War In The West A New History

The War in the West #1

by James Holland

Are you ready for the truth about World War Two?

In the first of an extraordinary three-volume account of the war on land, in the air and at sea, James Holland reveals not only the truth behind the familiar legends of the Second World War but he also unveils those lesser known events which were to have the greatest significance.

The first book to consider the economic, political and social as well as the military aspects of World War Two, this is a unique retelling of a monumental event in all its terrible and majestic glory.

Holland has spent over twelve years unearthing new research, visiting archives, battlefields and the very people who fought and lived through the conflict. He has, in his own accessible and inimitable style, written an account to redefine our understanding of the war. It is unlike anything else on the subject.

Genres: History, World War II, Nonfiction, War, Military History, Military Fiction, Politics

864 pages, Paperback

First published September 11, 2014

About the author

Librarian note:
There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name

James Holland was born in Salisbury, Wiltshire, and studied history at Durham University. He has worked for several London publishing houses and has also written for a number of national newspapers and magazines. Married with a son, he lives near Salisbury.

Reviews

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

“The U-boat dropped to 120 meters. The explosion seemed to be getting closer. They dived further, the hull creaking and grinding until, with a bump, they stopped at 135 meters – the charts put them at the Cockburn Bank. It was as deep as they could go. Above them, a destroyer was raking over them once more, the ping of the ASDIC still quite audible. The whirr of the propeller, followed by gurgling bubbles as the depth charges fell, then peng-wham! Peng-wham! Peng-wham! Once more U-48 rolled and shook and was tossed off the seabed and thumped back down again…Inside, no one dared speak; they barely dared to breathe…”
- James Holland, The War in the West: Germany Ascendant, 1939-1941

Germany Ascendant is the opening volume of The War in the West series, promising a “new history” of the Second World War, except those parts involving the Soviets. It is written by James Holland, who you might recognize if you – like me – spend an inordinate amount of time watching documentaries about Nazis.

Holland has staked out a claim by being a bit of a contrarian, finding fissures in the conventional wisdom of the war, and holding on for all he’s worth. Germany Ascendant bills itself as a piece of vital disruption, promising to change your views of the war. That it fails to do so is not really Holland’s fault, but the copy editor making such flamboyant claims. Nothing inside these covers drastically altered my perception about anything; still, it’s a good book about World War II, and I don’t turn up my nose at those.

Germany Ascendant is divided into four parts. The first covers the lead-up to war; the second the invasion of the Low Countries and the Fall of France; the third the Battle of Britain and the Battle of the Atlantic; and the final section the developments in North Africa and Greece.

Of the four sections, my favorite was the first. I especially liked Holland’s descriptions of the three principal military machines: Great Britain, France, and Germany. He delivers a detailed look at the structure, weaponry, and even uniforms of each of these nations’ armed forces. I do not consider myself a technophile, but I did appreciate Holland’s attempts to quantify the hardware each army, navy, and air force brought to the table.

It is here that Holland makes many of his strong opinions known. He spends a lot of time asking us to peer beyond Germany’s indisputably cool-looking uniforms to see that they were not the mighty and invincible steamroller of myth. Rather, in many areas, they were substandard, especially in terms of mechanization. When we think of the Wehrmacht, Holland wants us to stop imagining mighty panzers and instead picture horse-drawn artillery. He also discusses some of the many, many terrible decisions made by Adolf Hitler, which included attempting to turn all of Germany’s bombers into dive bombers, and pouring resources into a useless surface navy at the expense of far more efficient U-boats.

In opposition, Holland finds France’s land forces, including tanks, to have been far superior in 1939-40, while Great Britain was cannily playing to her strengths by building up her navy and air force (Holland has several kind things to say about Neville Chamberlain, which is, I admit, a bit surprising). Of course, this begs the question: Why did France capitulate so quickly? It is a question I hoped would receive some thoughtful consideration. Unfortunately, Holland does not provide anything satisfactory beyond the usual defeatist attitudes from the high command on down.

This is a symptom of the unevenness of Germany Ascendant. There are parts that are really good and there are parts that really drag. Holland tends to shy away from describing the big battles, in favor of relating the more-intimate anecdotes of fighter pilots and submariners. He strives to swing from big picture to small picture, from general to private, in order to encompass the whole experience. It’s a tall task, though, and I don’t think he is always successful. Don’t get me wrong: I love the addition of narrative set-pieces. If you’re not going to provide any indication of what the war was like to the men and women who fought it, you shouldn’t bother writing a book in the first place. Still, I think Holland favors the individual trees a bit too highly, to the detriment of seeing the forest as a whole.

Germany Ascendant strives really hard for accessibility, and I appreciated that. There is a cast of characters, a timeline, a glossary, and several appendices on relative military strength. The maps are garbage, but in this day and age, you’re often lucky to get maps at all.

Holland’s writing style is not always the clearest. He is, in fact, very British in his presentation, relying on idioms and slang (people are constantly getting wrong-footed; Churchill is referred to as an “old soak”) and obstinately refusing to employ the Oxford comma, leading to a lot of ungainly sentences.

At this point, I should add that I purchased the version of Germany Ascendant that is sold in Great Britain, so perhaps the American version – which is sold under the title The Rise of Germany – is a bit different. Why did I buy the British version? It’s certainly not for any exchange rate advantage. No, it is because I’ve noticed a disturbing trend in books published by British authors being dramatically pared down before being sold to American readers. For instance, Richard Overy’s history of bombers in World War II lost some 200 pages when it crossed the ocean. I don’t like it when books are edited on the assumption that American readers cannot read anything over 450 pages unless it is Harry Potter or Twilight. I have not made a physical comparison of Germany Ascendant and The Rise of Germany, but based on the product description of The Rise of Germany, it weighs in at 512 pages total, while Germany Ascendant is 594 pages of text, not including the endnotes, index, and appendices.

