Scan barcode
dimitribelgium's review against another edition
3.0
With an overview of such a complex and shrouded subject, not every part will be equally interesting. Ineffective time-wasters of volunteer James Bonds aren't as sexy as the Enigma or their industrial scale US Navy counterparts.
Still, Hastings makes the best of it, with the benefit of the occasional declassified file or revealing memoir.
Still, Hastings makes the best of it, with the benefit of the occasional declassified file or revealing memoir.
embi's review against another edition
4.0
Incredibly comprehensive and detailed, although strongly focussed on the European theatre.
Hastings also references the British/German double cross agents repeatedly as an important source of disinformation, but never actually discusses the scheme in any detail. It does not appear to be because he has written on it elsewhere
Hastings also references the British/German double cross agents repeatedly as an important source of disinformation, but never actually discusses the scheme in any detail. It does not appear to be because he has written on it elsewhere
raghuiyer's review against another edition
4.0
A fairly concise review of the role Intelligence played in WW 2. It's more comprehensive than other works which focus exclusively on one of Bletchley Park, SOE or OSS. The writing is crisp and the narrative is fairly linear. The vast array of characters does make it a little difficult to keep track of names and link events. It does emphasize the enormous effort that countries put into the art of cloak-and-dagger during 1939-45.
Nifty read. Definitely recommended for readers who want to go a little further afield in their WW2 readings.
Nifty read. Definitely recommended for readers who want to go a little further afield in their WW2 readings.
joestewart's review against another edition
1.0
Didn't finish. It was a slog. Made it to 390 out of 555 pages.
I'm a big fan of
"First, tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em!"
"Second, tell 'em!"
"Third, tell 'em what you told 'em!"
Sadly, Hastings didn't do that. While I have no doubt about the authenticity of the text and his references, I couldn't figure out what he was trying to communicate. What's the point of investing all that effort and then not convey an argument?
It is a joint effort on the part of the reader and the author to communicate - I put in nearly 400 pages and have no idea what the point of all those facts was....
I'm a big fan of
"First, tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em!"
"Second, tell 'em!"
"Third, tell 'em what you told 'em!"
Sadly, Hastings didn't do that. While I have no doubt about the authenticity of the text and his references, I couldn't figure out what he was trying to communicate. What's the point of investing all that effort and then not convey an argument?
It is a joint effort on the part of the reader and the author to communicate - I put in nearly 400 pages and have no idea what the point of all those facts was....
generalheff's review against another edition
4.0
The Secret War by Max Hastings is an extremely detailed look at the ways all the key belligerents in World War II went about trying to understand what their enemies (and friends in the case of Russia) were doing. This was achieved by spies, signals intelligence, human intelligence and the like. We hear about it all. From the well-known, like Bletchley Park’s code breakers, to much more obscure fare the reader is walked through in painstaking detail all the nuances of the secret war.
It must be stressed that the book is excessive at times. Hastings’ writing philosophy appears to be ‘why give one example when three will do?’. But, overall, The Secret War provides the sort of one-stop-shop, ‘everything you might want to know’, that readers have come to associate with this author, all delivered in his easy, journalistic style. In other words: if you are really interested in this stuff this is a great read, but the level of detail would likely be overwhelming to those without a keen interest in the subject matter.
A key device Hastings uses to try and keep his readers on track through the many, many examples and digressions is the repetition of a few key themes. These are not just helpful in tying the book together but ensure the reader develops a solid understanding of what intelligence is and is not good for. It is this, probably more than the sordid tales and Bond-like escapades, that I will remember long from now.
Let’s take the author’s central mantra: “many books about wartime intelligence focus on what spies or code-breakers found out. The only question that matters, however, is how far secret knowledge changed outcomes”. Throughout the book Hastings applies this test to decide whether some daring mission was worth it. As we hear about Russian agent Anotoli Gourevitch: “in his memoirs, [he] touches on a weakness in his own training … he was exhaustively instructed in techniques – secret inks, passwords for rendezvous and suchlike. No matching effort, however, was expended upon explaining the purpose of his mission’. As Hastings goes on to point out (and reiterates many times again): “for many secret agents the management and perils of daily existence consumed a lion’s share of their energies, often overwhelming the function that mattered – the acquisition of information of value to their service and its government”.
