What do you think?
Rate this book
A Time for Trumpets: The Untold Story of the Battle of the Bulge
On December 16, 1944, the vanguard of three German armies, totaling half a million men, attacked U.S. forces in the Ardennes region of Belgium and Luxembourg, achieveing what had been considered impossible -- total surprise. In the most abysmal failure of battlefield intelligence in the history of the U.S. Army, 600,000 American soldiers found themselves facing Hitler's last desperate effort of the war.
The brutal confrontation that ensued became known as the Battle of the Bulge, the greatest battle ever fought by the U.S. Army -- a triumph of American ingenuity and dedication over an egregious failure in strategic intelligence. A Time for Trumpets is the definitive account of this dramatic victory, told by one of America's most respected military historians, who was also an eyewitness: MacDonald commanded a rifle company in the Battle of the Bulge. His account of this unique battle is exhaustively researched, honestly recounted, and movingly authentic in its depiction of hand-to-hand combat.
Mingling firsthand experience with the insights of a distinguished historian, MacDonald places this profound human drama unforgettably on the landscape of history.
712 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1984
822 people are currently reading
1525 people want to read
About the author
Charles B. MacDonald
51 books31 followersCharles B. MacDonald was a former Deputy Chief Historian for the United States Army. He wrote several of the Army's official histories of World War II.
After graduating from Presbyterian College, MacDonald was commissioned as a US Army officer through the Army ROTC and deployed to Europe. By September 1944, as a 21 year old Captain , he commanded a rifle company in the 23rd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division. MacDonald received the Silver Star and the Purple Heart.
His first book, ''Company Commander'', was published in 1947, while his wartime experiences were fresh in his mind.
MacDonald wrote the final volume of the Green Series on the European Theatre, ''The Last Offensive''. He retired as Deputy Chief Historian, United States Army Center of Military History in 1979.
After his retirement, MacDonald wrote ''A Time for Trumpets'', his last book, a personal history of the Ardennes Offensive which concentrates on the first two weeks of the battle, which he spent five years researching. MacDonald also wrote or co-wrote two other books of the Green Series, ''The Siegfried Line Campaign'' and ''Three Battles: Arnaville, Altuzzo, and Schmidt''. He also contributed to ''Command Decisions''.
MacDonald suffered from cancer and lung disease and he died on December 4, 1990 at his home in Arlington, Virginia.
After graduating from Presbyterian College, MacDonald was commissioned as a US Army officer through the Army ROTC and deployed to Europe. By September 1944, as a 21 year old Captain , he commanded a rifle company in the 23rd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division. MacDonald received the Silver Star and the Purple Heart.
His first book, ''Company Commander'', was published in 1947, while his wartime experiences were fresh in his mind.
MacDonald wrote the final volume of the Green Series on the European Theatre, ''The Last Offensive''. He retired as Deputy Chief Historian, United States Army Center of Military History in 1979.
After his retirement, MacDonald wrote ''A Time for Trumpets'', his last book, a personal history of the Ardennes Offensive which concentrates on the first two weeks of the battle, which he spent five years researching. MacDonald also wrote or co-wrote two other books of the Green Series, ''The Siegfried Line Campaign'' and ''Three Battles: Arnaville, Altuzzo, and Schmidt''. He also contributed to ''Command Decisions''.
MacDonald suffered from cancer and lung disease and he died on December 4, 1990 at his home in Arlington, Virginia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 120 reviews
June 8, 2016
The Battle of the Bulge (which began December 16, 1944) was the last great battle of the western European theater of operations during World War II. It began as a surprise German offensive that caught the American armies advancing on Germany completely unaware. (The British and Canadian troops, farther to the north, mostly escaped the brunt of the attack). For the first several days, even as lines buckled, Allied leadership deluded themselves into thinking the attack represented a feint, rather than a full counteroffensive.
In fighting that equaled the intensity of the far-bloodier eastern front (where the reprehensible Germans and the reprehensible Russians slaughtered each other wholesale), 19,000 American soldiers were killed. The German plan, as conceived by the Austrian corporal himself, Adolf Hitler, was to capture Antwerp. That plan never came close to succeeding; however, by the time the German offensive stalled, it had punched a massive salient into the American front lines (on maps, German gains resembled a bulge; the name of the battle does not refer to gross overeating of soldiers on either side).
During this cold winter, it seemed appropriate to read about a famous battle during an equally cold and miserable winter. Charles MacDonald’s A Time for Trumpets is one of the recognized classics on the Battle of the Bulge. MacDonald – who also wrote the well-received Company Commander – was a twenty year-old commander of a rifle company during the battle, giving him a front row seat for this dramatic clash of arms. (MacDonald humbly inserts himself into the story in a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it cameo). Later, MacDonald became the Deputy Chief Historian of the U.S. Army.
This authorial combination of eyewitness participant coupled with academic pedigree is a strong selling point. By the time I reached the end of this book, however, I came to the conclusion that MacDonald’s personal investment with the Bulge was both this book’s greatest virtue and glaring weakness.
On the plus side, you get a comprehensive narrative of the battle from the perspective of individual soldiers. On the downside, there were times when I felt as lost as those individual soldiers as to the ebb and flow of the battle.
Most history books take a heavily weighted top-down approach. The bulk of the time is spent at the top of the chain of command, with generals making decisions, with other generals carrying them out, and with armies moving around the battlefield. On-the-ground anecdotes are used as flavoring, but by and large, the view remains macro as opposed to micro.
A Time for Trumpets takes the exact opposite approach. For most of the book’s prodigious length (623 pages of text), Eisenhower, Bradley, Montgomery, and Patton are ignored. Instead, the tale of the Bulge is told through the eyes of lieutenants, sergeants, and privates. Rather than tracing the movements of armies, corps, or divisions, this is military history at the regimental, battalion, and company level (and sometimes even at the platoon level).
In some respects, I liked this approach. For one, it gives credit where credit is due. There are abillion substantial number of books that tell you all you need to know about Dwight D. Eisenhower, Omar Bradley, and George Patton. We’ve spent enough time with the gods and generals. It’s fitting to have so much space devoted to the otherwise-nameless pawns, the ones who actually did the fighting and dying and the winning and losing. None of them became president, or had a fighting vehicle named for them, or were the subject of an Oscar-winning movie. But they were the ones that actually took the physical risks, had to overcome the visceral terror, and generally did the bulk of the work for none of the fame.
Focusing on the common soldiers also makes for a lively, often compelling narrative. There are sharp fights, brave stands, and heart-stopping escapes. The level of detail is astounding. Take, for instance, this passage on the massacre at Malmedy.
MacDonald’s account is comprehensive. He spends nearly 100 pages on the first day, and devotes a great deal of space to the defense of Wiltz, St. Vith, and the Elsenborn Ridge, along with the more famous stand at Bastogne. Having spent a great deal of time at the battlefield, he has a good feel for the ground.
The Battle of the Bulge was a tactical defeat that ultimately proved a strategic Allied victory. The Germans never attained their operational goal, and the salient they punched through Allied lines almost became their undoing (though the Allies mounted a relatively conservative counteroffensive). For the Americans, it proved the costliest battle of World War II (and after the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, the costliest in American history). The battle did not win the Germans the war, or lose it for the Allies. Its starkest consequence was to extend the war, and thus the daily dying.
Perhaps due to his own participation, MacDonald paints a rosier picture of the Bulge than in most other histories I’ve read. He refuses to acknowledge any disorganization or panic in the American retreats, even on the first day, when the Germans achieved complete surprise. While his own experience supplies some nuance, it does not change the fact that mass American surrenders at the Bulge were second only to the fall of Bataan.
MacDonald is stridently indifferent towards the infamous infiltrations of Otto Skorzeny’s English-speaking commandos. He rightly notes that the commandos had no direct effect on the battle’s outcome and failed to complete their mission; however, he utterly ignores the widespread and rampant confusion and paranoia their mere existence created. This hysteria has to be factored into an already discordant response to the German offensive.
(Oddly, for a book written by an actual combatant, MacDonald paints a sympathetic portrait of SS Lt. Col. Joachim Peiper, who was condemned – and later released – for his role in the Malmedy Massacre).
I mentioned above that this book’s strength is also its weakness. The ground-level viewpoint is excellent for a feel of the battle; it is not conducive to an overall understanding. Reading this book is often like putting together a jigsaw puzzle without the box. There is not enough time spent on the overall sweep of the battle. MacDonald’s pointillist approach is often dramatic, but all these individual actions seldom cohere. This was a huge and complex battle, and certainly, confusion reigns in combat. But a history book should not necessarily mimic the myopic experiences of individual soldiers. It’s the historian’s job to mold all these events into something understandable. Instead of tromping through the woods with the soldiers, MacDonald should have spent a bit more time in a figurative airplane, giving us a wider, more sweeping perspective. The maps, I must add, are not in the least bit helpful.
(MacDonald himself stated that he intended his book to be accessible to casual readers. It is not. A Time for Trumpets is definitely aimed more appropriately at graduate-level World War II buffs).
A Time for Trumpets has its place in the firmament of Bulge lore. For hardcore students of the battle, this is the treatise sine qua non. For them, its inclusive coverage of nearly all aspects make it indispensable. On the other hand, those with just a passing interest will likely need to pair this volume with a complementary work that provides a better overview.