Germany Ascendant is not the kind of book that makes you swoon. It does not transcend its genre to become great literature, in the way that Rick Atkinson’s Liberation Trilogy does. Yet it is ambitious, entertaining, and gives you a thing or two to ponder, even if it does not quite convince you that everything you thought you knew about World War II is wrong.

[Geevee · Rating 4 out of 5]

A new history? Perhaps in part, but even if not wholly new it is a very engaging and easy to read flowing narrative history of the Second World War in the west.

The book is positioned so that people new to the war or those who have read about specific people, battles or campaigns can readily dive in as the pace and descriptions cater for this audience. Likewise for the reader who has campaigned through multiple theatres, battles, invasions and has studied strategies and deliberated on actions and decisions it also offers much.

And that is to my mind why it may be "new"; new as it is suitable and suited for anyone and everyone (well I say that but there are some very grumbly reviews on Amazon but to my mind they're either wrong, too precious or over-stating what this book isn't - i.e. a fully blown cross between a strategic study and official history.

The coverage and ordering of the book gives the insight into the political events, the decisions at the strategic level and how those plans impacted the people in Europe and wider. Alongside this "big" view is the detail and simplicity that Mr Holland adeptly offers the reader of armies, air forces and navies in battle. Just right on orders of battle (so armies, corps, ships squadrons and troops deployed) and formations to campaign objectives and the to-and-fro of action for experienced and beginners alike. Added to this is his intelligent and engrossing use of first-hand accounts tying bombed civilians to sailors being bombed by aircraft to soldiers standing awaiting attack by tanks or feeding their horses.

There were a couple of misses for me. Not huge and perhaps this is the war-geek in me. There was no mention of the Polish Air Force in the Battle of France - this is important as they destroyed some 8-10% of all kills by allied forces prior to the end of the battle with British troops leaving France and the French armistice. A number of these pilots helped form the Polish contribution to the Battle of Britain. Likewise the Polish army provided support to the French including some armoured crews. Also no mention of the Polish navy - this again is an oversight which may seem a little picky - but where Mr Holland's book is so solid on covering well so many aspects of the 1939-41 war his is disappointing, especially as the Battle of the Atlantic is written about in depth throughout. The Polish Navy operated on convoy duty and took part in the Dunkirk evacuation as well as crewing coastal boats and submarines.

Away from this small complaint the maps are good quality (for a mass-paperback) and a number of good photos are also provided. Sources are adequate as is further reading.

If you want to learn and understand more about how the war in the west developed in Germany, Britain, France, Italy and the USA; see how France, Denmark, Norway, Greece and Yugoslavia fell; you will read of Iraq, Syria, East Africa, North Africa and submarines and merchant ships in the Atlantic, bombing raids on Britain, surface ships in the Mediterranean and retreat in France and Crete alongside ship, submarine, aircraft and tank production figures with business leaders making industry build, make and design weapons with unions striking to food, oil, rubber supply from the four corners of the earth; Men from Poland, Germany, Italy, Britain, New Zealand, India, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Greece, Australia, Canada, South Africa and France fighting and dying but also read of the housewife being bombed out, the sailor abandoning ship and the airman being burnt and the young soldier writing to his wife whilst the journalist reports or diplomat negotiates then this book is for you.

One other little thing - it was nice to see Adrian Warburton mentioned a number of times. We come across the gallant young pilot in Mr Holland's earlier book on Malta and one wonders what a character he would have been when alive.

A good opening to a much anticipated two further volumes.

[Cold War Conversations Podcast · Rating 5 out of 5]

An outstanding account of the War in the West 1939-41.

James Holland has avoided repetition of previous accounts of this period and delivered a fascinating and thought provoking book that covers not just the political, but also the economic and social aspects.

The book flows almost like a novel and is novel in itself by covering subjects I’d never heard of but are very pertinent to the period. For example did you know that at the outbreak of war the Germans has 131 different types of truck and 1367 different types of trailer obviously making the provision of parts and repairs a nightmare.

However the book is not just about numbers and Holland has unearthed some never before seen personal accounts that really add to our knowledge. For example he has accounts from Dutch and Belgian soldiers who are often neglected in favour of the campaign in France.

This is a thought provoking book that challenges many preconceptions about the war and comes to some controversial conclusions.

Highly recommended.

I received this book for free from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.

[Jonny · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fresh new approach to looking at World War Two from an author who is rapidly becoming one to watch out for in this regard.

Mr Holland consciously moves away from a 'personal experiences' based approach, arguing (and he has a point) that this tends to shift attitudes in favour of the big, impressive weapons (of which the odious Third Reich in particular had in spades) toward an approach which points out that industrial potential and common sense in design played a major part. Hence in this volume, as well as providing explanations for the myths surrounding the period August 1939 - June 1941, of which the most subtly put is that Britain mortgaged it's future to ensure sufficient supply to win the war (both in terms of capital and technology), you'll be treat to stories from the cockpits, bridges and on the ground of the campaigns of the period, including some of the 'lost' campaigns (the East African campaign, usually only a footnote, is included in sufficient detail to merit a bookshop hunt).
So if you don't want to hear how the German armed forces were brilliant and wonderfully equipped (they weren't) but only let down by Adolph you'll be disappointed. On the other hand, if you want a nuanced version of the war, in which mistakes and miscalculations on both sides are dealt with fairly, and in which the defeats of those first terrible years are put in proper context - for example the Greek campaign relieves pressure on Malta and the Western Desert, as well as squandering two precious months of Soviet summer which dooms Operation Barbarossa; Operation Mercury is a jump in the wrong direction, which achieves nothing but the decimation of veteran paratroopers and the Luftwaffe's transport fleet - then this really needs to be read. In fact, if you're one of the aforementioned fans of German arms, you probably need to read it too... it'll be an eye opener.
Totally recommended, and I'm a bit annoyed I'd not read it sooner.

