

There aren't real secrets revealed in this book. It is more a compliation of bits and pieces of information that have been known for quite awhile in most cases. When something different does come up, such as the assertion that the New Guinea campaign was more decisive in the Pacific than the Guadalcanal campaign, there is no discussion or support of the position given, simply assertion. The authors also can't seem to agree with themselves. On page 300, they state that submarines accounted for over half the Japanese ships sunk. Nine pages later they state that submarines sank 45% of the Japanese ships sunk during the war. Probably the discrepancy is due to ships vs. tonnage, but it is not so stated. For the serious reader of WWII history, this volume is a disappointment.

The authors call these secrets, but it is mostly trivia that was never really a secret. This is a fine trivia book and a good read in that respect, but it is certainly not scholarly research or a revelation of "secrets". One reviewer commented on Mr. Nofi's comments about the so called "New York bomber" and how on a discussion group he claimed it was actually not proved. A book that reveals "secrets" must be based on primary research, yet this book has no bibilography and Mr. Nofi indicates they used mainly secondary material while he has been critical of others who do the same, ie. Green's Luftwaffe books. This book should be called TRIVIA & RUMORS of WWII, but the title is really a "DIrty Little Trick" to get the buyer interested in something that the book has little of - "secrets". Still, I agree it is a good read for the trivia buff. --H. Zarska

I enjoyed this book, although the title is misleading. Rather than revealing secrets, the book really tackles myths and misconceptions about WW2. There are a lot of statistics, data and trivia in the book, which if you're not into that, you will probably find boring. It's a book meant to be picked up, read a few pages, return to it later.

I would not use this as a definitive or encyclopedic reference, but rather things to get you pondering - for example, was Anti Aircraft fire more effective than fighter bombers?
I particularly enjoyed the sections that covered the Allied Strategic bombing against Germany. How effect was it? What percentages of targets were destroyed? Another example of thought provoking subjects: Which nation's divisions had the strongest combat power?

Some samples of the trivia: How many rounds of ammunition did an artillery unit fire in a day? How many Medal of Honor winners were there? How many rifles or tanks were in a Division?

I rate this as four stars because some of the conclusions the authors draw are opinions, interpretations or summaries and because it is not a definitive reference source. The authors admit that up front - there is too much information on WW2 into one book. This is an overview with both high level strategic and tactical looks at combat, support units, industrial strength of all of the major nation's air, land, sea warfare. An ambitious undertaking, one that is easily read, has a touch of humor making it perfect for an introduction of WW2.

This book is best suited for the history buff, as it contains pages (and pages, and pages, and pages) of world war 2 trivia. Unfortunately, the so called "Dirty Little Secrets" are few and far between. The lay reader will lose interest as the signal-to-noise ratio for the non-afficianado is just too low.