In fighting that equaled the intensity of the far-bloodier eastern front (where the reprehensible Germans and the reprehensible Russians slaughtered each other wholesale), 19,000 American soldiers were killed. The German plan, as conceived by the Austrian corporal himself, Adolf Hitler, was to capture Antwerp. That plan never came close to succeeding; however, by the time the German offensive stalled, it had punched a massive salient into the American front lines (on maps, German gains resembled a bulge; the name of the battle does not refer to gross overeating of soldiers on either side).
During this cold winter, it seemed appropriate to read about a famous battle during an equally cold and miserable winter. Charles MacDonald’s A Time for Trumpets is one of the recognized classics on the Battle of the Bulge. MacDonald – who also wrote the well-received Company Commander – was a twenty year-old commander of a rifle company during the battle, giving him a front row seat for this dramatic clash of arms. (MacDonald humbly inserts himself into the story in a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it cameo). Later, MacDonald became the Deputy Chief Historian of the U.S. Army.
This authorial combination of eyewitness participant coupled with academic pedigree is a strong selling point. By the time I reached the end of this book, however, I came to the conclusion that MacDonald’s personal investment with the Bulge was both this book’s greatest virtue and glaring weakness.
On the plus side, you get a comprehensive narrative of the battle from the perspective of individual soldiers. On the downside, there were times when I felt as lost as those individual soldiers as to the ebb and flow of the battle.
Most history books take a heavily weighted top-down approach. The bulk of the time is spent at the top of the chain of command, with generals making decisions, with other generals carrying them out, and with armies moving around the battlefield. On-the-ground anecdotes are used as flavoring, but by and large, the view remains macro as opposed to micro.
A Time for Trumpets takes the exact opposite approach. For most of the book’s prodigious length (623 pages of text), Eisenhower, Bradley, Montgomery, and Patton are ignored. Instead, the tale of the Bulge is told through the eyes of lieutenants, sergeants, and privates. Rather than tracing the movements of armies, corps, or divisions, this is military history at the regimental, battalion, and company level (and sometimes even at the platoon level).
In some respects, I liked this approach. For one, it gives credit where credit is due. There are a
Focusing on the common soldiers also makes for a lively, often compelling narrative. There are sharp fights, brave stands, and heart-stopping escapes. The level of detail is astounding. Take, for instance, this passage on the massacre at Malmedy.
The Germans herded the men tightly together only sixty feet from the highway, roughly in eight rows, hands above their heads, Some men jostled briefly for position, for they disliked being in the front row. The weather was damp and raw, the ground soggy underfoot with here and there a patch of old snow. The men’s hands grew numb from holding them up and from the cold, for hardly anybody still had gloves…
A German officer – later identified as Maj. Werner Poetschke, commander of the 1st SS Panzer Battalion (perhaps conveniently so identified, for by that time he had been killed on another battlefield) – stopped two Mark IV tanks and directed them into position covering the prisoners. Once they were in place, he ordered one of the commanders, Sgt. Hans Siptrott, to open fire. Siptrott in turn ordered his assistant gunner, Pvt. Georg Fleps, a twenty-one-year-old SS volunteer from Romania who already has his pistol at the ready, to shoot.
Fleps fired. Standing beside Lieutenant Lary, Lary’s driver collapsed backward from the impact of the bullet, toppling men behind him in an accordion action, so tightly were they all grouped. With the shot, the prisoners began shouting and jostling, and at least two in the front rank…bulldozed their way to the rear. Some of the officers yelled for the men to stand fast lest they provoke more shooting.
No provocation was needed…somebody shouted Machen alle kaput! (Kill them all!), and machine guns on both tanks opened fire…
MacDonald’s account is comprehensive. He spends nearly 100 pages on the first day, and devotes a great deal of space to the defense of Wiltz, St. Vith, and the Elsenborn Ridge, along with the more famous stand at Bastogne. Having spent a great deal of time at the battlefield, he has a good feel for the ground.
The Battle of the Bulge was a tactical defeat that ultimately proved a strategic Allied victory. The Germans never attained their operational goal, and the salient they punched through Allied lines almost became their undoing (though the Allies mounted a relatively conservative counteroffensive). For the Americans, it proved the costliest battle of World War II (and after the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, the costliest in American history). The battle did not win the Germans the war, or lose it for the Allies. Its starkest consequence was to extend the war, and thus the daily dying.
Perhaps due to his own participation, MacDonald paints a rosier picture of the Bulge than in most other histories I’ve read. He refuses to acknowledge any disorganization or panic in the American retreats, even on the first day, when the Germans achieved complete surprise. While his own experience supplies some nuance, it does not change the fact that mass American surrenders at the Bulge were second only to the fall of Bataan.
MacDonald is stridently indifferent towards the infamous infiltrations of Otto Skorzeny’s English-speaking commandos. He rightly notes that the commandos had no direct effect on the battle’s outcome and failed to complete their mission; however, he utterly ignores the widespread and rampant confusion and paranoia their mere existence created. This hysteria has to be factored into an already discordant response to the German offensive.
(Oddly, for a book written by an actual combatant, MacDonald paints a sympathetic portrait of SS Lt. Col. Joachim Peiper, who was condemned – and later released – for his role in the Malmedy Massacre).
I mentioned above that this book’s strength is also its weakness. The ground-level viewpoint is excellent for a feel of the battle; it is not conducive to an overall understanding. Reading this book is often like putting together a jigsaw puzzle without the box. There is not enough time spent on the overall sweep of the battle. MacDonald’s pointillist approach is often dramatic, but all these individual actions seldom cohere. This was a huge and complex battle, and certainly, confusion reigns in combat. But a history book should not necessarily mimic the myopic experiences of individual soldiers. It’s the historian’s job to mold all these events into something understandable. Instead of tromping through the woods with the soldiers, MacDonald should have spent a bit more time in a figurative airplane, giving us a wider, more sweeping perspective. The maps, I must add, are not in the least bit helpful.
(MacDonald himself stated that he intended his book to be accessible to casual readers. It is not. A Time for Trumpets is definitely aimed more appropriately at graduate-level World War II buffs).
A Time for Trumpets has its place in the firmament of Bulge lore. For hardcore students of the battle, this is the treatise sine qua non. For them, its inclusive coverage of nearly all aspects make it indispensable. On the other hand, those with just a passing interest will likely need to pair this volume with a complementary work that provides a better overview.
March 21, 2016
A large detailed account of the "Battle of the Bulge" (December 16,1944-January 28, 1945). As many already know Charles MacDonald was an infantry officer in WWII. He served with the 23rd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division and participated in the battle (he describes his company's participation in the battle on pages 378-379 ). He was there.
Later, after the war, he was employed as the Army's Deputy chief Historian and wrote numerous books about the Army's campaign in Northwestern Europe (France,Belgium,Germany,Luxembourg). So to say that MacDonald was familiar with the events and the physical location would be an understatement.
The book is a good military history, but it does have it's faults.
1) As many others have pointed out the maps are lacking in details, but at least there are many maps. All too often there are never enough maps in military history accounts. Evidently MacDonald later stated that he was trying to write a book for the casual reader. Military maps are highly detailed and perhaps MacDonald was concerned that those maps would overwhelm the reader.
2)MacDonald displays an almost personal dislike for Montgomery which unbalances his account at times. I have to chalk that up to him being unable to separate himself from his personal experiences .Many WWII Americans who served in Europe have an intense dislike for Montgomery and Montgomery did much to earn their animosity - at times he was irritating and that's putting it mildly. The result in a rather biased version ,but don't be too hard on Mr. MacDonald though. Rick Atkinson in his acclaimed "Liberation Trilogy" displays a similar enmity towards General Bradley and Mr. Atkinson wasn't even born until 1952. At least Mr. MacDonald can claim to have been biased due to his firsthand experiences and not some academic basis.
3)Referring again to other reviewers there are times that MacDonald focuses so completely on the company and battalion level of the fighting that the big picture gets lost. However, in defense of the author, I'm not sure it really does. I readily acknowledge that unless you've read many military histories (the way the Army likes them written) it is confusing with the focus on seemingly minute details. Remember that MacDonald worked for many years as one of the Army's official historians. His writing style is that of the official military historian writing for an audience comprised of officers, senior NCO's (senior sergeants) and cadets (officers in training). For those who find this book to be too detailed and/or dry try reading MacDonald's three official histories from the Army's "Green Series". Those books are pages and pages of companies and battalions maneuvering across ridges, through villages , attacking and defending. In 1957 MacDoanld received a Secretary of the Army Research and Study Fellowship and spent a year studying the interrelationship of terrain, weapons, and tactics on European battlefields. This is an author who knew his subject material both personally and academically (as I observed earlier). I didn't find it confusing, but for the non military history buff, (I suppose it helps that I was an Army R.O.T.C. cadet and a junior armor officer many many years ago) it can be imposing. Too be honest I don't really know what Mr. MacDonald could have done differently.
