jay_catsby's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
medium-paced
4.75
spitefulgod's review against another edition
dark
emotional
informative
reflective
sad
medium-paced
5.0
andrew_russell's review against another edition
4.0
Max Hasting's book is a hell of an ambitious effort. And to the man's credit, it is one that he largely succeeds in pulling off. I mean to say, a comprehensive account of a six year conflict? Well....yes.
The power of this book lies firstly in it's success in covering most of the main aspects of the war. The Pacific, the Middle East, Normandy, Arnhem, Pearl Harbour, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, the atomic bombs, the Battle of Britain, The Holocaust, Leningrad, The Battle of The Atlantic...do I need to carry on? Not only that but Hastings rounds all of these off with some objective context. It isn't just 'so many died, blah blah blah. General X attacked General Y with so many tanks, so many troops, blah, blah,blah'. No siree. It provides the reasoning behind the actions of the main belligerents, rather than a dry narrative that would leave you asking, 'Why?'
This really is one of the most authoritative single-volume works on The Second World War that I have read. I've still got Anthony Beevor's volume to read and it will be interesting to see if that matches up to Hastings' work.
The power of this book lies firstly in it's success in covering most of the main aspects of the war. The Pacific, the Middle East, Normandy, Arnhem, Pearl Harbour, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, the atomic bombs, the Battle of Britain, The Holocaust, Leningrad, The Battle of The Atlantic...do I need to carry on? Not only that but Hastings rounds all of these off with some objective context. It isn't just 'so many died, blah blah blah. General X attacked General Y with so many tanks, so many troops, blah, blah,blah'. No siree. It provides the reasoning behind the actions of the main belligerents, rather than a dry narrative that would leave you asking, 'Why?'
This really is one of the most authoritative single-volume works on The Second World War that I have read. I've still got Anthony Beevor's volume to read and it will be interesting to see if that matches up to Hastings' work.
bryanfox's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
5.0
anti_formalist12's review against another edition
5.0
Any history of World War Two is a problem, and this one more than most. Hastings makes battles I had never heard of sound as if they were one of the circles of hell. The most powerful part of this book is how uniquely human he makes the war feel. It wasn't a war fought by patriots and soldiers of freedom on one side and monsters and the forces of evil on the other. Hastings devotes little time to the Holocaust, an unforgivable crime, if Hastings had not already written books that give much greater focus to the Holocaust. But he wants to make you feel what the average soldier felt, what the wife at home wrote to her husband at the front. What did the people who had to fight the Second World War think about having to fight it. Mercifully, Hastings does not devote much time to the troop movements and dispositions. What he seizes on is a state of mind, one of blood, shit, fear, and depression. It feels more real than any other history book I have ever read.
davehershey's review against another edition
5.0
This is a fantastic history of World War II. Whether you can't remember what you learned in history class and aren't even sure who fought, or if you're a fan of history and know loads of details, this one could be for you!
A lot struck me about this story, and much of it I already knew but found myself with a new appreciation for the depths of it. For example, I knew that Russia was the big roadblock to Germany and that Stalin's armies did much more to stop the Nazis than we Americans did. But it hit me anew how Russia stood alone, more or less, against the Nazis for a couple of years while America built up their forces. Along with that, I knew Stalin was a bad guy. But the realities of having to ally with Stalin and ignore some of his evil acts in order to win the war struck me anew. That may be the biggest question I take away, what does it look like to be allies with unscrupulous people? How much should the US work together with Russia, even allow them to take the lead, in fighting ISIS? (Kind of ironic how much Russia is in the news the last few days as I finished this.)
Of course, it is not like we Americans were good and pure. This too I knew but was struck by. We like to think we are the good guys fighting evil, but how did it sound to oppressed African-Americans to hear our government talk about liberation? How hypocritical were we to judge others for their actions against minorities in their countries and to act as we have in our country in dark moments in our history? Clearly America and Britain were better winners for the world and history than the Nazis would have been. But this does not erase our flaws.
Finally, it is amazing that early in the book the author talks of how the war was decided. There were hundreds of pages, years of fighting and millions of deaths to have. But when Germany was stopped in Russia and when Japan was slowed in the Pacific, the end was a foregone conclusion. Yes it is easy to admit that now, but even some of Hitler's generals saw it then. How many lives were wasted continuing the fight long past when the result became even more certain?
Overall, a great book.
A lot struck me about this story, and much of it I already knew but found myself with a new appreciation for the depths of it. For example, I knew that Russia was the big roadblock to Germany and that Stalin's armies did much more to stop the Nazis than we Americans did. But it hit me anew how Russia stood alone, more or less, against the Nazis for a couple of years while America built up their forces. Along with that, I knew Stalin was a bad guy. But the realities of having to ally with Stalin and ignore some of his evil acts in order to win the war struck me anew. That may be the biggest question I take away, what does it look like to be allies with unscrupulous people? How much should the US work together with Russia, even allow them to take the lead, in fighting ISIS? (Kind of ironic how much Russia is in the news the last few days as I finished this.)
Of course, it is not like we Americans were good and pure. This too I knew but was struck by. We like to think we are the good guys fighting evil, but how did it sound to oppressed African-Americans to hear our government talk about liberation? How hypocritical were we to judge others for their actions against minorities in their countries and to act as we have in our country in dark moments in our history? Clearly America and Britain were better winners for the world and history than the Nazis would have been. But this does not erase our flaws.
Finally, it is amazing that early in the book the author talks of how the war was decided. There were hundreds of pages, years of fighting and millions of deaths to have. But when Germany was stopped in Russia and when Japan was slowed in the Pacific, the end was a foregone conclusion. Yes it is easy to admit that now, but even some of Hitler's generals saw it then. How many lives were wasted continuing the fight long past when the result became even more certain?
Overall, a great book.
rallisaurus's review against another edition
5.0
I have to admit, I skimmed some of the more military-ish parts of this military history. But overall it was an excellent read, horrifying, but excellent. Whereas Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin made me think it sucked to be Russian/Polish/Ukranian, this book made me think it sucked to be pretty much anyone. Good War, what Good War?
arp923's review against another edition
dark
emotional
informative
inspiring
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
5.0