[Mervyn Whyte · Rating 4 out of 5]

Oh dear — yet another “new” history of WWII that doesn’t deliver much genuinely new insight.

Like Dimbleby’s recent books on the Eastern Front, Holland’s work is packed with personal testimonies I hadn’t come across before, and some of the details on weapons and equipment were unfamiliar — though I suspect little of it is actually groundbreaking.

Holland’s central thesis seems to be that the German military wasn't the unstoppable, superhuman force it’s often portrayed as. But that idea isn’t particularly fresh either. I remember a housemate of mine — an engineering student, not a historian — making the same point nearly 25 years ago, based on books available at the time.

Even if Holland's framing is slightly new, I’m not convinced by the emphasis. Of course the Germans weren’t superhuman, but they were undeniably skilled soldiers. Repeatedly, they succeeded through bold, expertly led operations — all the more remarkable if, as Holland claims, their equipment was good but not exceptional.

In the end, it was a combination of American industrial strength, Soviet manpower, and Nazi leadership failures that secured Allied victory — not simply German weakness. I take the point about logistics and the over-complexity of much of their equipment and supply chains. But that's not a new point either.

Max Hastings (whose own WWII books, it must be said, lack Holland’s operational insight) once described the Wehrmacht as the greatest military machine ever assembled up to that point in history. Holland, by contrast, goes to some lengths to highlight its deficiencies — in training, logistics, and equipment. But the truth likely lies somewhere in between. Despite the flaws Holland identifies, the German army consistently proved itself tactically brilliant and dangerously effective, especially in the early years of the war.

What’s missing in Holland’s account is a full reckoning with this tension: how could such a flawed force achieve so much? His analysis feels selective at times, as if determined to overturn a myth rather than fully understand the complexity behind it.

This said, it’s still an expertly written and forensically researched account. Holland’s prose is crisp, his structure clear, and the level of detail impressive without being overwhelming. I’ve already ordered the second volume. But “new”? I remain unconvinced.

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

Given the mountain of books that have been written about the Second World War, it is difficult to imagine that there is anything new to say in the subject. Yet for some time now a growing critique of the long-received wisdom has emerged, one that brings a new understanding to the factors that shaped the conflict and its outcome. James Holland's book ranks among the contributors to this critique. The first of a projected three-volume study of the war in Europe, he addresses the familiar narrative of the first 22 months of the war and offers some provocative yet convincing explanations for how events developed in the way that they did.

Holland makes it clear at the start of the book that his focus is on "operational history," or the effort to turn ideas and goal of the strategists into battlefield realities. This is a focus often missing from surveys of the war, and its use here provides for some reconsiderations of received ideas about the war. Here Germany's Wehrmacht is not the sleek, modern, panzer-driven force, but a mainly horse-drawn army that relies on a good deal of risk-taking and bluff. By contrast Germany's enemies, particularly the British, enjoy far more modern equipment and a greater edge in terms of their forces. This disparity helps to highlight the command failings, especially those of the French, which contributed to the Allied debacle in 1940. Yet the Germans themselves made numerous mistakes, many of which contributed to the prolongation of the conflict and set the stage for their defeat in the war.

An accomplished writer, Holland provides readers with an analytical narrative of the war that is both readable and interesting. While better editing could have cut down on some of the repetitions and sloppy errors, these are minor complaints given the overall quality of the book. It's one that everybody interested in the conflict should read, both for the arguments Holland makes and the overall enjoyability of the book.

[Linda Morelli · Rating 5 out of 5]

James Holland's latest opus, 1939 - 1941 The War in the West (The Rise of Germany), is the latest of a new generation of historians writing "revisionist" views of WWII. An established military historian, James Holland provides yet new insights into the circumstances leading to the outbreak of WWII in Europe. What makes this narrative informative and revealing, is the way that Holland weaves into the narrative the multifaceted aspects of nations at war. Breaking away from the usual, but narrow military and political view of why WWII occurred, Holland presents a complex picture from all sides of the impact of decision makers, personal accounts by combatants and citizens, economic drivers, the role of technology, the Battle of the Atlantic, key political decisions and the various military campaigns that in sum was the War in the West 1939 - 1941.

What I liked about this narrative is the way Holland describes the complexity that was the War in the West from not just the perspective of Great Britain, Germany, France, Norway, Belgium, Poland, and the Netherlands, but also the United States and Italy. Italy is rarely treated with the attention and role it played during this phase of WWII. Holland also provides some myth breaking views, such as Great Britain arming itself well before Germany's invasion of Poland and that, in many respects, Great Britain was more economically powerful than Nazi Germany when the war broke out.

Full review can be found at: http://myshelf.com/history/13/riseofg...