All in all a well written account of one of the biggest and bloodiest battles (the U.S. Army suffered an estimated 81,000 casualties according to MacDonald) that the U.S. Army has ever participated in. It has it's strengths and it's weaknesses and it might take one a little while to get into it. However give it a chance and you will find yourself pulled in. This is a detailed and heavily researched book that sets out to provide an accurate account of the battle and also to show that the U.S. Army fought hard. Though it could be argued that MacDonald is guilty of some omissions (particularly in his insistence that many soldiers didn't break and run at the beginning of the battle when there is a preponderance of evidence showing the contrary) and biases (his intense dislike for Montgomery) MacDonald produced a tremendous piece of military history with "A Time For Trumpets". This is a true piece of scholarship and not just a "slap and dash" piece intended to cash in on what was the fortieth anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge. It's a valid addition to one's military history library.
Later, after the war, he was employed as the Army's Deputy chief Historian and wrote numerous books about the Army's campaign in Northwestern Europe (France,Belgium,Germany,Luxembourg). So to say that MacDonald was familiar with the events and the physical location would be an understatement.
The book is a good military history, but it does have it's faults.
1) As many others have pointed out the maps are lacking in details, but at least there are many maps. All too often there are never enough maps in military history accounts. Evidently MacDonald later stated that he was trying to write a book for the casual reader. Military maps are highly detailed and perhaps MacDonald was concerned that those maps would overwhelm the reader.
2)MacDonald displays an almost personal dislike for Montgomery which unbalances his account at times. I have to chalk that up to him being unable to separate himself from his personal experiences .Many WWII Americans who served in Europe have an intense dislike for Montgomery and Montgomery did much to earn their animosity - at times he was irritating and that's putting it mildly. The result in a rather biased version ,but don't be too hard on Mr. MacDonald though. Rick Atkinson in his acclaimed "Liberation Trilogy" displays a similar enmity towards General Bradley and Mr. Atkinson wasn't even born until 1952. At least Mr. MacDonald can claim to have been biased due to his firsthand experiences and not some academic basis.
3)Referring again to other reviewers there are times that MacDonald focuses so completely on the company and battalion level of the fighting that the big picture gets lost. However, in defense of the author, I'm not sure it really does. I readily acknowledge that unless you've read many military histories (the way the Army likes them written) it is confusing with the focus on seemingly minute details. Remember that MacDonald worked for many years as one of the Army's official historians. His writing style is that of the official military historian writing for an audience comprised of officers, senior NCO's (senior sergeants) and cadets (officers in training). For those who find this book to be too detailed and/or dry try reading MacDonald's three official histories from the Army's "Green Series". Those books are pages and pages of companies and battalions maneuvering across ridges, through villages , attacking and defending. In 1957 MacDoanld received a Secretary of the Army Research and Study Fellowship and spent a year studying the interrelationship of terrain, weapons, and tactics on European battlefields. This is an author who knew his subject material both personally and academically (as I observed earlier). I didn't find it confusing, but for the non military history buff, (I suppose it helps that I was an Army R.O.T.C. cadet and a junior armor officer many many years ago) it can be imposing. Too be honest I don't really know what Mr. MacDonald could have done differently.
All in all a well written account of one of the biggest and bloodiest battles (the U.S. Army suffered an estimated 81,000 casualties according to MacDonald) that the U.S. Army has ever participated in. It has it's strengths and it's weaknesses and it might take one a little while to get into it. However give it a chance and you will find yourself pulled in. This is a detailed and heavily researched book that sets out to provide an accurate account of the battle and also to show that the U.S. Army fought hard. Though it could be argued that MacDonald is guilty of some omissions (particularly in his insistence that many soldiers didn't break and run at the beginning of the battle when there is a preponderance of evidence showing the contrary) and biases (his intense dislike for Montgomery) MacDonald produced a tremendous piece of military history with "A Time For Trumpets". This is a true piece of scholarship and not just a "slap and dash" piece intended to cash in on what was the fortieth anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge. It's a valid addition to one's military history library.
November 19, 2007
One of the best accounts of the Bulge. I lent my first copy out and never got it back, had to go get another. It is worth it.
March 17, 2021
Overwhelming and epic in scale, this history of the Battle of the Bulge is an amazing feat of both historical research and storytelling. All of the participants come to life, from the youngest and most inexperienced GI to the most brutally efficient and ruthless German general. A must read for WWII buffs!
December 28, 2015
An outstanding book capturing the Battle of the Bulge in great detail. Charles B. McDonald took great pains to record unit movements, engagements and results for the entire battle - although after reaching the German high water mark the account doesn't go into near the detail as the earlier portions of the operation. US Army regimental actions are recorded in great detail with many descriptions going down to the Company level. A great piece of work for those interested in small unit actions in the Ardennes. Although the greatest amount of detail captured is of American units the German and SS units are not forgotten. The author regularly records Axis units at the division and frequently at the regimental / kampfgruppe level.
Mr. McDonald engaged with fellow veterans capturing their experiences and weaving them into the story. Highlights of personal accounts include survivors of the Malmedy Massacre, German tank commanders exploitation of the fog of war, and the Allied soldier's confusion caused by the German's use of captured US Army vehicles. The amount of individual accounts isn't quite to the level of George Koskimaki's Battered Bastards of Bastogne. None the less there is enough there to really give the reader a sense of what it was like to fight in the Bulge.
Mr. McDonald includes discussions of the strategic aspects of the Battle. He provides insight into Hitler's thinking and his general staff's response to his plans. An extensive discussion of the impending battle's indicators that Allied intelligence missed, and how that major failure impacted future strategic decision making post Battle of the Bulge. Mr. McDonald describes the role ULTRA intercepts played in the Allies' decision making process and provides numerous examples of how the intelligence was used throughout the book.
The historical research and writing without a doubt deserves four stars. Mr. McDonald did an excellent job organizing the material into a readable format which I was able to follow without too much effort. I read the e-book (Kindle) version which is published by Endeavour Press. Endeavour's conversion / editing to the e-book version is rated at three stars. Generally Endeavour did a good editing job - a few places where they missed removing hyphenated words and a few misspellings, but nothing that actually detracts from the read. Copious use of hyperlinks for references and chapters. Now for the serious blunder by Endeavor - they included no maps. Here we have a detailed study of a large military operation and have absolutely no maps to refer to during the dialog. As a result I was very close to giving this book as published two stars. I ended up referring to maps published by the US Army's official history of the battle which can be found on-line.
In summary a must read for Bulge enthusiasts - especially if you are interested in specific engagements of the operation. If you are looking for an introductory book on the Battle of the Bulge I do not recommend this as a first read. There is so much detail it is easy to loose sight of the forest for all the trees. Regardless do not purchase the Kindle version of this book due to the missing maps. Instead go for the paper version.
Mr. McDonald engaged with fellow veterans capturing their experiences and weaving them into the story. Highlights of personal accounts include survivors of the Malmedy Massacre, German tank commanders exploitation of the fog of war, and the Allied soldier's confusion caused by the German's use of captured US Army vehicles. The amount of individual accounts isn't quite to the level of George Koskimaki's Battered Bastards of Bastogne. None the less there is enough there to really give the reader a sense of what it was like to fight in the Bulge.
Mr. McDonald includes discussions of the strategic aspects of the Battle. He provides insight into Hitler's thinking and his general staff's response to his plans. An extensive discussion of the impending battle's indicators that Allied intelligence missed, and how that major failure impacted future strategic decision making post Battle of the Bulge. Mr. McDonald describes the role ULTRA intercepts played in the Allies' decision making process and provides numerous examples of how the intelligence was used throughout the book.
The historical research and writing without a doubt deserves four stars. Mr. McDonald did an excellent job organizing the material into a readable format which I was able to follow without too much effort. I read the e-book (Kindle) version which is published by Endeavour Press. Endeavour's conversion / editing to the e-book version is rated at three stars. Generally Endeavour did a good editing job - a few places where they missed removing hyphenated words and a few misspellings, but nothing that actually detracts from the read. Copious use of hyperlinks for references and chapters. Now for the serious blunder by Endeavor - they included no maps. Here we have a detailed study of a large military operation and have absolutely no maps to refer to during the dialog. As a result I was very close to giving this book as published two stars. I ended up referring to maps published by the US Army's official history of the battle which can be found on-line.
In summary a must read for Bulge enthusiasts - especially if you are interested in specific engagements of the operation. If you are looking for an introductory book on the Battle of the Bulge I do not recommend this as a first read. There is so much detail it is easy to loose sight of the forest for all the trees. Regardless do not purchase the Kindle version of this book due to the missing maps. Instead go for the paper version.
July 7, 2009
I've been having bad luck with history books lately. Lets get the negatives down right now.
1. The maps are never ever in the right place at the right time. They are almost showing some other part of the battle entirely, so if you don't have the battlefield memorized, there is little chance of you knowing what is going on in any particular moment.
2. Excessively American. What a second, it was written by an American historian that was a company commander in the middle of this battle, we outnumbered the British 10-to-1, out died 100-to-1. This was our battle, how could it be too American? Well, two things. Montgomery (who all we Americans agree was a pompous buffoon) is treated more poorly by the author than is rational. SS atrocities are pumped up into the horrible events they were, and is one of the few parts where the author makes any effort to infuse emotion into his narrative (more on this in a moment)
3. It doesn't feel cold. This battle was fought in the dead of winter, with ice and snow causing much of the pain and suffering, but you never get that feeling. It all feels clinical.
