Customer Reviews

Military History of Western World (From the American Civil War to the End of World War II)

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

 

 

I have just completed reading all three volumes of this eminently readable and enjoyable tome so I preface this review by asserting that the remarks apply to all three volumes.

First of all, this is essentially one large "Decisive Battles of the West" type of study. Even at three large volumes, it is impossible for a "military history" to even approach comprehensiveness, but virtually every consensus "decisive battle" of history is present and fleshed out with prelude, narrative, and analysis. Fuller never loses sight of the context and meaning of the battle in the war in which it took place or in the greater history of the West. The battle narratives are generally thrilling and well discussed with ample geographical and battle maps to aid the reader.

The massive nature of the study allows for Fuller to slowly unveil the evolution of military weaponry and its effect on both strategy and tactics (as well as political and social organization) but it would have been more helpful to the reader to have some pictures of the weapons. I had a hard time understanding terminology like "matchlock" and "flintlock."

Fuller, a general himself, does get bogged down in the minutiae of the military narrative at times, with too much detail about formations and military organization and the marching chronology from town A to town B. Unless one is intimately familiar with the local geography or is an expert in a particular war, such details are pretty much useless. Nevertheless, the narrative is generally fluid and is punctuated by 'between battle" chronicles which are a nice refresher course in general Western political history. When Fuller is not speaking like a general talking to his officers about battle chronology, he is an enjoyable read. Either way, such portions can be easily skipped over without missing much of the story.

Regarding the choices of battles for discussion, one wonders how a monumental battle like Milvian Bridge (where Constantine won while using the sign of the Cross) is omitted. The battle is never even mentioned. Yarmouk (636 AD) is another one that Fuller missed but deserves mention since, if the battle was lost, it could have made the Muslim ArabConquests stillborn. If Manzikert is decisive, why not Yarmouk? Caesar was almost defeated at the siege of Alesia by Vercengetorix, but incredibly survived by his brilliant double circumvallation. Yet Alesia is never mentioned. It is debatable whether Watling Street should have been omitted. Had the outnumbered Romans not annihilated the Boudica-led Iceni, could Britain have been lost to Rome and a Celtic stronghold been established? I think it deserves merit but Watling Street is never mentioned. If memory serves me correctly, the Siege of Vienna was likewise omitted from discussion.

One can also criticize Fuller for his inclusion of the Russo-Japanese War, which took place in Asia, and the decision to discuss Chattanooga instead of Gettysburg in the American Civil War. To be fair, this is a military history and not a "decisive battles" collection and some of these battles are rarely considered decisive in other volumes (except Gettysburg of course).

Where Fuller shines and where the volumes are most contributory is the heavy anti-PC discussion in the third volume. Here, Fuller (who was also an occultist) does not mince words and is refreshingly non-orthodox in his analysis and conclusions about the two world wars, on both the political and military levels. Wilson, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Truman are skewered by Fuller for being foolish and hypocritical ideologues that were more interested in ideology than pragmatism and chose to oppose one dictator by befriending another. Roosevelt particularly does not fare well under Fuller's brush and almost seems to have been prostrate before Stalin's feet.

Fuller convincingly shows how Roosevelt forced America into war by compelling the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor. Further, he condemns the unnecessary atrocities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These views remain controversial but I wholeheartedly concur with Fuller on his conclusions. Of course, Hitler does not escape Fuller's critical eye and Hitler is shown clearly for having been much of the direct cause for Germany's failure due to Adolph's arrogant and persistent interference in military strategy. He faults Hitler for not taking all of North Africa when he had a chance, but also criticizes the Allies for attacking neutral French North Africa.

Some of the WW2 analysis is now dated because we are in a post Soviet Empire era, but Fuller makes a strong case and, if the Soviet Empire did not collapse as it did, would still be pertinent today. It is simply inexcusable how the Allies could have allowed all of Eastern Europe to fall to Soviet hegemony. Nevertheless, Fuller does seem to be something of a Russophobe at times.

Despite all of this focus here and in other reviews on 20th century warfare, the 20th century is only a small percentage of the three volumes. Terrific discussions of critical battles in the Persian Wars, Peloponnesian War, Punic Wars, Mithradatic Wars, Roman Civil Wars, Hunnish invasion, Justinian Wars, Muslim Conquests, Crusades, Hundred Years War, English Civil Wars, Thirty Years War, War of Spanish Succession, Great Northern War, Seven Years War, French and Indian War, American Revolution, Napoleonic Wars, American Civil War, and Franco-Prussian War are discussed at length.

Some reviewers here could not handle the non-orthodoxy of Fuller's trenchant analysis and have resorted to inane epithets. This is to be expected by a heavily propagandized generation. The value of reading an impartial, erudite and accomplished general who writes well and who is not "owned" by any one side is worth the price of admission and the time required to absorb.

