Nigel Cawthorne is an Anglo-American writer of fiction and non-fiction, and an editor. He has written more than 80 books on a wide range of subjects and has contributed to The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph Daily Mail and The New York Times. He has appeared on television and BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
Many of Nigel Cawthorne's books are compilations of popular history, without footnotes, references or bibliographies. His own web site refers to a description of his home as a "book-writing factory" and says, "More than half my books were commissioned by publishers and packagers for a flat fee or for a for a reduced royalty".
One of his most notable works was Taking Back My Name, an autobiography of Ike Turner, with whom he spent a number of weeks working with him on, taking up residence in Turner's house. The book caused much controversy, resulting in court cases for three years following its release.
Cawthorne currently lives in Bloomsbury, London with his girlfriend and son, Colin (born 1982).
All the battles of WW2 in considerable detail, and it includes the perspectives of both the generals and the privates and everyone in between. So why only one star? The problem is that there's so much detail the big picture is lost - the classic "can't see the forest for the trees". It's a blow by blow (by blow by blow by...) account. There's very little analysis or overview of the to and fro of the conflicts and what little of this does exist is lost in the mass of detail. Section headings like "The War In The Desert" lead to massive blocks of text that make it hard to sort out what's going on, why it matters and how it fits into the overall picture. There's no overview in any identifiable format to guide your reading. As a result I quickly lost interest and did not finish this book.
PS there's a companion volume "Battles of WWI" by Martin Marix Evans that is if anything worse than this but is not on Goodreads. The foreword says that WWI generals were not as stupid as they are often made out, yet the text does nothing to dispel this notion. Both are a sad waste of the scholarship doubtless needed to collect and collate the masses of information. It's a pity it was not presented in more accessible format.