4. It doesn't feel epic. There were some amazing last stands, counter attacks, desperate measures, and general derring do. None of that come out in the narrative. Oh, they are mentioned, kind of, but it doesn't feel epic or heroic. I suspect things get lost in descriptions of unit designations rather than the battle itself.
Meh, that is enough complaining. I read the book, and really really want to play something on the Battle of the Bulge, as I finally have a better sense of the large sweep of the battle (which armies were involved, what the final shape of the bulge was). But, I was hoping for something that got down closer to the soldier. Especially from someone that experienced this himself and is such a celebrated author and historian.
1. The maps are never ever in the right place at the right time. They are almost showing some other part of the battle entirely, so if you don't have the battlefield memorized, there is little chance of you knowing what is going on in any particular moment.
2. Excessively American. What a second, it was written by an American historian that was a company commander in the middle of this battle, we outnumbered the British 10-to-1, out died 100-to-1. This was our battle, how could it be too American? Well, two things. Montgomery (who all we Americans agree was a pompous buffoon) is treated more poorly by the author than is rational. SS atrocities are pumped up into the horrible events they were, and is one of the few parts where the author makes any effort to infuse emotion into his narrative (more on this in a moment)
3. It doesn't feel cold. This battle was fought in the dead of winter, with ice and snow causing much of the pain and suffering, but you never get that feeling. It all feels clinical.
4. It doesn't feel epic. There were some amazing last stands, counter attacks, desperate measures, and general derring do. None of that come out in the narrative. Oh, they are mentioned, kind of, but it doesn't feel epic or heroic. I suspect things get lost in descriptions of unit designations rather than the battle itself.
Meh, that is enough complaining. I read the book, and really really want to play something on the Battle of the Bulge, as I finally have a better sense of the large sweep of the battle (which armies were involved, what the final shape of the bulge was). But, I was hoping for something that got down closer to the soldier. Especially from someone that experienced this himself and is such a celebrated author and historian.
May 17, 2010
One of the better books on the Bulge. Get a map of your own out and
follow the along with the action.
September 26, 2024
A Time for Trumpets is a very detailed study of the Battle of the Bulge in 1944. The author devoted 5 years of research for this massive 600 page+ book. Charles B. MacDonald was present at the Battle of the Bulge but this book is not an eyewitness story but rather a well researched study. I have been interested in this event every since I learned that my father had also been there. The Battle of the Bulge took place over several weeks and across long distances. If I was to have a complaint about MacDonald's book it would be the maps. I would have liked to see some better maps. The book included some maps but there was less detail than I would have liked. Now that I have finished A Time for Trumps I will seek some better maps. The best parts of this book were the narrative accounts of the many participants.
I read A Time for Trumpets and John Eisenhower's The Bitter Woods at the same time. Both books are quite similar and used many of the same sources. I could not say one was better than the other though I think the maps in The Bitter Woods were a bit better than MacDonald's maps in A Time for Trumpets. Both are long books that take time to read and digest.
-.
I read A Time for Trumpets and John Eisenhower's The Bitter Woods at the same time. Both books are quite similar and used many of the same sources. I could not say one was better than the other though I think the maps in The Bitter Woods were a bit better than MacDonald's maps in A Time for Trumpets. Both are long books that take time to read and digest.
-.
March 17, 2021
In 1986 I was hired by a military history think tank that specialized in the numerical analysis of battles, campaigns, and wars. The US Army had just contracted with them to help validate some of the Army's combat models--complex computer programs that tried to predict not only the outcomes of battles but the casualties, advance rates, and expenditures of fuel and ammunition that such battles would entail. This was during a "warm" period of the Cold War and there were many ideas about where the Warsaw Pact might attack NATO; the Army wanted to be as prepared to counter these moves as possible. But--and here's a question computer modelers in other branches of science might want to ask themselves these days--how do you know your models are telling you the truth, or anything close to it?
The answer in this case was to take data from historical battles, run it through the models, and compare the computer's results with the actual historical results. One of the principal possibilities for which the Army wanted to be ready was a Soviet armored thrust through the Fulda Gap of Germany, and it so happened that such an attack bore many similarities to the actual German attack into the Ardennes in December 1944, otherwise known as the Battle of the Bulge because of the 60-mile deep bulge it drove into American lines.
As the designer and builder of the database intended to hold all the data that would be fed into the Army's models, I didn't need to understand much about this battle, strictly speaking. But once the database was in place, the data entry screens working, and the output reports designed, I was asked to help with the translation of German records from the battle which our researchers had collected from various archives (I read and speak German). For that task, I had to learn a *lot* about military reporting practices, terminology, and conventions like tables of organization and equipment (TO&Es). I had to become intimately familiar with the 1944 maps of the Ardennes that were available to both the American and German armies, and with the different coordinate systems in use by both sides. This immersion in the details of the battle sparked in me a fascination for this event that has persisted to this day.
As soon as I realized I needed to understand the battle from the top down, I knew I needed to find a single book to begin my study, to get a solid foundation and overview. Since I worked with a company full of professional military historians, naturally I asked for their recommendations. While a number of books had been written about the Bulge in the intervening 40 years (though not nearly as many as now), the consensus was that A Time For Trumpets was the best one out there for its breadth and depth. Thirty-five years later, and having read almost every book available in English, German, and French about the battle, I have to concur.
As Charles MacDonald himself says in the author's note, he was trying to show the battle at all levels, from the highest command conferences to the coldest foxhole, and to convey the feeling of the battle as well as the political and strategic effects of it. He succeeded more magnificently than almost any other work I can think of--one of the few equals is Tuchman's The Guns of August. In part this is because MacDonald himself was not only a participant in the battle as a 21-year-old company commander in that sector that would come to be called the Northern Shoulder (in fact in 1988, when I had the opportunity to work with him briefly before his death, at a seminar on the causes of defeat he famously remarked "I am probably the only person in this room who has been personally defeated in battle"); he later became an historian for the Army and eventually attained the rank of Deputy Chief Historian, so he not only understood how to analyze battles from a strategic perspective but had access to records, memoirs, and interviews with participants from the highest levels of command.
A Time For Trumpets reads like a movie script, helped in part by MacDonald's weaving in of personal details of many of the men (and a few women) who feature in the story. This is not just a litany of names, dates, and places; it's a tapestry of real human lives woven together by events that shaped the history of the last months of World War II.
The book is a little front-loaded, in that it spends a lot of time setting up the circumstances of the battle, covering the moving into place of the units and people that would take part. The opening days of the 6-week battle are covered in great detail--perhaps because that's when the most momentous decisions (and mistakes) were made. Once the German drive reaches its high-water mark ten days after its start, MacDonald begins covering the American drive to close the Bulge in less detail and the roughly four weeks of American counterattack and tenacious German defense is covered in the last couple of chapters.
One of the things that I really commend this book for is the wealth of maps that cover virtually every kilometer of the Ardennes where any fighting took place. Every place of importance in the text is shown on at least one map. This is a rare enough thing in most military histories that I read, that I consider it important to mention. (In fact, when I read this book the first time in the days before Google Earth and zoomable maps at one's fingertips, I xeroxed every map in the book, adjusted the zoom on the copier until I had all the maps at roughly the same scale, and then taped them all together. I had the resulting huge patchwork map on the wall of my office for all the years that our Ardennes Database project lasted.) Unfortunately due to the poor state of graphics productions in the mid-1980s, the maps are relatively crude line drawings, and it can be hard to distinguish a road from a river from a movement arrow; but MacDonald's very descriptive writing helps make up for the lack of detail.
Because of this book, my fascination with the Battle of the Bulge has persisted and grown since 1986; my bookshelves groan under the weight of dozens of books about the battle--overviews such as Dupuy's Hitler's Last Gamble and Eisenhower's The Bitter Woods; volumes about specific aspects, like Bauserman's The Malmedy Massacre or Parker's To Win the Winter Sky; and foreign studies like Milmeister's Die Ardennenschlacht in Luxemburg and Lambert's Bayerlein à Rochefort via Saint Hubert et l'encerclement de Bastogne. If I had to divest myself of all those wonderful works and keep just one book on the Bulge, it would come down to a choice between A Time for Trumpets and Hugh Cole's amazing work of scholarship, the official history The Ardennes: The Battle of the Bulge; but for readability, in the end my choice would be A Time For Trumpets.
Rest in peace, Mac.
The answer in this case was to take data from historical battles, run it through the models, and compare the computer's results with the actual historical results. One of the principal possibilities for which the Army wanted to be ready was a Soviet armored thrust through the Fulda Gap of Germany, and it so happened that such an attack bore many similarities to the actual German attack into the Ardennes in December 1944, otherwise known as the Battle of the Bulge because of the 60-mile deep bulge it drove into American lines.
As the designer and builder of the database intended to hold all the data that would be fed into the Army's models, I didn't need to understand much about this battle, strictly speaking. But once the database was in place, the data entry screens working, and the output reports designed, I was asked to help with the translation of German records from the battle which our researchers had collected from various archives (I read and speak German). For that task, I had to learn a *lot* about military reporting practices, terminology, and conventions like tables of organization and equipment (TO&Es). I had to become intimately familiar with the 1944 maps of the Ardennes that were available to both the American and German armies, and with the different coordinate systems in use by both sides. This immersion in the details of the battle sparked in me a fascination for this event that has persisted to this day.