[Omar Ali · Rating 5 out of 5]

Our school library had a multi-volume history of the second world war and I read it at least twice because I had nothing better to do, and the habit has stuck.. By now, these are the books I read to have a good time. . there is no conceivable practical benefit or reasonable justification for the habit.
This one was good, though i skipped most of the "personal anecdotes" about lower level personnel doing their job. Every new book adds some new perspectives on why this or that old myth should now be discarded. This one is focused on making sure you realize how inefficient German war production was in the early years and how the German army was not the mechanized modern behemoth of propaganda. And that once Hitler had started the war, he pretty much had to invade everybody because otherwise Germany was going to be strangled to death by her enemies' superior access to resources and the Royal Navy's command of the seas.
I didnt realize that for all the stories of fighter command and it's (genuine) heroics, it was the Luftwaffe pilots who flew the crazier number of sorties per day during the battle of Britain.
What if Hitler had allowed Donitz to build all the U-boats he wanted instead of wasting precious resources on his surface fleet? We will never know, but it is a thought..
And being British, he does want to make sure you know that Britain was the more efficient armament manufacturer and innovator in Europe, and consistently outproduced and out-innovated Germany in the early years of the war. The RAF was badly stressed, but so was the Luftwaffe..and with its empire, the Royal Navy, and its access to American assistance, Britain was not just hanging by a thread, even in 1940.
How America outproduced everyone ten times over is hardly news. Still, the fact that Kaiser built shipyards faster than many countries can make ships is the story chosen to illustrate this amazing performance and it IS impressive.

[Anas Saad · Rating 1 out of 5]

The writing style is so confusing and the book is mostly diaries and conversations of random people with minimal real reporting or discussions of relevant events. In summary, the war and related events are not systematically recorded and studied, so not a good source to study and understand what happened.
If you are looking for a book to study the main events of the war and the factors that led to it, the negotiations, politics, and economy before and during it, and the main players who were involved, this is definitely not the book for you.

[Gregg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well researched history, great bibliography. Highly recommended.

[Melinda · Rating 1 out of 5]

I finally had to abandon this. It was one of the most tedious books about a very interesting time. Facts and figures up the wazoo- more than any non academic would ever need. But what made it so tedious was that instead of being an academic treatise, there are snippets interspersed with names of tens of real people. These people are tossed into bits about battles, planes, arms manufacturing, etc. etc. such as "John Smith was stationed at X airfield but he really wanted to be home with his wife" then a sideline about John and his wife, then they are gone. No further mention of John or his wife. There are hundreds of these references. Why? To humanize the history? I doesn't matter because I couldn't remember all the names or their stories and I never heard anything else about them again so didn't care in the end.
This could have been half the length if it was either a simple study of the war or a semi fictionalized story about 6-8 people who were affected by the war.
There are lots of less boring histories or semi fictional or even no fiction stories of people during the war. Read one of them instead.

[Anton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Splendid. A comprehensive walkthrough of the war in Europe from Poland to the start of Barbarossa. Statistics, narrative, and eyewitness testimonies expertly interwoven. My only complaint is that the whiplash from "exciting submarine action" to "committees of industrialists in anguish over ball-bearing quotas" is too strong and too frequent. Tom Clancy reincarnated? I understand that superior organization and overwhelming industrial mobilization is what decided the outcome and that Germany could only stay in the fight for as long as it did because of the herculean efforts of its high human capital middle manager caste, but that doesn't make Spitfire production lines any less boring.

Also I realize that Holland is British and the Brits had a lot going on in the Pacific and Indian oceans, so the term probably means something different to them than it does to me but
>The War in the West
>chapters on Iraq
Come on mate.

[Michael · Rating 1 out of 5]

Thoroughly revisionist history of the early years of the Second World War. Certainly the author presents ample statistical evidence, but fudges or omits figures negative to to the British and exaggerates those that are positive. The book often reads like a school boy novel of the plucky Brits overcoming German bullies while the French surrender.

Holland as a anglophile misses the main point. If Britain had most modern army in the world with the best of equipment, why did they lose?

The glossed over truth is that Britain's military performance in the war was generally poor or mediocre. Defeats in Norway, France, Greece, Hong Kong, Singapore etc
Britain really only began to win against Germany when the Americans and Russians joined the war.
Holland presents pro British spin as revelation. Britain even with its vast empire could never have beaten Germany alone. It struggled against the small force Germany dispatched to North Africa. Overall this book is part of a trend of revisionist history that has flowed from Britain about the war lately. Attempting to avoid the truth of British mediocrity.

[Armen · Rating 2 out of 5]

Having read every major book on this subject, I didn't find this book helpful. It told me things I knew and not in any unusual way. it does have a wealth of information about the naval war.

[Matthew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Make no mistake, this is a meaty book. 726 pages, to be precise, packed with details on everything from different uniforms of the armies and the logistics this entailed to squabbles at the top of the Nazi party, and constant ineptitude of the Italians. It has taken me about 6 months to read, on and off, but this is an engrossing book. Holland masterfully weaves grand narratives and marries up a vast amount of information and research with individual stories and characters that help you make sense of what is going on and what it meant for the average person. Holland very much shows that, even in the West, this really was a world war, with dozens of nations and territories involved. There is so much information to take in, but thanks to the author's skill, at no point was i bored or confused, really a top piece of history, looking forwards to volume 2 and Holland's other works.