Those who wish to understand not only the military history but also the underreported political undercurrents of those times will love this book and read it over and over again. By examining the failures by both military leaders and politicians in understanding the obvious lessons of their relatively recent past, they will gain valuable insights into our current condition.

The trio of books on Military History of the Western World, written by one of the very top Military Historians of our time, is indeed a "must have" in a library of the same genre. It is lucid, well-paced, and filled with historical information with insides and critiques on the issues of the time(s) and pulls no punches relating errors and bad decisions made, avoiding taking sides for the most part. A superb effort, highly recommended without reservations.

I must admit that I only read about 60 pages of this book. I found it impossible to continue to waste my time on a book with such obvious mistakes. Being somewhat knowledgeable on the subject of the American Civil War, I was quite taken aback by Fuller misnaming Henry Wager Halleck as Henry WAGNER Halleck. Then he goes on to refer to Admiral David Farragut as Admiral Davis. As to his reason why the Civil Was was lost by the South, he determines that they used the wrong strategy of defending Virginia and instead should have defended a line from Chattanooga to Atlanta. This is a strategy I admittedly have never heard of before. Not to mention that Virginians would have found it difficult if not impossible to support a Confederacy that abdicated it's defense of their state. No less than Robert E. Lee joined the Confederacy mainly because he prized his state over the Federal government. Would he have continued to support a government that allowed his state to be overrun? With so many obvious mistakes in just the first part of the book, on a subject that I have some knowledge of, I found it impossible to trust the information I would read on subjects that I was not as familiar with.

Fuller offers an insightful blend of battlefield detail and the broader causes and effects for each engagement presented. He avoids one of the major shortcomings I have with a lot of other military history authors: bogging the reader down in pedantic minutiae.

I his three volume work Fuller, a prolific author and military historian, analyzes the development of western military science from ancient Egypt through the end of World War II using descriptions of a series of important battles linked together by short "chronicles" of the intervening years. The battles are clearly summarized and unnecessary details are avoided in favor of thoughtful and insightful analyses of the political and social impacts of military developments. The breadth of research is impressive and some of his ideas are fascinating.

On the other hand, in this the third volume as the narrative approaches the author's lifetime he begins to lose his scholarly objectivity and his personal politics show through. When we reach the Russian revolution it becomes clear that Fuller was an hysterical anti-communist. Not surprising in a western military man writing in the 1950's. Less palatable are his fascist sympathies - yes, I mean the word literally. Apparently Fuller flirted with the British fascists before WWII, and his leanings are apparent in this volume. He writes with approval of Mussolini's and Hitler's rise to power and although he does mention the Nazi's persecution of the Jews during the pre-war years he does his best to soften their image ("brutality" is the harshest word he uses), while he ignores the holocaust itself completely. At the same time he vilifies FDR (whom he seems to think was mostly responsible for the outbreak of WWII) in the harshest terms at every opportunity and is often severely critical of Churchill as well. In the end his lack of objectivity undermines the entire second half of his book.

Two examples will suffice: on pp. 372-4 he includes in full a quote from the Polish Ambassador in Washington, devoting nearly one and a half pages to it and describing it as "illuminating." The quote is packed with enough anti-Semitism that it could have come from Goebbel's Nazi propaganda machine. Second, in a footnote on page 504 Fuller characterizes the allied invasion of Vichy French territories in North Africa as "as flagrant an act of aggression against a neutral country as any perpetrated by Hitler." OK, technically it was a violation of French neutrality, but to equate it with Hitler's aggression ignores:
1) The ink was not even try on Hitler's promise to respect Czechoslovakia's borders when he invaded them.
2) Europe was at peace during the occupation of Czechoslovakia and was still at peace during the invasion of Poland.
3) The Polish and Czech governments were universally recognized internally and externally, while a large percentage of the French refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the Vichy government.
4) The Poles resisted violently, as would the Czechs if Chamberlain had not just given away their frontier defenses. The French in North Africa, after some initial hesitation, welcomed and cooperated with the allies.
5) The invasion of North Africa by the allies was a unique occurrence. In addition to Czechoslovakia and Poland, Hitler also invaded, unprovoked, neutral Denmark, Norway, Luxemburg, Belgium, and the Netherlands; not to mention the Soviet Union, with which he was supposedly allied.
And so on. To compare the allies aggression with Hitler's is absurd, and unfortunately goes a long way to destroying the author's credibility.

Good Basic Book on Western strategy, Easy to read and focussed.

This book is for the person who has a generalized understanding of the time period covered but wants to learn more. The author seems to hate Americans, though.