As soon as I realized I needed to understand the battle from the top down, I knew I needed to find a single book to begin my study, to get a solid foundation and overview. Since I worked with a company full of professional military historians, naturally I asked for their recommendations. While a number of books had been written about the Bulge in the intervening 40 years (though not nearly as many as now), the consensus was that A Time For Trumpets was the best one out there for its breadth and depth. Thirty-five years later, and having read almost every book available in English, German, and French about the battle, I have to concur.
As Charles MacDonald himself says in the author's note, he was trying to show the battle at all levels, from the highest command conferences to the coldest foxhole, and to convey the feeling of the battle as well as the political and strategic effects of it. He succeeded more magnificently than almost any other work I can think of--one of the few equals is Tuchman's The Guns of August. In part this is because MacDonald himself was not only a participant in the battle as a 21-year-old company commander in that sector that would come to be called the Northern Shoulder (in fact in 1988, when I had the opportunity to work with him briefly before his death, at a seminar on the causes of defeat he famously remarked "I am probably the only person in this room who has been personally defeated in battle"); he later became an historian for the Army and eventually attained the rank of Deputy Chief Historian, so he not only understood how to analyze battles from a strategic perspective but had access to records, memoirs, and interviews with participants from the highest levels of command.
A Time For Trumpets reads like a movie script, helped in part by MacDonald's weaving in of personal details of many of the men (and a few women) who feature in the story. This is not just a litany of names, dates, and places; it's a tapestry of real human lives woven together by events that shaped the history of the last months of World War II.
The book is a little front-loaded, in that it spends a lot of time setting up the circumstances of the battle, covering the moving into place of the units and people that would take part. The opening days of the 6-week battle are covered in great detail--perhaps because that's when the most momentous decisions (and mistakes) were made. Once the German drive reaches its high-water mark ten days after its start, MacDonald begins covering the American drive to close the Bulge in less detail and the roughly four weeks of American counterattack and tenacious German defense is covered in the last couple of chapters.
One of the things that I really commend this book for is the wealth of maps that cover virtually every kilometer of the Ardennes where any fighting took place. Every place of importance in the text is shown on at least one map. This is a rare enough thing in most military histories that I read, that I consider it important to mention. (In fact, when I read this book the first time in the days before Google Earth and zoomable maps at one's fingertips, I xeroxed every map in the book, adjusted the zoom on the copier until I had all the maps at roughly the same scale, and then taped them all together. I had the resulting huge patchwork map on the wall of my office for all the years that our Ardennes Database project lasted.) Unfortunately due to the poor state of graphics productions in the mid-1980s, the maps are relatively crude line drawings, and it can be hard to distinguish a road from a river from a movement arrow; but MacDonald's very descriptive writing helps make up for the lack of detail.
Because of this book, my fascination with the Battle of the Bulge has persisted and grown since 1986; my bookshelves groan under the weight of dozens of books about the battle--overviews such as Dupuy's Hitler's Last Gamble and Eisenhower's The Bitter Woods; volumes about specific aspects, like Bauserman's The Malmedy Massacre or Parker's To Win the Winter Sky; and foreign studies like Milmeister's Die Ardennenschlacht in Luxemburg and Lambert's Bayerlein à Rochefort via Saint Hubert et l'encerclement de Bastogne. If I had to divest myself of all those wonderful works and keep just one book on the Bulge, it would come down to a choice between A Time for Trumpets and Hugh Cole's amazing work of scholarship, the official history The Ardennes: The Battle of the Bulge; but for readability, in the end my choice would be A Time For Trumpets.
Rest in peace, Mac.
March 27, 2017
This book suffers from being overly comprehensive, every time a unit moves its listed in the writing. It reads a lot like combat has been described, long periods of boredom followed by a few seconds of extreme adrenaline. The moments when the author uses the first hand accounts of the men on the ground are seemingly crushed under the paragraphs of 'Company K moved here, Brigade Y moved here'. The German side is included in some parts but the focus is heavily on the Allies side of things. The writing style shows its age, the author doesnt have the ability to weave the ground and strategic views like Beevor, Ambrose, or Atkinson.
February 5, 2008
One of the best military histories I've read, but marred slightly by weak maps (always an important element of any military history). But the writing was excellent, and the story itself was a compelling one of courage, determination, and resourcefulness.
June 26, 2017
"A Time for Trumpets" is not an easy read in e-book form. My understanding is that the on-paper versions include a goodly number of maps, from which the e-version -- utterly bereft of illustrations -- would have greatly benefited.
The book is meticulously researched, as befits its author's station as a former deputy historian of the U.S. Army. The battle is analyzed in tremendous detail, from the preparations on the German side (and the lack thereof on the Allied side) to the aftermath. Anyone expecting a Stephen Ambrose-style recounting of views from the foxhole or the tank turret will be, in large measure, disappointed. Although the book does include a smattering of vignettes to illustrate events, told from individual recollections, it is mostly a compilation of large-unit maneuvers and results.
The preparation phase is a long, slow slog. The reader is introduced to a host of units that will participate in the battle. The attack phase involves a blizzard of information, coming mostly from the German point of view, since the Germans were the prime movers at that point, that is difficult for a less-than-expert American reader to grasp. A few of the biggest individual and unit names in the German command are familiar, but when the story dips down to battalion- or company-level movements, it gets hard to follow. (Again, I was working through it without benefit of maps, other than what I could find on my own from various online sources.) The players on the American side are somewhat easier to track, because more of the commander and unit names are familiar, but it's still very challenging to keep track of who is doing what to whom, and where.
The effort to chronicle the entire battle in full detail results in an often disconcerting roller-coaster ride from 30,000 feet to ground level and back. The book is by no means disorganized, but it often feels as if it is. There is just so much ground to cover and so many important actors to keep tabs on.
MacDonald set for himself a task that was almost impossible: To tell, completely, accurately and with the proper perspective, the story of one of the biggest set-piece battles in the history of warfare. The action was complicated and, most of the time, confused. There's probably no way to simplify it and do it comprehensive justice. Only when I read the author’s note at the end did I grasp why MacDonald approached his book as he did. Among his reasons for writing the book, he explains that he “wanted to tell it for the veteran of the battle, who in many cases knew little of what went on beyond hand grenade range of his foxhole.”
In short, the primary intended audience for this book is not the casual reader of World War II history. That primary audience includes, rather, the participant in the battle, who could be counted upon to have a mix of both broad perspective on the battle and personal experience of it. That audience also includes the military scholar – someone whose profession commends him to a deeper knowledge of the battle. This seems to me a book well suited to a student at the Command and General Staff College.
None of that is to imply that the book is not worth a read. On the contrary, it truly is a comprehensive treatment of a battle that was at least immense, even if it was not particularly determinative of the war in Europe – an issue that had been largely decided once Allied troops broke out from the Cotentin Peninsula. But it’s no feel-good oral history of dogfaces triumphing against difficult local odds. It’s an almost minute-by-minute dissection of the decisions made by the generals, colonels, majors and captains of both sides. It’s an attempt to make sense of the inspirations and the blunders; the orders that were followed and the ones that were ignored or never made it to their intended recipients; the thrusts and the ripostes; the attacks and the consolidations that defined December 1944 in the Ardennes. For serious readers of World War II, the book is definitely a worthy endeavor.
But like the men who, in 1944, created and reduced “the bulge,” a reader will sometimes find himself just putting his head down and plodding forward. The overall sweep of the book – there is much to be learned – make it worth the rough going.
The book is meticulously researched, as befits its author's station as a former deputy historian of the U.S. Army. The battle is analyzed in tremendous detail, from the preparations on the German side (and the lack thereof on the Allied side) to the aftermath. Anyone expecting a Stephen Ambrose-style recounting of views from the foxhole or the tank turret will be, in large measure, disappointed. Although the book does include a smattering of vignettes to illustrate events, told from individual recollections, it is mostly a compilation of large-unit maneuvers and results.
The preparation phase is a long, slow slog. The reader is introduced to a host of units that will participate in the battle. The attack phase involves a blizzard of information, coming mostly from the German point of view, since the Germans were the prime movers at that point, that is difficult for a less-than-expert American reader to grasp. A few of the biggest individual and unit names in the German command are familiar, but when the story dips down to battalion- or company-level movements, it gets hard to follow. (Again, I was working through it without benefit of maps, other than what I could find on my own from various online sources.) The players on the American side are somewhat easier to track, because more of the commander and unit names are familiar, but it's still very challenging to keep track of who is doing what to whom, and where.
The effort to chronicle the entire battle in full detail results in an often disconcerting roller-coaster ride from 30,000 feet to ground level and back. The book is by no means disorganized, but it often feels as if it is. There is just so much ground to cover and so many important actors to keep tabs on.
MacDonald set for himself a task that was almost impossible: To tell, completely, accurately and with the proper perspective, the story of one of the biggest set-piece battles in the history of warfare. The action was complicated and, most of the time, confused. There's probably no way to simplify it and do it comprehensive justice. Only when I read the author’s note at the end did I grasp why MacDonald approached his book as he did. Among his reasons for writing the book, he explains that he “wanted to tell it for the veteran of the battle, who in many cases knew little of what went on beyond hand grenade range of his foxhole.”