[Harmke · Rating 4 out of 5]

Een mooie mix van politiek, herinneringen van gewone mensen en soldaten, militaire geschiedenis en memoires van politici. Hoe alles met alles samenhangt, van voedselvoorziening tot olievoorraden en militaire tenues. Dat het niet zo fout had hoeven gaan en waarom. En dat Koningin Wilhelmina destijds de rijkste vrouw op aarde was en een eskader Spitfires kocht. Aanrader voor als je een compleet overzicht wilt lezen over de eerste jaren van de Tweede Wereldoorlog in West-Europa (en Noord-Afrika) zonder in droge feiten te verdwalen.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

Holland's focus on operations & logistics sounds (on the surface) like a snooze - but he wisely tells the stories of how those issues affected soldiers on the ground... and in the process, challenges a number of pieces of "received knowledge" about WWII.

Highly recommended.

[Michael Romo · Rating 2 out of 5]

Holland writes an overall good account but one that is overly pro-British and lacking balance as a result.

As an example, this is evident with regard to the chapter titled Case Yellow. Case Yellow was the German operational plan for the invasion of France and in this chapter Holland devotes 6 1/2 pages to the British naval war, which has nothing to do with Case Yellow, while devoting 4 pages to the actual operational plan!!

One complete chapter titled The Modern Army was devoted to the British Army. In this chapter he talks about mechanization, uniforms, infantry equipment, organization, etc.. He says, "Despite these shortages, the British Army was still the best equipped and most modern in the world, not least because it's field force was entirely mechanized." This statement is dubious at least. After making this statement he immediately supports it by mentioning the following:
"There were no horse-drawn artillery units, and all infantry were ferried from A to B in trucks."
"The 15 cwt and 30 cwt lorries equipping much of the BEF were rugged and robust - the motor firms Bedford and Morris producing most of them."
"British artillery was also of good quality, and most guns were now equipped with pneumatic tyres, which meant that they could easily be towed by trucks and gun tractors, unlike most of the German equivalents, which were largely towed by horse."
"There was also a tracked troop carrier simply called the Universal Carrier."

How do these factors make it the "best equipped and most modern in the world? What about tanks which were to revolutionize warfare? He omits them here. To be fair 3 pages later he does mention the British tanks calling them "on par, if not better than, German versions." What about the French tanks that were the best tanks in 1940 by far. He has a mania about horse-drawn units here and elsewhere but if my memory serves me correctly the German army kicked some serious ass in the first 3 years of the war with horse-drawn artillery units! He goes on to praise British uniforms, Bren machine guns, Short Magazine Lee Enfield Rifles while calling the regimental system "insouciant and deeply entrenched" and encouraging "a culture that frowned too much talking shop." How does that make the army the "most modern in the world"? Even if it was the most modern army in the world, so what? It only contributed 13 divisions to the BEF.

His next chapter "Leading the Nations" begins with journalist Eric Sevareid's rambling visits to the Maginot Line, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg. He starts with a diatribe about French Army uniforms saying they looked "old fashioned" and while praising the French mountain troops uniforms he says, "If only the entire French Army had been equipped in such a way; because the cost was certainly not the issue..." How the does he know that? Has he forgotten the cost of the Maginot line, the cost of over 3,000 modern tanks and armored cars of the French Army, an army of over 2.4 million men and the largest of all the combatants at the time. Does an army win wars based on their uniforms? The rest of the chapter describes Roosevelt's political position and the early German planning. Notice there is nothing in this chapter about joint British-French war plans. Why not here?

A full chapter titled, Attention to Detail, is also devoted to the German Army with a description of some weapons but again a long discourse on uniforms!

There is no similar chapter on the French Army. Why not? This was the largest army and certainly France was the target of the campaign. Would it not have made sense to have devoted the same attention to detail to France's army as he did to the British army?

There certainly were no lack of topics he could of talked about. Here are some:
-French and British war planning
-The Maginot line
-French Armor (Char B and Souma tanks)
-French weapons, like the superb 47mm Hotchkiss anti-tank gun (the British had anti-tank rifles), the MAS 36 rifle and MAS 38 sub-machine guns, the FM 24 light machine guns, the excellent 155mm GPF field gun which the U.S. paid for the license to build for the US Army and were called Long Toms in American service.

To sum up, Holland's treatment of the Battle of France lacked objectivity and balance. This leads me to fear that other parts of his book may also suffer the same fate.

[Bruce Cook · Rating 5 out of 5]

This first volume of The War in the West was very entertaining. It is very well written and written in a way that really engages your interest. I have read a number of books about World War II, including overall general histories and about specific parts of the war. This volume is high on the list of the best. The author interplays the events of the first part of the war before the invasion of the Soviet Union with the personal experiences of individuals either caught up in the war someway or in the armed forces of one of the nations at war or soon to enter the war. The title makes it look like it is going to focus on Germany during the years 1939 to 1941. But that is not the case. It pretty much gives equal treatment to events and people in the United States as well as in Britain and Germany. The book also goes into the decision making as to various parts of the war and battles in a way that I haven't experienced before in any of the books on the war I have read. I learned a lot of things I didn't know before.

Another aspect of the author's premise appears to be that the early victories of Germany were not inevitable, that Britain and France had a lot going for them at the start of the war in the west. History seems to be inevitable from hindsight. His premise is that Germany was not that strong when the war commenced. Yes, they had large numbers of soldiers, but very few mechanized divisions. Poland was not a true test. Germany also had limited access to resources essential to maintaining the war. This, of course, increased, as Germany invaded countries in central and eastern Europe and down into Greece. But, the author points out, even this was not enough to sustain a long war, making the attack on the Soviet Union almost essential. Germany needed the vast resources of the Soviet Union to succeed in its war against Britain. Despite the loss of the battle in France and having to evacuate their expeditionary force from the shores of Dunkirk, Britain was, according to the author, still very much a formidable force in opposing Nazi Germany. and with the potential of the United States joining on its side, could be an overwhelming force unless Germany could end the war quickly. Hitler grew very exasperated when Britain refused to even negotiate. It was an unknown factor in his plans, and which, as we know, led to his downfall and the complete destruction of Germany.

