On June 6, 1944, the American and British armies staged the greatest amphibious landing history to being Operation Overlord, the battle for the liberation of Europe. Despite the Allies' absolute command of sea and air and vast firepower, it took ten weeks of fierce fighting for them to overpower the tenacious, superbly skilled German army. Now, forty years later, British war correspondent and military historian Max Hastings has drawn on many interviews and newly available documents to construct a dense, dramatic portrait of the Normady invasion that overturns the traditional legends.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
Review
“Max Hastings’s reportage of the battle is not unworthy to stand with that of the best journalists and writers who witnessed it. . . . A tribute to his skills as a historian.” –John Keegan, The New York Times Book Review
“Hastings combines a quick, clear prose with provocative and often brilliant analysis. His conclusions are sharp yet sound, his research through, and his history incisive. Of the many books that have been written on Normandy, it is quite simply the best.” –Dallas Morning News
“A brilliant and concise account.”
–The Washington Post Book World
“A fine account of the strategy and tactics of the campaign. The author has been shot at himself. . . . This has done marvels for quickening his understanding of what such landings are like, and adds an extra cutting edge to his book. He goes over a well-worn path, full of pitfalls, and falls into none of them.”
– The Economist --This text refers to an alternate Paperback edition.
“Hastings combines a quick, clear prose with provocative and often brilliant analysis. His conclusions are sharp yet sound, his research through, and his history incisive. Of the many books that have been written on Normandy, it is quite simply the best.” –Dallas Morning News
“A brilliant and concise account.”
–The Washington Post Book World
“A fine account of the strategy and tactics of the campaign. The author has been shot at himself. . . . This has done marvels for quickening his understanding of what such landings are like, and adds an extra cutting edge to his book. He goes over a well-worn path, full of pitfalls, and falls into none of them.”
– The Economist --This text refers to an alternate Paperback edition.
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
Chapter I
“MUCH THE GREATEST THING WE HAVE EVER ATTEMPTED”
Not the least remarkable aspect of the Second World War was the manner in which the United States, which might have been expected to regard the campaign in Europe as a diversion from the struggle against her principal aggressor, Japan, was persuaded to commit her chief strength in the west. Not only that, but from December 1941 until June 1944 it was the Americans who were passionately impatient to confront the German army on the continent while the British, right up to the eve of D-Day, were haunted by the deepest misgivings about doing so. “Why are we trying to do this?” cried Winston Churchill in a bitter moment of depression about Operation OVERLORD in February 1944,* which caused in him a spasm of enthusiasm for an alternative Allied landing in Portugal. “I am very uneasy about the whole operation,” wrote the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Sir Alan Brooke, as late as 5 June 1944. “At the best, it will come very far short of the expectations of the bulk of the people, namely all those who know nothing about its difficulties. At its worst, it may well be the most ghastly disaster of the whole war.”* Had the United States army been less resolute in its commitment to a landing in Normandy, it is most unlikely that this would have taken place before 1945. Until the very last weeks before OVERLORD was launched, its future was the subject of bitter dissension and debate between the warlords of Britain and America.
For a year following the fall of France in 1940, Britain fought on without any rational prospect of final victory. Only when Hitler invaded Russia in June 1941, the most demented of his strategic decisions, did the first gleam of hope at last present itself to enemies of the Axis. For the remainder of that year, Britain was preoccupied with the struggle to keep open her Atlantic lifeline, to build her bomber offensive into a meaningful menace to Germany, and to keep hopes alive in the only theatre of war where the British army could fight—Africa and the Middle East. Then, in the dying days of the year, came the miracle of Pearl Harbor. Britain’s salvation, the turning point of the war, was confirmed four days later by another remarkable act of German recklessness: Hitler’s declaration of war upon the United States.