In short, the primary intended audience for this book is not the casual reader of World War II history. That primary audience includes, rather, the participant in the battle, who could be counted upon to have a mix of both broad perspective on the battle and personal experience of it. That audience also includes the military scholar – someone whose profession commends him to a deeper knowledge of the battle. This seems to me a book well suited to a student at the Command and General Staff College.
None of that is to imply that the book is not worth a read. On the contrary, it truly is a comprehensive treatment of a battle that was at least immense, even if it was not particularly determinative of the war in Europe – an issue that had been largely decided once Allied troops broke out from the Cotentin Peninsula. But it’s no feel-good oral history of dogfaces triumphing against difficult local odds. It’s an almost minute-by-minute dissection of the decisions made by the generals, colonels, majors and captains of both sides. It’s an attempt to make sense of the inspirations and the blunders; the orders that were followed and the ones that were ignored or never made it to their intended recipients; the thrusts and the ripostes; the attacks and the consolidations that defined December 1944 in the Ardennes. For serious readers of World War II, the book is definitely a worthy endeavor.
But like the men who, in 1944, created and reduced “the bulge,” a reader will sometimes find himself just putting his head down and plodding forward. The overall sweep of the book – there is much to be learned – make it worth the rough going.
November 16, 2017
Riveting.
This book should be required reading for all the members of the United States Armed Services. An up close and personal recounting of one of the most intense and fierce battles of World War Two. Shown from both sides. We see bravery above and beyond what is called for. We see officers fighting side by side with infantry. But also we learn of battles that could and should have been prevented, a ,at times, complete lack of communication that could have spared lives on both sides. Communication break downs were so common that dug in soldiers would not receive word to fall back until it was too late. Yes there is the infamous inhumanity associated with the Germans but this was usually from SS divisions. The author sets the scene early in this book when a high ranking officer slams his hands on the table before Eisenhower and Bradly and announces, " It's the Ardennes" in response to why the Germans were building up such a massive force. No one agreed with him, sadly. In conclusion this was a great book full of a wealth of knowledge not commonly known. The author does disappoint when he fails to mention heroic efforts of an all African American unit. They get only a footnote at the end and no mention at all of their heroic efforts to "hold the line". That was most unfortunate.
This book should be required reading for all the members of the United States Armed Services. An up close and personal recounting of one of the most intense and fierce battles of World War Two. Shown from both sides. We see bravery above and beyond what is called for. We see officers fighting side by side with infantry. But also we learn of battles that could and should have been prevented, a ,at times, complete lack of communication that could have spared lives on both sides. Communication break downs were so common that dug in soldiers would not receive word to fall back until it was too late. Yes there is the infamous inhumanity associated with the Germans but this was usually from SS divisions. The author sets the scene early in this book when a high ranking officer slams his hands on the table before Eisenhower and Bradly and announces, " It's the Ardennes" in response to why the Germans were building up such a massive force. No one agreed with him, sadly. In conclusion this was a great book full of a wealth of knowledge not commonly known. The author does disappoint when he fails to mention heroic efforts of an all African American unit. They get only a footnote at the end and no mention at all of their heroic efforts to "hold the line". That was most unfortunate.
June 9, 2012
This book is a work of serious, comprehensive history. It makes no attempt to make the subject matter easy for the lazy, uninformed or undisciplined reader. It does not try to fictionalize or "make interesting" its subject matter, but presents in a highly organized and effective way a detailed description of the unit-by-unit unfolding of this crucial WW2 battle. Those who want a little gloss of pop culture, sentimentality or romanticism should maybe read someone else. MacDonald, unlike most writers, was there as a company commander. It's rare that a historian has both direct and intensive experience in the things he writes about as well as the academic training and discipline to present a rigorous and objective account. MacDonald does this and does it amazingly well. MacDonald experienced the cold, the terror, the shooting, wounding and being wounded (he evac'd with my father in the same ambulance on January 16/17, 1945). Those who can't handle the level of factual detail and scrupulous unit identifications, or who need fancier maps, probably should find another book.
But if you want the most comprehensive and accurate hour-by-hour accounting of the battle, this is it.
But if you want the most comprehensive and accurate hour-by-hour accounting of the battle, this is it.
January 4, 2025
This is a very dense review of the battle.
It covers the overhead strategic view for both sides and then moves into the on-the-ground tactical movements of the units involved in the battle. Occasionally, it is spaced out with in-person stories from the people involved in each portion of the battle.
It is a very good book, but as others have said, it requires a good understanding of the region it was fought in due to the weak maps provided.
It covers the overhead strategic view for both sides and then moves into the on-the-ground tactical movements of the units involved in the battle. Occasionally, it is spaced out with in-person stories from the people involved in each portion of the battle.
It is a very good book, but as others have said, it requires a good understanding of the region it was fought in due to the weak maps provided.
January 11, 2011
The Battle of the Bulge has been something of a fascination for me, a dying country delivering a surprise attack, the response from the overwhelmed defenders, the terrible weather; it would have made for a great fictional story and instead its history! Of the authors on complete Battle of the Bulge, Mr. MacDonald is the only one I know of who served there, more importantly as a company commander in the 2nd ID (I highly recommend reading Company Commander if you haven’t; his observations are great). As such, Mr. MacDonald brings and interesting soldiers look at a campaign. While weaving thru the different battles at the regimental and battalion level, Mr. MacDonald brings the individual soldier’s struggles to the point. Each battle seems to have the input from individual soldiers with their observations or contribution to the conflict. One of the more interesting inputs from an individual was when Mr. MacDonald provided Captain Charles B. MacDonald’s inputs from (very nicely done because Mr. MacDonald treated his own inputs on the battle as those of just another soldier). Most chapters have a map of the area the chapter deals with and the locations/movements of units. The only real disadvantage with this approach is that since each chapter deals with one section of the Battle of the Bulge and multiple days it can be a little difficult keeping things aligned as you’re reading.
Rating wise this one’s a solid 4 star book. While Mr. McDonald brings to light new aspects of the battle (particularly what American intelligence knew before the battle) you get a little lost with battlefield. With chapters sometimes involving several days, it’s hard to keep track of the battle as a whole (sorry, I had a hard time aligning the pressure on St. Vith or Elsenborn Ridge with the current status of the Germans race for Bastogne or other events that were happening at the same time but different sections of the bulge). Because of this, there’s a loss that’s Mr. MacDonald is never really able to made up. However, Mr. MacDonald did captivate me with the exploits of different soldiers; whether the ones who survived Malmedy or someone who slowed the German advance down by a half hour by defending an isolated crossroad all received the same attention to detail; the telling of their story about that moment. When merged with some of the lower level analysis details Mr. MacDonald provides, it makes for an excellent overview of the Battle of the Bulge.
Rating wise this one’s a solid 4 star book. While Mr. McDonald brings to light new aspects of the battle (particularly what American intelligence knew before the battle) you get a little lost with battlefield. With chapters sometimes involving several days, it’s hard to keep track of the battle as a whole (sorry, I had a hard time aligning the pressure on St. Vith or Elsenborn Ridge with the current status of the Germans race for Bastogne or other events that were happening at the same time but different sections of the bulge). Because of this, there’s a loss that’s Mr. MacDonald is never really able to made up. However, Mr. MacDonald did captivate me with the exploits of different soldiers; whether the ones who survived Malmedy or someone who slowed the German advance down by a half hour by defending an isolated crossroad all received the same attention to detail; the telling of their story about that moment. When merged with some of the lower level analysis details Mr. MacDonald provides, it makes for an excellent overview of the Battle of the Bulge.
May 2, 2014
This book was very DENSE with information. Troop movements, in some cases down to the squad and platoon level, but typically companies and up to regiments. This is all well and good, and frankly, very interesting to today's reader and/or military historian trying to picture the movements and somewhat foggy nature of the first weeks of the Battle of the Bulge. But... there were so few maps it was almost impossible to do. And the maps that were supplied were not very detailed that I found myself simply skipping whole sections simply because it started to feel like I was reading about the same exploits of the same group of soldiers, except from different divisions, companies, regiments, etc.
So, yes, I recommend this one, but be warned. It's a long slog. MacDonald has certainly done his homework and should be commended as an author and especially as a veteran of this very battle that he expertly describes. But, now, 70 years on, even to an amateur military historian, it's a lot to picture in the minds eye while reading and trying to put together the pieces and see what the author wants you to see. Maps. More of them. Tons of them please. And pictures! Show me the roads these armored vehicles had to traverse, the rivers they had to cross. Show me the view the defenders had, etc. Those things would've given this book at least another star.
So, yes, I recommend this one, but be warned. It's a long slog. MacDonald has certainly done his homework and should be commended as an author and especially as a veteran of this very battle that he expertly describes. But, now, 70 years on, even to an amateur military historian, it's a lot to picture in the minds eye while reading and trying to put together the pieces and see what the author wants you to see. Maps. More of them. Tons of them please. And pictures! Show me the roads these armored vehicles had to traverse, the rivers they had to cross. Show me the view the defenders had, etc. Those things would've given this book at least another star.