I very much enjoyed this first volume by James Holland of the War in the West and am looking forward to his next volume, continuing a very readable history of tremendous events that occurred in our world in the very recent past.

[C. G. Telcontar · Rating 2 out of 5]

I wish Max Hastings had written this book. Had he done so it would have been brilliant. Unfortunately for us James Holland wrote it. Here is an attempt at a serious General history on the Western Front of World War II and the first two years which is a topic not highly covered. What we get instead, is a constant hopping back and forth between several different narratives of several different participants and several different arenas forming no cohesive picture of any one action at any one time. He's even proud of it noting it in his foreword. On top of this we had several narrative writing cliches pounded into our heads at least a dozen times age if not more. Some of the more egregious examples are in other words, in any case, on the other hand, be that as it may. It's like this was a high school honors lecture that got out of hand and he just didn't know where to stop. Or you could say he read every Memoir that I've read over the course of 30 years and decided he can make a general history of it. I saw quotes from books I've read several times over several decades from participants in the war that make great for great local color but do not add luster or detail to an already sprawling narrative. One final note: Holland is not a neutral Observer. He is a homer, a British Patriot through and through for him Churchill is the epitome of ultimate leadership who could do no wrong. To say this gets in the way is to say a 17 car pile up will slow you down on the way to work. I give it two stars instead of one because he did get into some economic stuff that I have not seen before that add a little bit of interest to the story. I doubt however, that I will go on to Parts 2 and 3.

[Rob Thompson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Is there anything new to say about WWII? Yes, there is.

Given the huge amount of books that have been written about the Second World War, it is difficult to imagine that there is anything new to say in the subject. Yet for some time now a growing critique of the long-received wisdom has emerged. This is one that brings a new understanding to the factors that shaped the conflict and its outcome. James Holland's latest opus, 1939 - 1941 The War in the West (The Rise of Germany), is the latest of a new generation of historians writing "revisionist" views of WWII. An established military historian, James Holland provides yet new insights into the circumstances leading to the outbreak of Second World War in Europe.

Holland argues that blitzkrieg as we know it is a myth and reveals that the picture looked much different in 1939: In advance of its Polish offensive, Germany was short on resources, tanks, and trained soldiers. Meanwhile, France had more men in uniform than Germany, and Britain had the best navy in the world. The invasions of Poland and France were incredible gambles, and Hitler’s initial successes would mask hard truths.

Holland pays careful attention to the operational level of the war often overlooked in previous histories, making The Rise of Germany more than just military history, but also social political, and economic history sure to generate significant scholarly debate and reader interest.

This is a well researched and superbly written account of the years 1939-41 skewers a number of myths about the early years of the Second World War. The next two volumes should be unmissable.

[Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first volume in a planned trilogy about the history of the Second World War (Western theatre), this book covers the period from August 1939 to June 1941 (right up to the launch of operation BARBAROSSA). Because of the subject matter, it could have been easy to lose focus and let the book take on ungainly proportions (and in the process lose readers), but the author manages, in almost 600 pages, to present a coherent narrative that is sure to appeal to most audiences, whether seasoned veteran armchair historian or green recruit. Neither highbrow or dumbed-down for the masses, this highly readable book tries to remain objective and non-biased, and mostly succeeds in that. I learned quite a bit from this book and my understanding of the related issues, the different time frames, and how they affected each other is that much clearer to me.

One thing I must mention, however, is the author's penchant for using 'nonetheless', albeit in three distinct words: None The Less. I would be curious to know exactly how many times the author uses it throughout the book. Does anyone have a Kindle(TM) copy? Using the 'find' function, it would be easy to know.

I look forward to reading The Fall of the Axis, 1941-1943: The War in the West, Volume Two when it is released at the end of 2016. Nonetheless. (!)

[David · Rating 2 out of 5]

Found this book in Oxam, to be honest l’d not read any of this authors other books, but the premise was interesting and it’s the sort of book that I normally read. Overall not a bad attempt at combining the first part of WW2 into a story/novel with identifiable characters and plenty of anecdotes. Not really a military historian in the Kershaw/Hastings mould but none the less some of the ‘new facts/views’ expressed are believable. However where the book falls down is in the military analysis of the battles involved and their affects on the course of the war. The author does not seem to be able to condense his well researched facts into a cohesive conclusion. Of course he is continuing his work with further books on this story but without prior knowledge of the historic events portrayed it’s hard to gain any real strategical insight into that part of the War.

[Jonathan · Rating 5 out of 5]

After the hundreds of books that I've read on the Second World War, I was confident that I didn't have that much more to learn on the topic, and I was pleasurably proved wrong by James Holland and his first volume of the war in the west which, it should be noted, includes the war at sea and in North Africa). Important subjects such as Britain's true economic strength and access to the world's resources, the agricultural policies of the countries involved (it turns out that the Brits had a huge advantage over the Germans because their number one farm animal was the sheep rather than the pig), the differences in military organizations (there probably never has been a worse-organized and commanded modern military branch than the Luftwaffe in WWII), and many more made this book an enlightening as well as enjoyable read. I am looking forward to the next volume with baited breath.

[Randy Reigstad · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm finding James Holland a favorite author; I've read many books on WW2 but his approach to telling the story is becoming my favorite. I like his approach to the supply side of the war, war machinery does not magically appear. I'm now reading vol 2. I'm very happy I had the chance to read this book, I recommend it to anyone who has an interest in WW 2.