The outcome of the Second World War was never thereafter in serious doubt. But great delays and difficulties lay ahead in mobilizing America’s industrial might for the battlefield, and in determining by what strategy the Axis was to be crushed. To the relief of the British, President Roosevelt and his Chiefs of Staff at once asserted their acceptance of the principle of “Germany first”. They acknowledged that her war-making power was by far the most dangerous and that following her collapse, Japan must soon capitulate. The war in the Pacific became overwhelmingly the concern of the United States navy. The principal weight of the army’s ground forces, which would grow to a strength of eight million men, was to be directed against Germany and Italy. This decision was confirmed at ARCADIA, the first great Anglo-American conference of the war that began in Washington on 31 December 1941. America committed herself to BOLERO, a programme for a vast build-up of her forces in Britain. Churchill, scribbling his own exuberant hopes for the future during the Atlantic passage to that meeting, speculated on a possible landing in Europe by 40 Allied armoured divisions in the following year: “We might hope to win the war at the end of 1943 or 1944.”*
But in the months after ARCADIA, as the first United States troops and their senior officers crossed to Europe, it was the Americans who began to focus decisively upon an early cross-Channel invasion. The debate that now began, and continued with growing heat through the next 20 months, reflected, “an American impatience to get on with direct offensive action as well as a belief, held quite generally in the U.S. War Department, that the war could most efficiently be won by husbanding resources for an all-out attack deliberately planned for a future fixed date. American impatience was opposed by a British note of caution: American faith in an offensive of fixed date was in contrast to British willingness to proceed one step at a time, molding a course of action to the turns of military fortune.”* Here, in the words of the American official historian, was the root of the growing division between the Combined Chiefs of Staff throughout 1942 and much of 1943.
At first, American thinking was dominated by fear of a rapid Russian collapse unless the western Allies created, at the very least, a powerful diversion on the continent. ROUNDUP was a plan for an early invasion, with whatever forces were available, which the British speedily took pains to crush. Under strong American pressure, Churchill agreed in principle to the notion of executing ROUNDUP with 48 Allied divisions not later than April 1943. But the British—above all Sir Alan Brooke—privately continued to believe that ROUNDUP neither could nor should take place. Despite their assent to the operation, in the name of Allied solidarity, they began a successful struggle to divert resources towards much more modest—and in their view, more realistic—objectives. In the summer of 1942, the Americans reluctantly acceded to GYMNAST, an operation for the invasion of French North Africa. This was allegedly to be undertaken without prejudice to ROUNDUP, because of well-founded British fears that America would shift the weight of her effort to the Pacific if it became obvious that many months must elapse before major action took place in Europe. But as the BOLERO build-up in Britain fell behind schedule, the desert campaign dragged on without decisive result, and the tragic Dieppe raid demonstrated some of the hazards of cross-Channel operations, it became apparent in Washington as well as in London that there could be no campaign in France in 1943. GYMNAST was translated into reality by the TORCH landings of November 1942. It was at Casablanca in January 1943 that the Anglo-American leadership met for their second major conference.
This was to be the last meeting at which, by dint of brilliant military diplomacy, the British gained acceptance of their own ideas about the manner in which the war should be pursued. The Americans reluctantly accepted HUSKY, the invasion of Sicily, with the prospect of further operations in Italy. They also undertook a commitment to an even greater combined bomber offensive against Germany, POINTBLANK, designed to “weaken Germany’s war-making capacity to the point to which invasion would become possible”.
The American Chiefs of Staff returned to Washington irritably conscious that they had been persuaded to adopt a course they did not favour—the extension of “sideshow” operations in the Mediterranean which they believed were designed chiefly to serve Britain’s imperial and diplomatic purposes. But the British had at least acknowledged that north-west Europe must be invaded the following year. Sir Alan Brooke agreed at Casablanca that “we could definitely count on re-entering the continent in 1944 on a large scale”. The Americans were determined to countenance no further prevarication. Throughout the remainder of 1943—while the British argued for extended commitments in the Mediterranean, possible operations in the Balkans, further delays before attempting to broach Hitler’s Atlantic Wall—the Americans remained resolute. At the TRIDENT conference in Washington in May, the date for invasion of north-west Europe was provisionally set for 1 May 1944. This commitment was confirmed in August at the QUADRANT conference in Quebec. To the deep dismay of the British, the Americans also pursued most forcefully their intention to execute ANVIL, a landing in southern France simultaneous with OVERLORD, whatever the cost to Allied operations in Italy. This proposal was put to Stalin at the Teheran conference in November 1943; he welcomed it. Thereafter, the Americans argued that, quite apart from their own enthusiasm for OVERLORD and ANVIL, any cancellation or unreasonable postponement of either would constitute a breach of faith with the Russians.