May 13, 2018
I've read other books that lightly touched on the Battle of the Bulge but this book went into depth. It cleared up some of the questions as to the contributions made by the units involved in the battle such as the divisions that were cut-off in the Schnee Eifel. It made sure that while these units were surrounded and eventually surrendered they fought as long as they had the means to fight and didn't surrender until they no longer had the means to fight on. It also gave an account of the Malmedy Massacre and the atrocities committed against civilians by the German forces involved in the battle. This was the best account I've read about this battle period. I would highly recommend this book for those who read military history.
October 17, 2018
My father was overrun and captured on Dec. 17
Any overcast Dr ember intensified the vivid memories my father endured to the end of his life. He was part of heavy machine gun crew that hunkered down in their deep foxhole as a German tank detachment came up to their prepared position, expecting the tanks to roll on by. Training and experience said the tanks would roll on and then the machine gunners could pop out and attack the support units following the tanks, but darkness was falling and the tanks parked for the night. Next morning my father and the rest of his gun crew were discovered and captured. He was proud the 2d D
Infantry Division was not penetrated and overrun by the German attack. My father would have enjoyed this book immensely.
Any overcast Dr ember intensified the vivid memories my father endured to the end of his life. He was part of heavy machine gun crew that hunkered down in their deep foxhole as a German tank detachment came up to their prepared position, expecting the tanks to roll on by. Training and experience said the tanks would roll on and then the machine gunners could pop out and attack the support units following the tanks, but darkness was falling and the tanks parked for the night. Next morning my father and the rest of his gun crew were discovered and captured. He was proud the 2d D
Infantry Division was not penetrated and overrun by the German attack. My father would have enjoyed this book immensely.
August 7, 2013
This book is an amazingly detailed and comprehensive tome on the Battle for the Ardennes (also known as the Battle of the Bulge) during December 1944 and January 1945. In his Author's Notes, MacDonald says that he wanted to write a book from the viewpoint of the soldier under fire; yet make it a comprehensive books as well. He succeeds almost too well: sometimes the book seems to bog down in the details - this slows the readability of the book. But overall I found the book to be excellent, and really enjoyed reading it. I would recommend it for a serious student of World War II, the Western Front if that war, or the Battle of the Bulge itself.
October 22, 2015
Detailed, perhaps too much so.
This is a well written book, very caught up in the movement of units both large and small in this pivotal battle. However, unless you are intimately aware of placemats or read with a map at your side, one quickly gets lost. I also found a general lack of continuity to the timeline. You would read about action in one area and suddenly be two or more days earlier on the next page.
There is no doubt that MacDonald knows his stuff after living through it. Those of us who didn't seem to get dragged along.
This is a well written book, very caught up in the movement of units both large and small in this pivotal battle. However, unless you are intimately aware of placemats or read with a map at your side, one quickly gets lost. I also found a general lack of continuity to the timeline. You would read about action in one area and suddenly be two or more days earlier on the next page.
There is no doubt that MacDonald knows his stuff after living through it. Those of us who didn't seem to get dragged along.
December 11, 2010
A Time for Trumpets is probably the definitive record of the Battle of the Bulge. The book is extremely detailed and clearly the author relied heavily on documentary sources from German, British and American forces. The narrative interludes of individual soldier experiences are a welcome break from the somewhat monotonous explanation of tactical details. I found it difficult to keep track of the names of all the commanders and their relative ranks.
Only for hardcore history buffs.
Only for hardcore history buffs.
March 16, 2021
In one word ? Breathtaking research! There is just no other way to describe this book. How the author pulled this of will forever remain a mystery to me. I can barely begin to to comprehend the countless hours this must have taken. For my money.... this must be the most comprehensive book ever written about the lead up to the Battle for Bastogne.
Like most of us.... "Band of Brothers" would be the closest we would come to getting a bare glimpse of what transpired in December 1944 in the Ardennes.
The author has woven the individuals stories masterly into the overall scenes of what went on.
As I mentioned before... the sheer wealth of detail in this book defies imagination. Its almost if you and I, the readers, are are taken there and been given an hour by hour overview of what people thought, and did, how they triumphed and bled, fought and prayed.
But there is more, much more to this book. The author wherever possible narrated both sides, the Allied and the German one. Again... I can only say... the research must have taken forever.... this is truly a case where no stone was left unturned.
This book isn't for every one. Unless you have an interest in WW2 and especially in what happened near Bastogne in Belgian Ardennes in December/January 1944-45 the sheer detail in this book might overwhelm you. But if you, like me, would like to know what truly happened.... look no further, your answer lies in these meticulously researched pages.
What I particularly liked was what I considered the fact that i.m.o. the Author (Charles B. MacDonald) showed no bias in his writing. Where German individual soldiers committed acts of intense bravery, he mentions this. Same for the Allied soldiers.
Let me close with one final observation. If Hitler had been not such a megalomaniac who thought that ONLY HE knew best, and day in day out and time in and out overrode the ideas and suggestions of his generals... I have a bad bad feeling that most, if not all of Europe would be now speaking German. Make absolutely NO mistake about it..... the German Commanders were just as good as as Patton, Eisenhower, Bradly, Montgomery and the others. But they had the sheer misfortune of working for an absolute nut case who thought that only he knew what was best and what should be done and how it should be done. ( That in itself is a whole other story of which books have been written !).
Were it not for that.... I very much doubt that you would be reading this. Being Dutch... I would most likely never have been born.
There are rare times that I wish 6 stars could be given. This my friends is such a time. To Charles B MacDonald I say: I had the privilege of reading your finest work.
Albert
Like most of us.... "Band of Brothers" would be the closest we would come to getting a bare glimpse of what transpired in December 1944 in the Ardennes.
The author has woven the individuals stories masterly into the overall scenes of what went on.
As I mentioned before... the sheer wealth of detail in this book defies imagination. Its almost if you and I, the readers, are are taken there and been given an hour by hour overview of what people thought, and did, how they triumphed and bled, fought and prayed.
But there is more, much more to this book. The author wherever possible narrated both sides, the Allied and the German one. Again... I can only say... the research must have taken forever.... this is truly a case where no stone was left unturned.
This book isn't for every one. Unless you have an interest in WW2 and especially in what happened near Bastogne in Belgian Ardennes in December/January 1944-45 the sheer detail in this book might overwhelm you. But if you, like me, would like to know what truly happened.... look no further, your answer lies in these meticulously researched pages.
What I particularly liked was what I considered the fact that i.m.o. the Author (Charles B. MacDonald) showed no bias in his writing. Where German individual soldiers committed acts of intense bravery, he mentions this. Same for the Allied soldiers.
Let me close with one final observation. If Hitler had been not such a megalomaniac who thought that ONLY HE knew best, and day in day out and time in and out overrode the ideas and suggestions of his generals... I have a bad bad feeling that most, if not all of Europe would be now speaking German. Make absolutely NO mistake about it..... the German Commanders were just as good as as Patton, Eisenhower, Bradly, Montgomery and the others. But they had the sheer misfortune of working for an absolute nut case who thought that only he knew what was best and what should be done and how it should be done. ( That in itself is a whole other story of which books have been written !).
Were it not for that.... I very much doubt that you would be reading this. Being Dutch... I would most likely never have been born.
There are rare times that I wish 6 stars could be given. This my friends is such a time. To Charles B MacDonald I say: I had the privilege of reading your finest work.
Albert
March 28, 2024
I am interested in WW2 history, particularly the European Theater, so this should be up my alley. MacDonald is also the author Company Commander, a book which I appreciated because it's along the lines of Platoon Leader by James R. McDonough, with both having significance to me as a National Guard officer.
In the epilogue, MacDonald says he was an Army officer in the Battle of the Bulge. I respect that, but I think he failed to impress on readers the true hell soldiers went through during the German offensive. The book is some 625 pages long, but, sadly, it just seems to suddenly end. I wasn't there, but did the Battle of the Bulge persist for several months and then, just one day, come to an end?
The book includes a good measure of small-unit anecdotes, and even senior headquarters snippets. And while it comes back to them from time to time, they tend to feel disconnected. While the book also includes some German perspectives, it is heavily US-biased, which probably makes sense since MacDonald was a US officer. But that skews the story and MacDonald fails to substantially cover the German perspective and significance of the Ardennes Offensive other than to acknowledge it was kind of a last ditch effort.
It was a bit of a challenging read for me. I appreciated the personal experiences MacDonald brought forth. But, at the same time, that seemed to obfuscate the larger story of the battle. In addition, while the book seems to be chronological, several parts seemed to disjointed from their timelines. I think this made it more challenging to follow the story.
I might have enjoyed this more if it was MacDonald's story of his experience in the Battle of the Bulge. Instead it seems like 600+ pages of anecdotes that don't necessarily fit together. Even so, it does provide a perspective of the battle that warrants consideration. I just suspect there are better versions out there. Like, why did MacDonald's version just kind of suddenly end in the middle of nowhere?
In the epilogue, MacDonald says he was an Army officer in the Battle of the Bulge. I respect that, but I think he failed to impress on readers the true hell soldiers went through during the German offensive. The book is some 625 pages long, but, sadly, it just seems to suddenly end. I wasn't there, but did the Battle of the Bulge persist for several months and then, just one day, come to an end?