Nowhere is this made clearer than in terms of human intelligence (humint). All sides in the war expended considerable resources managing and paying informants in the enemy camp (and, of course, in the case of the Russians, in their allies’ camps too). Yet all sides gained almost nothing of value from any of this. Individuals would pocket money and run, make up information or be arrested almost immediately, as seems to have happened to all Japanese spies landed in the continental United States.
A second overarching theme resonating throughout the book was that intelligence only matters if senior leaders list to it. In the case of humint, even incredible sources like the Russian agent Richard Sorge, viewed by the Japanese (incredibly) as a German spy because of his easy access to that embassy, could achieve little when any information deemed offensive to Stalin was simply not shown to him.
The Germans and particularly the Japanese all seem to have fallen into the trap of dismissing intelligence that did not conform to their leaders’ whims, rendering even good intelligence worthless. The lesson the author draws from this, seemingly a powerful one at our present moment in time, is that authoritarian regimes are good only to stifle understanding of objective truth, which is ultimately to the detriment of all their citizens.
The final message that resounds throughout the book is that intelligence is only useful when governments can do anything about it. For this reason, for all of Britain’s incredible code-breaking achievements in breaking enigma, this made little difference in 1941 because Britain just didn’t have the army, navy or air power to capitalise on their intelligence. Only by 1943 when the tide of war was turning could information be translated into advantage.
These key messages are hammered home in this massive book, offering a refreshingly blunt look at the limitations as well as the glamour of the intelligence world. I learnt a raft about less familiar aspects of the war reading this book. For example, I had no knowledge of Bill Tutte, a cryptographer at Bletchley who helped break German teleprinter traffic (even harder than Enigma). Hastings stoutly advocates for Tutte’s, and many other individuals’, place in history alongside Alan Turing (indeed, Hastings’ comparative neglect of the latter can no doubt be seen as his attempt to re-balance the scales somewhat).
The key issue with the book is its length. I thoroughly enjoyed reading much of the detail, yet I truly felt engulfed by it at times. There are copious quotations from intelligence reports at times which is unnecessary and breaks up the narrative. I found myself praying during some sections for Hastings’ distinctive, journalistic tone to re-emerge with an insightful point about what has just been said. It almost felt at times like reading the evidence behind the author’s assessment. Some is good; more can be bad. Perhaps burying 100 pages or so in an appendix would have helped the flow.
The cast of characters is also colossal. I can’t help but feel that the author or his editors could have smoothed the journey for the reader by offering a few more hints (such as who a person is, added in parenthesis) when less familiar individuals re-surface after fifty pages out of the reader’s mind. This is especially true in discussions of the myriad spies and humint sources working for Russia as part of the ‘Lucy’ ring or the Red Orchestra and so on. The cast of these groups is positively kaleidoscopic at times.
Despite my confusion at times and the occasional murmur of boredom reading through a particularly dense section, I am glad this book exists and very glad I read it. Partly as a window onto many new aspects of the war, but mostly because the book does not shy away from asking hard questions about whether, in the end, intelligence – however incredibly acquired – was valuable to the war effort. This is a fascinating but undoubtedly challenging book.
It must be stressed that the book is excessive at times. Hastings’ writing philosophy appears to be ‘why give one example when three will do?’. But, overall, The Secret War provides the sort of one-stop-shop, ‘everything you might want to know’, that readers have come to associate with this author, all delivered in his easy, journalistic style. In other words: if you are really interested in this stuff this is a great read, but the level of detail would likely be overwhelming to those without a keen interest in the subject matter.
A key device Hastings uses to try and keep his readers on track through the many, many examples and digressions is the repetition of a few key themes. These are not just helpful in tying the book together but ensure the reader develops a solid understanding of what intelligence is and is not good for. It is this, probably more than the sordid tales and Bond-like escapades, that I will remember long from now.