Throughout the autumn and winter of 1943, even as planning and preparation for OVERLORD gathered momentum, the British irked and angered the Americans by displaying their misgivings and fears as if OVERLORD were still a subject of debate, and might be postponed. “I do not doubt our ability in the conditions laid down to get ashore and deploy,” Churchill wrote to Roosevelt on 23 October. “I am however deeply concerned with the build-up and with the situation which may arise between the thirtieth and sixtieth days . . . My dear friend, this is much the greatest thing we have ever attempted.”5 The Prime Minister cabled to Marshall in Washington: “We are carrying out our contract, but I pray God it does not cost us dear.”6 On 11 November, the British Chiefs of Staff recorded in an aide-memoire: “We must not . . . regard OVERLORD as the pivot of our whole strategy on which all else turns . . . we firmly believe that OVERLORD (perhaps in the form of RANKIN) will take place next summer. We do not, however, attach vital importance to any particular date or to any particular number of divisions in the assault and follow-up, though naturally the latter should be made as large as possible consistent with the policy stated above.”*
Remarks of this sort aroused the deepest dismay and suspicion among the Americans. They ... --This text refers to an alternate Paperback edition.
“MUCH THE GREATEST THING WE HAVE EVER ATTEMPTED”
Not the least remarkable aspect of the Second World War was the manner in which the United States, which might have been expected to regard the campaign in Europe as a diversion from the struggle against her principal aggressor, Japan, was persuaded to commit her chief strength in the west. Not only that, but from December 1941 until June 1944 it was the Americans who were passionately impatient to confront the German army on the continent while the British, right up to the eve of D-Day, were haunted by the deepest misgivings about doing so. “Why are we trying to do this?” cried Winston Churchill in a bitter moment of depression about Operation OVERLORD in February 1944,* which caused in him a spasm of enthusiasm for an alternative Allied landing in Portugal. “I am very uneasy about the whole operation,” wrote the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Sir Alan Brooke, as late as 5 June 1944. “At the best, it will come very far short of the expectations of the bulk of the people, namely all those who know nothing about its difficulties. At its worst, it may well be the most ghastly disaster of the whole war.”* Had the United States army been less resolute in its commitment to a landing in Normandy, it is most unlikely that this would have taken place before 1945. Until the very last weeks before OVERLORD was launched, its future was the subject of bitter dissension and debate between the warlords of Britain and America.
For a year following the fall of France in 1940, Britain fought on without any rational prospect of final victory. Only when Hitler invaded Russia in June 1941, the most demented of his strategic decisions, did the first gleam of hope at last present itself to enemies of the Axis. For the remainder of that year, Britain was preoccupied with the struggle to keep open her Atlantic lifeline, to build her bomber offensive into a meaningful menace to Germany, and to keep hopes alive in the only theatre of war where the British army could fight—Africa and the Middle East. Then, in the dying days of the year, came the miracle of Pearl Harbor. Britain’s salvation, the turning point of the war, was confirmed four days later by another remarkable act of German recklessness: Hitler’s declaration of war upon the United States.
The outcome of the Second World War was never thereafter in serious doubt. But great delays and difficulties lay ahead in mobilizing America’s industrial might for the battlefield, and in determining by what strategy the Axis was to be crushed. To the relief of the British, President Roosevelt and his Chiefs of Staff at once asserted their acceptance of the principle of “Germany first”. They acknowledged that her war-making power was by far the most dangerous and that following her collapse, Japan must soon capitulate. The war in the Pacific became overwhelmingly the concern of the United States navy. The principal weight of the army’s ground forces, which would grow to a strength of eight million men, was to be directed against Germany and Italy. This decision was confirmed at ARCADIA, the first great Anglo-American conference of the war that began in Washington on 31 December 1941. America committed herself to BOLERO, a programme for a vast build-up of her forces in Britain. Churchill, scribbling his own exuberant hopes for the future during the Atlantic passage to that meeting, speculated on a possible landing in Europe by 40 Allied armoured divisions in the following year: “We might hope to win the war at the end of 1943 or 1944.”*
But in the months after ARCADIA, as the first United States troops and their senior officers crossed to Europe, it was the Americans who began to focus decisively upon an early cross-Channel invasion. The debate that now began, and continued with growing heat through the next 20 months, reflected, “an American impatience to get on with direct offensive action as well as a belief, held quite generally in the U.S. War Department, that the war could most efficiently be won by husbanding resources for an all-out attack deliberately planned for a future fixed date. American impatience was opposed by a British note of caution: American faith in an offensive of fixed date was in contrast to British willingness to proceed one step at a time, molding a course of action to the turns of military fortune.”* Here, in the words of the American official historian, was the root of the growing division between the Combined Chiefs of Staff throughout 1942 and much of 1943.