The book includes a good measure of small-unit anecdotes, and even senior headquarters snippets. And while it comes back to them from time to time, they tend to feel disconnected. While the book also includes some German perspectives, it is heavily US-biased, which probably makes sense since MacDonald was a US officer. But that skews the story and MacDonald fails to substantially cover the German perspective and significance of the Ardennes Offensive other than to acknowledge it was kind of a last ditch effort.
It was a bit of a challenging read for me. I appreciated the personal experiences MacDonald brought forth. But, at the same time, that seemed to obfuscate the larger story of the battle. In addition, while the book seems to be chronological, several parts seemed to disjointed from their timelines. I think this made it more challenging to follow the story.
I might have enjoyed this more if it was MacDonald's story of his experience in the Battle of the Bulge. Instead it seems like 600+ pages of anecdotes that don't necessarily fit together. Even so, it does provide a perspective of the battle that warrants consideration. I just suspect there are better versions out there. Like, why did MacDonald's version just kind of suddenly end in the middle of nowhere?
June 26, 2017
Facts! So many facts!
Mr. MacDonald was an army historian, and it shows. This book is jam-packed with names, unit numbers, and more. Maybe too much so.
In his own words, Mr. MacDonald stated that one of the primary reasons he undertook to write about the Battle of the Bulge, a battle he lived through, was to represent what it was like for the soldiers who were there. Unfortunately, I think he missed the mark. There are times where the book makes a definite emotional connection, such as when the author writes about specific officers or the massacres carried out by SS troops. MacDonald clearly knows how to right with emotion and passion. However, these moments stand in stark contrast to the greater whole.
I found the book to be weighted down my names, numbers, units, etc. While those facts certainly contributed to an understanding of how confusing the battle likely was, they also detracted from the overall "story" I think MacDonald was trying to tell. Too many soldiers (all of whom deserve to be remembered) are mentioned briefly and then never again, which somehow keeps the book from defeats any ability for establishing a common thread.
To be sure, the task that Mr. MacDonald undertook was massive. I certainly knew more about the battle and at least some of the military officers involved after reading the book and I do not know how else MacDonald could have done what he set out to do, which was to tell a comprehensive tale of the battle. I appreciate that MacDonald did not focus solely on the Allies, applied just as much effort to describing the efforts of the battle's German participants. In that, MacDonald is fair and balanced in his approach to the facts.
In the end, the fault with this book may be as much with the reader as with the book. I am quite sure that someone with a better understanding of the order of battle and military organization would, in all likelihood, have gotten more out of this book.
Mr. MacDonald was an army historian, and it shows. This book is jam-packed with names, unit numbers, and more. Maybe too much so.
In his own words, Mr. MacDonald stated that one of the primary reasons he undertook to write about the Battle of the Bulge, a battle he lived through, was to represent what it was like for the soldiers who were there. Unfortunately, I think he missed the mark. There are times where the book makes a definite emotional connection, such as when the author writes about specific officers or the massacres carried out by SS troops. MacDonald clearly knows how to right with emotion and passion. However, these moments stand in stark contrast to the greater whole.
I found the book to be weighted down my names, numbers, units, etc. While those facts certainly contributed to an understanding of how confusing the battle likely was, they also detracted from the overall "story" I think MacDonald was trying to tell. Too many soldiers (all of whom deserve to be remembered) are mentioned briefly and then never again, which somehow keeps the book from defeats any ability for establishing a common thread.
To be sure, the task that Mr. MacDonald undertook was massive. I certainly knew more about the battle and at least some of the military officers involved after reading the book and I do not know how else MacDonald could have done what he set out to do, which was to tell a comprehensive tale of the battle. I appreciate that MacDonald did not focus solely on the Allies, applied just as much effort to describing the efforts of the battle's German participants. In that, MacDonald is fair and balanced in his approach to the facts.
In the end, the fault with this book may be as much with the reader as with the book. I am quite sure that someone with a better understanding of the order of battle and military organization would, in all likelihood, have gotten more out of this book.
September 11, 2021
“Adolf Hitler set in motion preparations for a battle that was to assume epic proportions, the greatest German attack in the West since the campaign of 1940 had brought down the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and France in swift and ignominious defeat. It was destined to involve more than a million men and to precipitate an unparalleled crisis for the Allied armies. It was also to involve one of the most egregious failures in the history of American battlefield intelligence. Yet it was also to become the greatest battle ever fought by the United States Army.”
That kicks off this exhaustively and extensively researched, hard slog of a book. It clocks in at 800 pages and that is not a complaint. I will read thousands of pages if well written and edited. Unfortunately, the book’s best assets are dragged down by its numerous liabilities. A talented editor would have dropped 200 pages. The editor would have clarified the order of battle, added more atmospheric texture, and taken all the great first hand accounts to add the in-the-trench narrative.
This last gasp battle is deeply fascinating. Especially the actions of Skorzeny and Kampfgruppe Peiper. It is a glimpse of what was to come in the form of irregular warfare. Too bad, the book muddles much because of its dense weight.
That kicks off this exhaustively and extensively researched, hard slog of a book. It clocks in at 800 pages and that is not a complaint. I will read thousands of pages if well written and edited. Unfortunately, the book’s best assets are dragged down by its numerous liabilities. A talented editor would have dropped 200 pages. The editor would have clarified the order of battle, added more atmospheric texture, and taken all the great first hand accounts to add the in-the-trench narrative.
This last gasp battle is deeply fascinating. Especially the actions of Skorzeny and Kampfgruppe Peiper. It is a glimpse of what was to come in the form of irregular warfare. Too bad, the book muddles much because of its dense weight.
September 24, 2019
Very detailed depiction of the Battle of the Bulge, with troop movements down to patrol level. Doesn't gloss over the failure of the Allied intelligence community or the in-fighting among the Allied leaders under Eisenhower's command. MacDonald actually fought in the conflict and contends that the battle was not nearly out of control as some have written. True that the Allied troops (mostly all American) were vastly outnumbered at the beginning of the battle, but the general control of the battlefield by the Allies was essentially there. A lot of the confusion was a lack of communication between the various commanders dues to destroyed communication lines and units. The American troops inflicted extensive damage to the attacking forces as they stubbornly gave ground in front of the onslaught, allowing the Allied reserves and reinforcements to build defensive positions to blunt the German thrusts. Most of the American forces that surrendered or were captured during the offensive did so after they were surrounded and out of ammunition with little hope of relief from Allied forces. And even then, many of the troops were told to break up into small groups and make their own way back to the American lines.
May 8, 2019
An excellent history on the battle and the last major German offensive in the western front of WWII. It can be a bit long but a lot of the detail is worth it especially if you want to follow unit actions at the regimental scale and below, where most of the primary action occurs. There is of course still a general narrative of the divisions, corps and armies involved and their personalities. There is also description of the analysis of Allied intelligence and what led to their failures. The friction at the top of both military command structures.
The book's structure is to narrate the action in phases for each of the Germany armies that were involved up to certain natural stopping points (say the first two or three days of the offensive) and then switch to the next front. For the allies it's similar when it has to switch to the viewpoint on the northern sector of the Ardennes or the southern sector and when big units or personalities get involved in the fight. It's a very cohesive narrative but it behooves the reader to keep a map handy with the town names to follow the flow of the action.
The book's structure is to narrate the action in phases for each of the Germany armies that were involved up to certain natural stopping points (say the first two or three days of the offensive) and then switch to the next front. For the allies it's similar when it has to switch to the viewpoint on the northern sector of the Ardennes or the southern sector and when big units or personalities get involved in the fight. It's a very cohesive narrative but it behooves the reader to keep a map handy with the town names to follow the flow of the action.
July 18, 2018
The author was a company commander during the bulge. This book was his way of dealing with his own experience, as a tribute to those that fought there, and as a legacy for future generations. That said, the work is an excellent piece of scholarship. His direct experience helped him avoid some of the gaffes you sometimes see with civilian authors who simply don't fully grasp the language, the equipment, the whole experience of war. The author does speak to the British contribution which is often missing, but the primary focus is on the American experience. His focus is more on the events on the ground, so he spends less time at the big American headquarters and tells more of the stories of those who participated in the fighting. What he doesn't dwell on, which is better described in some other works, is the bitter cold, and that many of the troops deployed without any sort of winter gear. He does mention all this, but there are other books which are better and getting you to feel the cold. This is not a significant issue. This is a fine book.
March 23, 2017
Just outstanding. If you are looking for a really good tome with details usually down to company level sometimes platoon, this is it. That is the one big take-away from this book, the Bulge was a huge chaotic collection of company level (plus or minus a TO&E step) actions, almost always with un-covered flanks and the unknown beyond that. I knew this intellectually but the personal stories here and level of detail makes it very real. We all know the story of the cold and terrain, the massacres, the secret artillery fuses, buying time and many others. However I think this quote in the Author's word's portrays the essential spirit exactly. ....Colonel Rubel. having found a spot in Taragon from which direct fire could be poured into Stoumont, he sent a member of his staff foraging for a 155mm self propelled artillery piece. Shortly before dark, the officer returned with it- where he got it from was never recorded; it was just one of those incidents that happened often in the Ardennes when a tank, a gun, a small group of men came briefly on the scene, did a job then passed on without record" It's all here, Schnee Eifel, Clervaux, St. Vith, Bastagne and still there dozens of others you probably haven't heard of.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 120 reviews