Customer Reviews

The Struggle for Europe (Wordsworth Military Library)

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

A very readable, comprehensive, yet compact study of the war in Europe. Wilmot covers all of the war in Europe, including Dunkirk, Dieppe, Battle of/Invasion of Britain,etc but is especially in his element post D-Day. He puts a lot of things in context- e.g. land force successes are related to the strategic ability of Germany to wage war following the strategic bombing of German factories etc., which in turn is put into the context of an air war, and other factors pertaining to output. Yes, German output of materiél was increasing at the end of the war...

For me, the best thing is that Chester WIlmot was, I believe, a New Zealander. He is therefore a lot more objective in his work than you find in many of the distorted and jignoistic books on the topic, where you expect John Wayne to arrive at any minute and nothing goes wrong. The Allies DID make mistakes. It wasnt all glorious, and he reflects this, whilst giving credit where it is due and putting reverses into proper context. For example, his analysis of Omaha beach and the inadequacies of US higher command that led to it is very moving; and he pulls no punches with e.g. Operation Market Garden either. Further, the political struggles within the allies are as well represented as the struggle against Nazi Germany itself: Finally, after reading Wilmot, you are left in no doubt that the fighting in Western Europe after D-Day was every bit as bitter and devastating as the fighting in the first world war, and with equally horrific casualties.

A must have book. I have been trying to track one down for years. I eventually found a well-used 1950s copy in a second hand book shop, and I would love another hard back version, but will settle for a paperback in the interim.

BUY THIS BOOK!!

When Chester Wilmot, an Oxbridge graduate and a reporter for an English newspaper, was sifting through the war records at Nuremburg during the war trials, it donned on him that all the material the Allies needed to determine whether their D-Day strategy worked was in his hands. When he became a don at Oxford (I believe), he did just that. He poured over signal records captured from the Germans, historical data from the Allies, and produced a marvelous account of what the Allies did on D-Day and why it worked. The fact that Wilmot was on foot as a correspondent with the first British landing parties on D-Day only adds to the vision and understanding in, and the reader's appreciation of, this story. You'll end up wanting more. My wife and I visited Normandy on an excursion in the Summer of 1994, one week to the day after the 50th D-Day anniversary stuff ended. The crowds were gone but all the sites and history were still there. We stayed in a chateaux in a village called Audrieu and, in preparation for the trip, wanted to read a D-Day history. I'd read the Longest Day and seen the movie, but wanted something more and different. A colleague merely remarked, flatly, "it's the *best* book ever written on the subject." Wilmot didn't fail me. His ability to describe the macro troop movements and supply considerations, while at the same time describing in some cases every turn in the road, every hiding spot, and every skirmish, proved to me his ability as a great story-teller and historian. Even my wife, who was on the trip only because it was to France, and who originally had little interest in the region or D-Day, was smitten by the descriptions. She picked up the book while I was swimming in the Chateaux's pool early one morning, and it couldn't be pried loose until she was done. My wife was struck by the uncanny ability of Wilmot to describe a location or a battle or a situation from a hilltop, or vista point - along with a reference to a mile marker or other memorial so today's reader may find the same view, and witness what it is Wilmot is talking about. When one does this, as we did frequently, the book comes alive in the reader's hands more than any other first person history I have read. Wilmot's book is a masterpiece. Americans will read it and enjoy it because of its slightly skewed view for all of us - it's written from the British perspective most decidedly - and is unyielding in its frank comparisons of fresh but unskilled American troops, compared with their experienced, weary British colleagues. The book will stand out as an icon of its genre to anyone who reads it - and to those who accompany the tome to Normandy, it will make for a lifelong memory. Its ability to enhance a journey to Normandy cannot be overstated. Copyright TAStone 1997.

I attended the New Zealand Armed Forces Staff Course in 1997 and had to read numerous books on military history. None of them were as engrossing and well written as Chestor Wilmonts Struggle for Europe. This has been on my bookshelf for many years and I have read it twice. A terrific expose of the second world war in Europe. Chester draws you into the war as if you were there on D Day, and turns what could have been a very boring strategic overview of the war into an indepth study which keeps you wanting to read more.

Chester Wilmot was uniquely qualified to write this exhaustive history. He was a war correspondent who made the jump on June 6, so in some ways his narrative of D-Day's opening is a memoir, a trained historian and an exhaustive researcher. This book occupied him for six years and even though it was published in 1952, it was and still is, a remarkably objective history of the war in Europe.

First, the flaws. It's not complete. There's no account on the fall of France or Poland or Norway for that matter. It opens when the Germans have the BEF trapped in the channel ports in May 1940. But this is understandable. Wilmot's assertion that Hitler's letting the BEF get away sowed the the seeds for it's eventual return to the continent. Second, the Russian Front (which actually WON the war in Europe by the way) is dealt with only summarily and the Pacific is only discussed in terms of overall Grand Strategy. He also only mentions the war in the Mediterranean in passing. His Cold War conclusions were off as well, but this is said of course with hindsight. But considering when this was published (1952 originally), it's understandable for Wilmot for feeling that way.