At first, American thinking was dominated by fear of a rapid Russian collapse unless the western Allies created, at the very least, a powerful diversion on the continent. ROUNDUP was a plan for an early invasion, with whatever forces were available, which the British speedily took pains to crush. Under strong American pressure, Churchill agreed in principle to the notion of executing ROUNDUP with 48 Allied divisions not later than April 1943. But the British—above all Sir Alan Brooke—privately continued to believe that ROUNDUP neither could nor should take place. Despite their assent to the operation, in the name of Allied solidarity, they began a successful struggle to divert resources towards much more modest—and in their view, more realistic—objectives. In the summer of 1942, the Americans reluctantly acceded to GYMNAST, an operation for the invasion of French North Africa. This was allegedly to be undertaken without prejudice to ROUNDUP, because of well-founded British fears that America would shift the weight of her effort to the Pacific if it became obvious that many months must elapse before major action took place in Europe. But as the BOLERO build-up in Britain fell behind schedule, the desert campaign dragged on without decisive result, and the tragic Dieppe raid demonstrated some of the hazards of cross-Channel operations, it became apparent in Washington as well as in London that there could be no campaign in France in 1943. GYMNAST was translated into reality by the TORCH landings of November 1942. It was at Casablanca in January 1943 that the Anglo-American leadership met for their second major conference.
This was to be the last meeting at which, by dint of brilliant military diplomacy, the British gained acceptance of their own ideas about the manner in which the war should be pursued. The Americans reluctantly accepted HUSKY, the invasion of Sicily, with the prospect of further operations in Italy. They also undertook a commitment to an even greater combined bomber offensive against Germany, POINTBLANK, designed to “weaken Germany’s war-making capacity to the point to which invasion would become possible”.
The American Chiefs of Staff returned to Washington irritably conscious that they had been persuaded to adopt a course they did not favour—the extension of “sideshow” operations in the Mediterranean which they believed were designed chiefly to serve Britain’s imperial and diplomatic purposes. But the British had at least acknowledged that north-west Europe must be invaded the following year. Sir Alan Brooke agreed at Casablanca that “we could definitely count on re-entering the continent in 1944 on a large scale”. The Americans were determined to countenance no further prevarication. Throughout the remainder of 1943—while the British argued for extended commitments in the Mediterranean, possible operations in the Balkans, further delays before attempting to broach Hitler’s Atlantic Wall—the Americans remained resolute. At the TRIDENT conference in Washington in May, the date for invasion of north-west Europe was provisionally set for 1 May 1944. This commitment was confirmed in August at the QUADRANT conference in Quebec. To the deep dismay of the British, the Americans also pursued most forcefully their intention to execute ANVIL, a landing in southern France simultaneous with OVERLORD, whatever the cost to Allied operations in Italy. This proposal was put to Stalin at the Teheran conference in November 1943; he welcomed it. Thereafter, the Americans argued that, quite apart from their own enthusiasm for OVERLORD and ANVIL, any cancellation or unreasonable postponement of either would constitute a breach of faith with the Russians.
Throughout the autumn and winter of 1943, even as planning and preparation for OVERLORD gathered momentum, the British irked and angered the Americans by displaying their misgivings and fears as if OVERLORD were still a subject of debate, and might be postponed. “I do not doubt our ability in the conditions laid down to get ashore and deploy,” Churchill wrote to Roosevelt on 23 October. “I am however deeply concerned with the build-up and with the situation which may arise between the thirtieth and sixtieth days . . . My dear friend, this is much the greatest thing we have ever attempted.”5 The Prime Minister cabled to Marshall in Washington: “We are carrying out our contract, but I pray God it does not cost us dear.”6 On 11 November, the British Chiefs of Staff recorded in an aide-memoire: “We must not . . . regard OVERLORD as the pivot of our whole strategy on which all else turns . . . we firmly believe that OVERLORD (perhaps in the form of RANKIN) will take place next summer. We do not, however, attach vital importance to any particular date or to any particular number of divisions in the assault and follow-up, though naturally the latter should be made as large as possible consistent with the policy stated above.”*
Remarks of this sort aroused the deepest dismay and suspicion among the Americans. They ... --This text refers to an alternate Paperback edition.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
More About the Authors
Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.
