`Ebook ✐ The Battle for the Rhine: The Battle of the Bulge and the Ardennes Campaign, 1944 ⇴ PDF eBook or Kindle ePUB free

Gives an alternative viewDefinitely an eye opener to an alternative view However, by its nature the subject was a little dry and occasionally the point was laboured a little too much and too often. This is a deeply detailed and exhaustively research account from the first hours after D Day up to The Battle of the Bulge Sometimes repetetive as a Montogmery apologist, this author also takes Patton down a few notches This account makes for good balanced reading to the dramatic and simplified popular accounts of the movies Patton and A Bridge too Far This book should have been called, Monty s Battle to Overcome the Stupidity of the American Generals and Beat the Nazis single handed That would haveaccurately indicated the tone of the book While I appreciate that the author had a thesis, and that he backs up his claims with quite a bit of evidence, the tone was overbearing and extremely taxing I am an American, so admittedly this may have bothered methan it would bother other readers But the impression one takes away from thi This book should have been called, Monty s Battle to Overcome the Stupidity of the American Generals and Beat the Nazis single handed That would haveaccurately indicated the tone of the book While I appreciate that the author had a thesis, and that he backs up his claims with quite a bit of evidence, the tone was overbearing and extremely taxing I am an American, so admittedly this may have bothered methan it would bother other readers But the impression one takes away from this book is that Field Marshall Montgomery, who was British, never made a mistake and was always right The American Generals on the other hand, never did anything right From Patton to Ike, they were all idiots Ike receives the best treatment, but the best Neillands had to say about Ike amounted to saying that he was a nice guy but a worthless commander.Neillands may very well be largely correct in his assertions, but the fact that his evidence is so completely one sided, and the fact that he is a British historian pushing the line that the British had the only leadership worth anything, leads me to suspect that perhaps there is some evidence that would support a different conclusion or at least anuanced conclusion If not, then his case would have been made mucheffectively had it not been laid on so thick, with such a liberal dose of derisiveness for anyone not British I have not studied WWII s European theater closely enough to dispute his thesis, and I found myself agreeing with Mongomery s suggested strategy over Eisenhower s while still in the first chapter But I found myself feelingandargumentative over his views as the book went on, exactly because of its overbearing tone.Just to give some context, I am not an American apologist I have read books extolling the military virtues of Rommel, Zhukov, Montgomery, and Patton, but have never had this kind of reaction, so this is not a reaction brought on by being a US military fanboy.I still might have rate this book three stars, except that it added very poor writing to its irritating manner Neillands could have really used an editor The main problem was that it was extremely repetitive There were sentences that I would have sworn I had heard audio version word for word just a few minutes before There were whole paragraphs that essentially repeated facts or analysis that was given a few paragraphs before Neillands would spend what I assume would be pages describing the command situation, or Monty s position on an issue, then a while later try to make another point by giving the same analysis It was extremely tiring and I almost stopped in the first chapter.My other complaint is that Neillands has a very tedious read academic writing style, which while common in academia, is not necessary To be honest, I read this kind of writing a lot, and I would have overlooked this issue were it not for the other, bigger problems.I cannot recommend this book unless the potential reader is looking for a detailed treatise advocating for the British role in the Battle for the Rhine in late 1944 If you want a ton of detail about Montgomery s feud with the US commanders, then you may enjoy this book Otherwise, move along A good look at the strategy of this period of the war He claims to bridge the Monty vs Patton argument that historians, amateur and otherwise, break down, but he s clearly on Montgomery s side He does a very good job of backing it up, though He s not very complimentary to most American generals, and perhaps rightly so, but I think he is excessively harsh on Patton That said, I m emotionally a Patton o phile, but I am convinced that Montgomery had some right ideas. A well written, well researched historical analysis of the time period He argues logically that General Eisenhower s strategy from September through December 1944, was ineffective and may have prolonged the war several months He hails Eisenhower as a great Supreme commander, but an indifferent ground forces commander In the author s opinion, Ike failed to adequately grip his immediate subordinates especially George Patton and Omar Bradley The author argues that General Montgomery s assessmen A well written, well researched historical analysis of the time period He argues logically that General Eisenhower s strategy from September through December 1944, was ineffective and may have prolonged the war several months He hails Eisenhower as a great Supreme commander, but an indifferent ground forces commander In the author s opinion, Ike failed to adequately grip his immediate subordinates especially George Patton and Omar Bradley The author argues that General Montgomery s assessment was correct, but his lack of tact undermined the strength of his arguments The American army group generals are shown as being incompetent and unprofessional who wereconcerned with looking good to the press than strong generals An enlightening account of what happened between the breakout from Normandy in August 44 and January 45 Not really a book to bother with though unless you are interested in such details as why did it take the Allies so long to make the Rhine when things were going so well Of course, parts of the answer are Arnhem and the Bulge but they are not the whole story, as they are two months apart A fuller picture includes a lack of a clear strategy people not following the strategy such as it was An enlightening account of what happened between the breakout from Normandy in August 44 and January 45 Not really a book to bother with though unless you are interested in such details as why did it take the Allies so long to make the Rhine when things were going so well Of course, parts of the answer are Arnhem and the Bulge but they are not the whole story, as they are two months apart A fuller picture includes a lack of a clear strategy people not following the strategy such as it was personality clashes an American supply corps which was a law unto itself Eisenhower trying to do two highly demanding jobs which took him in different directions a steadily weakening Canadian force and the failure to open the Scheldt Estuary, without which the capture of Antwerp could be of no real benefit.The big negative here is how much time is taken up with the strategy problems, repeating the arguments multiple times A lot of people won t get past the first 20% because of this However, it is worth persevering because evidence is well researched and thoughtfully presented You know, for instance, that a historian knows what they re talking about when they take the line that the failure at Arnhem wasa road too narrow than a Bridge too Far Admittedly the latter sounds great but as getting across the Rhine was the point of the exercise, not aiming for Arnhem would ve been pointless and of course, the troops at Arnhem held out for much longer, with much less than they had anticipated, so they actually didthan was expected of them I was left wondering if Montgomery was on the Autism Spectrum though If anyone has ever looked into this, as they have into the psychology of many other leading historical figures It would make at lot of sense The real truthA fair review of the truth.Obviously Monty was held back but he was the most level headed Commander not searching for personal glory but by good reasoning knowing the enemies possible moves.Above all doing his best to not waste mens livesBrilliant well researched book. Less of a history andof a misplaced dispute on how history has regarded personalities of the war and who was responsible for winning Generals Ike, Bradley, Patton and MacArthur are consistently torn down and the praise for Monty gets repetitively nauseous. Battle for the Rhine Battle between the Generals.Now without that nasty David Irving flavour. `Ebook ☆ The Battle for the Rhine: The Battle of the Bulge and the Ardennes Campaign, 1944 ↜ Who was really responsible for the failure at Nijmegen, the destruction of the British First Airborne Division at Arnhem, and the failure of Operation Market Garden Why was Montgomery threatened with the sack when he had just retrieved Bradley s failure in the Battle of the Bulge Was General Eisenhower s command strategy either workable or wise, and did Bradley and Patton undermine it Even after sixty years, the questions remain In this account of thepost Normandy campaign, historian Robin Neillands disentangles events from the media myths that have come to surround them to get to the truth of what really happened He examines the often difficult relationship between General Eisenhower and British Field Marshal Montgomery If Eisenhower had taken his advice, would the Allies have made quicker progress Could the war in Europe have been won inif the right strategies had been employed With superb battle narratives and clear analysis of success and failure at every point, Neillands casts a new and informed light on the costly struggle for the Rhine