The strengths of this book is that if you want a first rate narrative of the whats, the hows and the whys on how the War in Western Europe was fought, then this is the book.

Wilmot covers every possible aspect of the Western European campaign. From grand strategy, to desperate battles to blunders committed on both sides.

American readers might be peeved the way Wilmot praises Montgomery and not enough flattering comments are given Eisenhower and Patton (though both do receive their share). Frankly, I think it's high time Monty gets some good recognition over here. You don't become a Field Marshal in any Army by being incompetent. He was a good general, maybe even a great one. He gave the British Army its first real victory over the Germans, something no other British general had yet to do.

Wilmot also discusses the political machinations of both sides. The Allies were far superior to Hitler when it came to this. Also he discusses the economics of the war; something few if any military historians did at the time. Today, it's a common practice, but in 1952, it was a radical new approach.

John Keegan's recommendation of this in his history of the Second World War got me to purchasing a copy. He still believes it's unsurpassed in many ways. I have to agree.

I don't agree with everything Wilmot said, but I think that's what makes a good history book. You have points to debate and discuss. After all, history is always interpretive.

In this dense book the military history of the European theater of world war two is scrutinized with intricate detail. The history begins with the battle of Britain. The fall of Austria, Czechkoslovakia, Poland and France are all omitted. Germany's invasion plans, Operation: Sealion are what the reader is introduced with. The history continues with a detail scrutiny of the political, diplomatic and military moves (with an emphasis on the latter) that made up the struggle for Europe. The book ends with a history of the blunders at the Yalta conference and hints at the continuing tension that would mark post-war Europe.

Why You Should Read This Book:

Wilmot, in my humble opinion, gave an objective account of the war. He was not afraid to point out some of the blunders that the allies made in the course of the war. Some critics, Americans especially might disagree because he was highly critical of Patton and Eisenhower, while Montgomery was praised as a military genius. Indeed there might be some error by Wilmot in not giving an account of Chamberlain and his policy of appeasement. However this omission does not detract from the power of this history. This book gives the details to arguably the greatest conflict of mankind. With the generation that fought that war slowly dying away, it is important to revisit this war and not forget the lessons that history has taught us.

What you should expect to see in this book:

Expect a very detailed and at often times dry account of military plans, logistics, etc. The maps in here are of great use in understanding the war.

What you should not expect to see in this book:

This book is mainly a military history, so don't expect to read about the holocaust or about the Nazi philosophy. There are many good books on those subjects, but this is not one of them (I would highly suggest The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich by Shirer if you want to learn about the Nazis). Also, do not expect a lot of history before the battle of Britain. In addition this book was written at a time when information about the Eastern front mainly came from Nazi archives and not the Soviets. If you're looking for a book on Stalingrad or Kursk, this is probably not it (the author does cover these battles in detail, but modern books have been able to access more resources in describing them).

I gave this book 4 stars because I only give 5 stars to masterpieces. This book is certainly a thumbs up.

I remember first reading this book was I was 13. Fantastic. I've read it numerous times. It never ceases to amaze

The first third of the magnificent work deals with the rise of Adolf and the conquest of Western Europe.

The remainder deals with the build up to overload, including Deippe landing. It is from June 6th that this book really shines and shows the war in the west in a farily fine-grained manner.

Wilmot, being an Australian, was somewhat baised and favorable in his treatment of MOnty. This aside, he does present an impartial treatment of the war in the west. As he was actually there (I believe), he had access to primary sources that make this a highly valuable and valid work. He doesn't glorify war or the allied efforts and the closing remark about the cost of war and hoping it never happens again is quite good. Here is a cosnidered effort that is a 'serious' history, including allied failings and shortcomings, not revisionist or exaggerated.

Thumbs up.

Only complaint: The title is misleading.

I remember a colleague some 20 years ago raving about this book. I picked it up at a second-hand book fair and noticed the publication date, 1951, which for an unnatural reason bothered me. But I finally got around to reading it and was engrossed from the first chapter. It's a dry book but from the point of view of the battles and command structures it has probably got to be one of the best books on war that I've read. It's the sort of book that War Colleges would recommend for professional military students to study - professional, logical and perfectly representative of command, control and communications in major war. There are no personal vignettes, no rhetorical and ethical questioning of the meaning of war etc. The account of D-Day to the end of the war in the West is in itself a sobering exercise. However, if I could quibble it would be to point out that it should be entitled "The Struggle for Western Europe" and that on the land. The Eastern Front is almost entirely neglected, as is Italy, the sea war, the air war which were all contemporaneous with the land battle in the west. But this is a small failing with the grinding industrial quality which is the unfortunate fact of modern war. It doesn't stop to mourn the dead (that comes later) and nor does Chester Wilmot. This book more than holds its own against any of the C. Ryan, M. Middlebook, J. Keegan, S. Ambrose books which came later.