Customer Reviews
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
73 of 74 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Find out what happened after the Longest Day,
By
This review is from: Overlord (Paperback)
This book fills in a nice gap of WWII history in that it covers the initial battles that followed immediately after D-Day. Max Hastings does an excellent job of trying to figure out why certain parts of the Allied plan went so well, while others seemed to take forever. Additionally, he interviewed numerous Germans involved with the Normandy command in order to give perspective on what the German Army was experiencing and how this affected the outcome of certain battles.I really enjoyed the new material and research that Hastings reveals as he tells the tale following D-Day. His treatment of the US Army is pretty balanced (some units fought well, while other "green units" had a tough time fighting the Germans), and I think he draws some interesting conclusions. His point that American Paratroopers and Ranger units were essential to the success of many battles highlights the success (and misuse at times) of these units. Hastings goes into great detail about why the British/Canadian army struggled so much to take Caen. He has some critical words about Montgomery performance (he promised much, but deliverd little), but concludes overall that the British had a much more difficult fight against a stronger part of the German defense. I really enjoyed this section of the book because I have not read much about this part of the battle. Hastings does talk at length about the mistake of letting the German Army escape at Falaise, although he concludes that the US Army would not have been able to close the gap with the units available. I do not totally agree with this conclusion, but it makes for interesting discussion. I recommend this book for anyone interested in the ETO, especially Operation Overlord. If you are looking for a book specifically about D-Day, this is not the best one, in that it covers all of Operation Overlord, not just the invasion.
57 of 63 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Overlord Review,
By Leon G. Galanos Jr. (APO, AA United States) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Overlord (Paperback)
When I read history, I want to know both sides of the story. Reading one viewpoint is usually more about propaganda and less about history. Max Hastings satisfies this requirement. When digging into the facts of both the Western Allies (Americans, British, Canadians, Poles, and French) and the Germans and their less enthusiastic allies, Hastings describes bravery and honor on both sides. In addition, you get the warts that many historians gloss over (British reluctance to even embark on a mainland invasion, fairly equal amounts of shootings of POWs by both sides, and others). Most interesting is his indepth look at the contentious relationship between Montgomery and the Americans. Hastings points out that despite lackluster elan demonstrated by British and Canadian forces, it is true that Montgomery (and the USAAF) facilitated the final breakout of American forces (Cobra) by holding down the cream of German forces in Normandy, namely the Waffen-SS Panzer Corps, especially the very aggressive 12th SS Hitler Jugend (Youth) division. Hastings points out that with the exception of scattered German Parachute troops, American forces were tied down by mostly underequipped units made up of old survivors recovered from wounds on the eastern front, so-called volunteers from territories annexed by the Germans on the eastern front, and late-war scrapings of German manpower. Only later in the Normandy campaign did the Americans face some first-rate units, namely 2nd Waffen-SS "Das Reich", whose impact was weakened by constant losses from Allied fighter-bombers before reaching the scene of battle and whose battle-plans were intercepted by Ultra and thus lost the element of surprise (Mortain offensive). Hastings also makes a very interesting point, which does more to praise the U.S. airborne troops recently portrayed in HBO's excellent "Band of Brothers" series. These paratroopers were supposed to be sent back to England once the Allied foothold on the Continent was secured, but because of poor performance by regular infantry divisions, these paratroopers were forced to take the lead again and again in order to make headway against stubborn German resistance. The invaluable contributions made by American Airborne and Rangers and British Commandos should lay to rest the criticisms made by the regular Army leaders that special forces were a drain on top-notch manpower that should have gone to regular units. Though one could argue that these men could have raised the fighting proficiency of regular infantry units, the esprit de corps generated in elite combat units would still be absent. All in all, one gets the impression that Allied victory in Normandy was inevitable given the total Allied superiority in resources (especially air and naval power), but enough unknowns were still in play to make the outcome interesting. One thing is certain, Hitler's manic micromanagement of German strategy certainly was more of a benefit to the Allied cause than anything the Allied General's planned themselves (with the exception of the entire misdirection campaign aimed at confusing the Germans as to the actual location of the invasion), especially following the bomb plot which almost took Hitler's life. German Generals who knew what to do to save their armies were left powerless to watch Hitler destroy them in his own stupid strategies. I believe it humbling to admit that Allied victory in Normandy had more to do with the failings of the Nazi power structure than any magnificent feat of arms displayed on the battlefield, though the Americans certainly demonstrated more willingness to accept losses and risks than their British & Canadian counterparts.