Let’s take the author’s central mantra: “many books about wartime intelligence focus on what spies or code-breakers found out. The only question that matters, however, is how far secret knowledge changed outcomes”. Throughout the book Hastings applies this test to decide whether some daring mission was worth it. As we hear about Russian agent Anotoli Gourevitch: “in his memoirs, [he] touches on a weakness in his own training … he was exhaustively instructed in techniques – secret inks, passwords for rendezvous and suchlike. No matching effort, however, was expended upon explaining the purpose of his mission’. As Hastings goes on to point out (and reiterates many times again): “for many secret agents the management and perils of daily existence consumed a lion’s share of their energies, often overwhelming the function that mattered – the acquisition of information of value to their service and its government”.
Nowhere is this made clearer than in terms of human intelligence (humint). All sides in the war expended considerable resources managing and paying informants in the enemy camp (and, of course, in the case of the Russians, in their allies’ camps too). Yet all sides gained almost nothing of value from any of this. Individuals would pocket money and run, make up information or be arrested almost immediately, as seems to have happened to all Japanese spies landed in the continental United States.
A second overarching theme resonating throughout the book was that intelligence only matters if senior leaders list to it. In the case of humint, even incredible sources like the Russian agent Richard Sorge, viewed by the Japanese (incredibly) as a German spy because of his easy access to that embassy, could achieve little when any information deemed offensive to Stalin was simply not shown to him.
The Germans and particularly the Japanese all seem to have fallen into the trap of dismissing intelligence that did not conform to their leaders’ whims, rendering even good intelligence worthless. The lesson the author draws from this, seemingly a powerful one at our present moment in time, is that authoritarian regimes are good only to stifle understanding of objective truth, which is ultimately to the detriment of all their citizens.
The final message that resounds throughout the book is that intelligence is only useful when governments can do anything about it. For this reason, for all of Britain’s incredible code-breaking achievements in breaking enigma, this made little difference in 1941 because Britain just didn’t have the army, navy or air power to capitalise on their intelligence. Only by 1943 when the tide of war was turning could information be translated into advantage.
These key messages are hammered home in this massive book, offering a refreshingly blunt look at the limitations as well as the glamour of the intelligence world. I learnt a raft about less familiar aspects of the war reading this book. For example, I had no knowledge of Bill Tutte, a cryptographer at Bletchley who helped break German teleprinter traffic (even harder than Enigma). Hastings stoutly advocates for Tutte’s, and many other individuals’, place in history alongside Alan Turing (indeed, Hastings’ comparative neglect of the latter can no doubt be seen as his attempt to re-balance the scales somewhat).
The key issue with the book is its length. I thoroughly enjoyed reading much of the detail, yet I truly felt engulfed by it at times. There are copious quotations from intelligence reports at times which is unnecessary and breaks up the narrative. I found myself praying during some sections for Hastings’ distinctive, journalistic tone to re-emerge with an insightful point about what has just been said. It almost felt at times like reading the evidence behind the author’s assessment. Some is good; more can be bad. Perhaps burying 100 pages or so in an appendix would have helped the flow.
The cast of characters is also colossal. I can’t help but feel that the author or his editors could have smoothed the journey for the reader by offering a few more hints (such as who a person is, added in parenthesis) when less familiar individuals re-surface after fifty pages out of the reader’s mind. This is especially true in discussions of the myriad spies and humint sources working for Russia as part of the ‘Lucy’ ring or the Red Orchestra and so on. The cast of these groups is positively kaleidoscopic at times.
Despite my confusion at times and the occasional murmur of boredom reading through a particularly dense section, I am glad this book exists and very glad I read it. Partly as a window onto many new aspects of the war, but mostly because the book does not shy away from asking hard questions about whether, in the end, intelligence – however incredibly acquired – was valuable to the war effort. This is a fascinating but undoubtedly challenging book.
mementomaggie's review against another edition
3.0
Fascinating but I hated the organization of the book and how the author kept referring back to people from hundreds of pages previous whose names and rolls I had all but forgotten by the time I reach their new mentions
anti_formalist12's review against another edition
4.0
The secret war treated with incisive wit and a critical eye. Hastings does a wonderful job dissolving many of the myths and in telling all of the strange stories.
didactylos's review against another edition
2.0
Struggled with this. Undoubtedly very well researched and documented, but it is such a huge subject and lacks any central focus. Mind numbing in detail and significantly repetitive.