I first read this book in 1953. I was then only twenty years old and a member of the Royal Canadian Air Force. Of all the books about the second world war I read since, this work fulfil the thirst for knowledge I have regarding many aspects of that war, like logistic, war materiel production, and the effects of scientific discoveries on the outcome. The author writing is very fluid, not repetive in its description and straight forward. He doesnt hesitate to lay blames where due, and praises when warranted, neutral as he should be. I very much appreciate the battle situations maps, being in color they are easier to read and visualize the operation at hand. Appendix B: The High Commands is most useful when it comes to evaluate the reasons behind some of the crucial decisions that were taken. On the other hand, I find the author cursory writing about such momentous events as the North African and Italian campaings somewhat disconcerting, being much too short and lacking in depth, given the impact those campaings had on the german ressources. Seems obvious that the author was not prepared to go in more details, having probably not researched those two campaings to his satisfaction in order to elaborate further. One must remember, this book was first printed in 1952, not such a long time after the war. I am very pleased of my acquisition, and shall use it as yardstick in my further readings on the second world war. The book is in very good condition and was received on the date promised. I will be back.

This book is superb, full of amazing information, and easy to read. It sat on my shelf for about 2 years before I finally picked it up to read and I was disappointed that I hadn't done so earlier.

The book basically covers the entire war in one volume: starting off covering in brief, what took place between 1939-1944 and is crammed full of amazing information. Wilmot then turns to the main focus of the book, the fighting between 1944 and 1945. During the main portion of the book he covers both the Western and Eastern Fronts providing an excellent general narrative of the fighting backed up by dozens of maps to illustrate the text. Furthermore, the author actually took part in Operation Overlord and provides his own first-hand account of his landing into Normandy alongside the 6th Airborne Division.

The value of this book lies in the chance to see how one Australian journalist told the story of the war, just after the war itself. Wilmot unwittingly reveals his own prejudices, and gives a contemporary reader a strong sense of how he and his colleagues perceived the Anglo-American aspect of the war against Hitler. His perspective is personal and immediate, and is impossible to find in today's more measured historiography of the war. He also brings in economic analysis (industrial production and labour force), a careful reconstruction of the July plot against Hitler, and a fresh reading of political machinations determining military choices on both sides.
Wilmot was present in western France and then on the road to Holland, and his accounts of the individual bravery of Allied troops are first-person and convinced. Based on the skirmishes he witnessed, he also has enormous respect for the Germans as fighters. Wilmot also has no hostility towards the Germans, whom he admires as superior fighters, and on some pages almost seems to regret that their crackpot dictator doomed their excellent army to defeat.
Wilmot's thesis is essentially that the German loss was not due to Allied strategic brilliance but in the superior industrial production of the allied effort, against which the Germans could not possibly have won. He also subscribes to the idea that the Germans would have surrendered earlier had Morgenthau not announced that the victors would partition and demilitarize Germany. A modern reader may be surprised that his book on the European war mentions Jews only in this context, but Wilmot's distaste for Jews is representative of some of his background and position. His war, close-up, was quite another.
Where Wilmot's vision is more useful is when he deflates the idea of an even battle between the Allies and the Germans. Allied bombing had eliminated the mobility of German forces in Western France: there was not enough fuel for their tanks, which relied on rail transport to arrive at battles. German troop levels and home-front labour force resources were low, supplies were limited, and the entire German command structure was split in half between regular Army and SS units, with practically no co-ordination. Hitler's mystical belief in the power of the SS units led to him starving other units of resources and his failure to withdraw them.
The Allies in Wilmot's book bicker and bumble, and overcome superior German forces largely through numbers and massive preparation. They protract the war by splitting resources between Patton and Montgomery, what Wilmot considers a political decision. He claims that Montgomery's force, if properly supplied, would have circled the Ruhr and brought the war to an early end. This may be because Wilmot was embedded with Montgomery's forces on their drive north. Still, the scenes of miscommunication he describes (ten-mile traffic jams as the troops erroneously believe the shoulders are mined) suggest that incompetence in that army was also rife.
In short, the book can be uncomfortable reading for those accustomed to heroics and morality plays. By washing the Nazis of their murderous ideology, Wilmot makes them almost pitiable in their doomed defense of occupied Europe. He even parrots Goebbels' canard that Morgenthau (=Jews) protracted the war by steeling German resolve. Still, Wilmot himself, who died prematurely in an air crash and may have changed his own views had he lived, is a window on how the war was understood in its immediate aftermath by the victors and not the victims.