20 of 21 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
More Bite than Sugar,
By
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Overlord: D-Day and the Battle for Normandy (Paperback)
To start I should clarify two things, firstly, I like Max Hastings as a writer and historian. I like the way he incorporates the entire spectrum of participants in the story which takes the 'grind' out of reading an historic account. He also doesn't 'romanticise' topics like D Day which, of recent times, has received a number of glowing commentaries as we celebrate those who took part. I don't want to take away from those who fought, as I have genuine respect for their contribution, but recently I believe Hollywood and some historians have glorified the actual events, clouding the realities of the battle and the 'knife edge' it was fought on for the first few weeks.Thank God for the Russian Front as I don't believe the Allied armies would have succeeded had they faced more units such as Hitler Jugend,12th SS Panzer, Panzer Lehr and the Parachute Divison.Enough emphasis cannot be placed on the importance and contribution of FORTITUDE in the ultimate success!
Back to the book,looking at it from a resident of a country that didn't have troops committed to the battle (we were getting ground up in Italy!)I find it very balanced in its criticisms of the generalship and quality of troops from the various nations. Far from coming away with negative thoughts regarding Allied superiority in quality of troops I come away with a feeling of awe that they accomplished what they did, sticking to their task in very unpleasant conditions, considering Britain had been at war for 5 years and America didn't have any great animosity toward Germany and nearly all their troops were new to the battlefield. I agree with Hastings that German forces were superior to Allied forces (excluding Airborne and Special Forces)on the whole. Unit for unit the Germans showed greater tenacity and initiative than the average Allied formation. Wittmans feat of arms with a single tank, Fritz Langangke's 'one man war'near St Denis and countless other defensive efforts showed, that with more resourcing, the Wehrmacht, in all liklihood, would have defeated the Allies. As quoted by Brigadier Williams, "The Germans adjusted much better to new conditions than we did. By and large they were better soldiers than we were.The Germans liked soldiering. We didn't." Overall I found the book very readable, concise and balanced. It showed well the magnitude of the task in forming armies from numerous countries, the personalities that could have defeated the forces prior to any landing,the ebbs and flows which determine the outcome and the fact that numerical and logisitcal superiority will,over a period of time,win out. If I was to choose one book to learn about the overall conduct of the battle, not in-depth analysis of a particular battle or battles, from top to bottom, this is the one. Well worth it. Not sugar coated, telling it how it was, sharing the criticisms in a fair and even-handed manner.
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
Inside This Book
(learn more)
First Sentence:
Not the least remarkable aspect of the Second World War was the manner in which the United States, which might have been expected to regard the campaign in Europe as a diversion from the struggle against her principal aggressor, Japan, was persuaded to commit her chief strength in the west. Read the first page Key Phrases - Capitalized Phrases (CAPs): (learn more)
First Army, Army Group, Second Army, Second World War, Panzer Lehr, Supreme Commander, Seventh Army, New York, Division Major-General, Pas de Calais, Divisional Troops, Fifteenth Army, Third Army, Light Anti-Aircraft, Bomber Command, Green Howards, Prime Minister, Reconnaissance Regiment, War Office, Dragoon Guards, North Africa, Panzer Corps, United States, Canadian Division, Panzer Group West New!
Books on Related Topics | Concordance | Text Stats Browse Sample Pages:
Front Cover | Table of Contents | First Pages | Index | Back Cover | Surprise Me!
Not the least remarkable aspect of the Second World War was the manner in which the United States, which might have been expected to regard the campaign in Europe as a diversion from the struggle against her principal aggressor, Japan, was persuaded to commit her chief strength in the west. Read the first page Key Phrases - Capitalized Phrases (CAPs): (learn more)
First Army, Army Group, Second Army, Second World War, Panzer Lehr, Supreme Commander, Seventh Army, New York, Division Major-General, Pas de Calais, Divisional Troops, Fifteenth Army, Third Army, Light Anti-Aircraft, Bomber Command, Green Howards, Prime Minister, Reconnaissance Regiment, War Office, Dragoon Guards, North Africa, Panzer Corps, United States, Canadian Division, Panzer Group West New!
Books on Related Topics | Concordance | Text Stats Browse Sample Pages:
Front Cover | Table of Contents | First Pages | Index | Back Cover | Surprise Me!
Books on Related Topics
(learn more)
|
|
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
Listmania!
|
|
So You'd Like to...
|
|