Randy Reigstad

[Charles · Rating 5 out of 5]

New Generation of Historian Examines First 20 months of WWII in Europe

With this book, which is readable, well researched, and advances a fresh perspective, author James Holland has established himself as a World War II historian able to tap and interpret material unavailable to a previous generation. As the first volume of a planned trilogy, Holland covers a 20 month period, from Hitler’s invasion of Poland provoking the declaration of war by France and Britain to the eve of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union.

This is well-trod period covered by talented historians, many of whom are British as is Holland but who are 20 to 50 years older. (Holland draws on such historians as Antony Beevor, Max Hastings, James Holland, Alistair Horne, John Keegan, Ian Kershaw and Martin Middlebrook.)

Significantly, one such historian is none other than Winston Churchill, author of a six-volume history of World War II, who observed, “History will be kind to me as I intend to write it.” Churchill wrote that there was complete unity of opinion within the British Cabinet to continue the war against Hitler even though, after the fall of France, Britain stood alone. We now know that on May 27, 1940, this was a close-run thing, with Lord Halifax urging peace feelers, two other newly-appointed coalition cabinet members remaining silent, and Churchill as Prime Minister having to persuade his predecessor, Neville Chamberlain, that any wavering of purpose was a bad idea.

With the declassification of documents over the last 70 years, along with access to Russian and other archives, it is easier now to unearth new material and gain new perspectives. Holland has taken full advantage of newly available material and his list of sources is impressive.

Holland argues that Britain, standing alone, was stronger than Germany in industrial capacity and had the overwhelming advantage of access to America’s industrial might, even before the US entered the war. While Britain did not have the capacity to fight Germany in a land war in Europe, as long as it could maintain the sea lanes for supply of food and other war materials, and outproduce the Nazis in the production of aircraft, any attempt to invade Britain was doomed to catastrophic failure. As such, Britain was never in the peril of successful German invasion and saved only by Hitler’s decision to invade Russia, as has been conventionally believed.

Contrary to Nazi propaganda and the image produced by the Blitzkrieg, the German Army was overwhelmingly horse-drawn. Only 15 of the 54 German divisions that attacked Poland were mechanized and the ratio had not improved (in fact declined) on the eve of the German invasion of the Soviet Union. Britain and France had more tanks, and better tanks, and more aircraft than Germany.

But Germany knew how to deploy its resources better. Tactically, the Germans understood the importance of concentration of strength in offense and the coordination of armor, infantry, artillery and close-support air power. Holland also credits German leadership in radio technology which enabled the combat arms to communicate with one another.

By contrast, the French in particular were geriatric in leadership, unimaginative, slow to understand what was happening on the battlefield, and when the magnitude of the crisis began to dawn on the generals they had little ability to communicate and coordinate a battlefield response. The result was the fall of France and Britain was left to stand up to Hitler “alone”.

Holland argues that the successes Germany initially achieved in Poland and France produced overconfidence that would come back to haunt the Nazis. These victories were short, quick battles over a territory of no more than 500 miles. The mobile portion of the German army was a hollow spear point, relying upon marching troops and horse-drawn artillery to catch up. (This would be a disastrous disadvantage when invading a country the size of the Soviet Union, whose armies were able to retreat a thousand miles or more from an invading force. In Russia the Germans were never able to catch up and achieve envelopment. German supply lines were extended ever further into enemy territory, taxing resources to the breaking point and providing opportunity for the Soviets to counterattack.)

Holland also explores other misjudgments including Hitler’s lack of understanding of the importance of building a German submarine fleet to cut Britain’s Atlantic supply line, interference with aircraft design to require even a four engine bomber on the drawing board to have dive bomber capabilities, and the German predilection to over-engineer everything from uniforms and small arms to mechanically complicated tanks.

The author argues that the “Battle of Britain” air war was never in doubt because the British had built a radar system and a command and control structure that was, at the time, the best in the world. They could see the German bombers coming and tactically deploy fighters accordingly. This was a capability that didn’t exist during the German Blitzkrieg in France and the low countries where it was impossible to predict where the Luftwaffe would attack. Even at the height of the Blitz, the British were building aircraft faster than the Germans were shooting them down. Since the battles were over friendly territory, many British pilots bailed out safely and lived to fly another day.

Under Hitler, Germany got involved in a number of military “side-shows” in this period which delayed and weakened its planned invasion of the Soviet Union. But Holland also explores Churchill’s weakness to take “penny packet” offensives that were under-resourced, poorly planned and costly.

Both Hitler and Churchill were impulsive leaders, tempted to micro-manage, who could be deaf to well-reasoned military advice.

For Germany, one such side show was the North African campaign. Hitler loved Rommel’s aggressiveness, but the author argues that this drew off resources that would have been better held in reserve for Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of Russia. Similarly, Hitler found himself sending tanks and troops to Greece to bail out Mussolini, just weeks before they would have been used in the Russian invasion.

Churchill’s love of action and the offensive also could be misguided because he had little patience for logistics and thorough planning. The first such disaster was in Norway, where too few troops were given too big a job, and little thought had been given to sustaining the force against German counterattack. Commonwealth troops defending Egypt and the Suez Canal were weakened by a decision to send a force to attack Italian forces in Ethiopia. The Italians were isolated and posed no strategic threat, but Churchill and the military leadership were eager to score a “victory” against a weak opponent. When Hitler invaded Greece, without sufficient planning Churchill similarly ordered troops from Egypt. The result was another ignominious withdrawal in which troops and equipment were left behind.

Even without the invasion of the Soviet Union, to be covered in the next volume of Holland’s planned trilogy, the author portrays the strategic situation between Britain and Germany as a stand off. Britain by no means had the power to defeat Germany, but Holland argues that Germany did not have the capacity to successfully cross the channel and defeat Britain. Left unexplored is how long that stalemate could have lasted, and whether the equilibrium would have changed in favor of one side or the other, because the imminent attack on Russia altered the war.

James Holland’s achievement has been to write a book that will be of interest to those who are reading about this opening period of World War II for the first time. But the author also provides new interpretations, sometimes provocative, that will stimulate the thinking of those who thought they knew everything about this early stage of the war with Nazi Germany.

[Douglas · Rating 4 out of 5]

I only got 35% of the way through this book but that is because it is depressing to realize how stupid people are, which is not the author's fault. Specifically, I stopped right before the Germans take France. I had always thought the reasons Germany overran France so fast was because they were that good and France had put all its eggs in the Maginot Line basket. To learn France:
(1) had an equal number of troops to Germany;
(2) had superior tanks;
(3) had a comparable air force;
(4) had the support of Great Britain; and
(5) had literally been told that Germany would attack through the Ardennes because, no matter how impassable the Ardennes was thought to be it was still easier than the Maginot Line.

Well all that just makes Germany's essentially easy victory over France depressing, and that isn't even all of it. Germany's vaunted mechanized military was propaganda. 40% of the troops Germany invaded with only had weeks of training and Germany was struggling to provide enough fuel for their vehicles every since the invasion of Poland. Denmark essentially surrendered to Germany without firing a shot and Sweden essentially collaborated with Germany, selling Germany the iron it needed to continue fighting and allowing Germany to use its railroads for the invasion of Norway.

Norway was only somewhat better since they at least attempted a fight but were woefully unprepared in spite of Germany's planned invasion being obvious. It was so obvious that France and Britain approached Norway about helping to defend their country, which Norway turned down. France and Britain then considered invading Norway since that would give them control of the Baltic Sea which was key at that time since the USSR was cooperating with Germany. Norway got wind of the possible Allied invasion and was actually on guard against that when Germany overran their country in a couple of weeks. (The Allies decided against invading Norway as being inconsistent with their democratic ideals but that Norway didn't find out about.)

So basically the "Rise of Germany" is the story of world-spanning incompetence with the Germans being nothing more than slightly less incompetent than everyone else involved. Depressing.

I would add two things: First, I did find some of the author's choices odd. What I am primarily thinking of here are his comments on Italy. Italy's military was virtually a joke as demonstrated by their attempts at military conquest prior to 1939. I am not overly familiar with those military actions so I would have liked the author to include a brief summary but the author apparently felt that was going to far afield from his topic. In general, "The Rise of Germany" avoids details about military actions- I still don't feel like I know what happened in Norway except in the broadest sense. This tends to make this a bit more of a dry read than one might expect.

Second, I picked this book up because I am an American and as such I knew little about WW II prior to Pearl Harbor. I wanted to correct that and this book was an excellent choice in that regard.

Bottom line: Dry, but worth the read, particularly for you average American who knows little of what lead to Pearl Harbor.

[Andy Tuano · Rating 5 out of 5]

As good a military history can get.

As someone who appreciates a good social history book, I think one of the pitfalls of writing military history is to entirely focus on military history - the generals, the battles, the divisions, the battlegrounds.

Hollands neatly sidesteps this trend, and makes the Western Front in WW2 (which actually includes all engagements, land, sea and air) accessible to the general reader, who may want not just the heroic contestation of big armies, air forces and navies, but also a social history of the time.

Hollands is able to answer questions like - how did social, economic and political calculations of why certain battles or wars were started? How was it possible for the US to become a military force, when its army was virtually non existent at the outset of 1940? Why were certain generals ousted from their role at the helm?

He does not, then, get overwhelmingly bogged down in the war as a military history would be expected to - he’ll finish a chapter in the desert warfare of North Africa, and then update you on the state of the military-industrial complex being developed in the (then) neutral United States. The reader thus is not oversaturated with stories of warfare, but has nice glimpses into the lives of ordinary civilians who live through the times as well, on both sides.

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Had never had a high opinion of Holland based solely and unfairly on seeing him in a few hack job documentaries on second rate cable channels or free to view Amazon prime filler garbage. Boy was I mistaken and will excuse his appearances in those docuseries as just his utter passion for this topic. After all he's a historian, not a documentary producer. He is a fine producer of book based documentaries though as is the case here. Much is covered as he starts on the eve of WW2 skipping past the early years of the Nazi's rise to power. What we get is the German juggernaut kicking off a misguided war and hurtling itself to what in hindsight was obvious disaster. He breaks down essentially the strengths and weaknesses faced on both sides, along with their failings, incompetence, heroism, and technology advantages/disadvantages. This is a strong read, and I liked how he takes time to impart stories on a human level in each theater that backs up his assertions. Very well done! Look forward to jumping into some of his other works down the road.

[Chrisorc · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is definitely informative and certainly gives a fresh new perspective on the Second World War and I’ve learned a great deal reading this. It is however very long and a great deal of pages is dedicated to a whole slew of characters personal stories which, while interesting, somewhat muddled the narrative somewhat. It’s a long book with a long list of characters and trying to remember who was who became exhausting after a while.

Keeping this in mind I’ll say I loved the book. It gave me what I wanted, a detailed presentation on the Allied perspective on the war. I’ll say read it.