Well, it's a fast read, I guess. And it makes some interesting points about Rommel's strategy being based on a wildly inaccurate read of the grand strategic situation. Essentially, Hitler told him that North Africa was supposed to be a defensive campaign, but not why, and never told Rommel about the imminent launch of Barbarossa. So Rommel assumed if he disobeyed orders and went on a crazy attack he'd have access to all kinds of reinforcements since there were no other theaters going on (ask forgiveness rather than permission?), which, uh...well, that didn't pan out well.
And there's some good thematic takes here discussing the role of propaganda and how Rommel both courted that and was used by it, and how various parties including the Allies had a vested interest in building him up to make it an easier pill to swallow losing to him. There's also an intriguing end discussion about Rommel and July 20 : not whether he was involved, but how the mythology has evolved over time to suit the needs of various actors. At first, he definitely wasn't involved at all, because it was disgraceful to have gone against Der Fuhrer and wouldn't it be best if we all just forgot about it -- even into the postwar period. But once the Germans were back onside in NATO in the 50s, Speidel (who was Rommel's chief of staff as well as holding the top NATO ground command by then) saw value in turning him into a resistance man who saw the light and turned against Hitler -- See, Some Germans Good. And then scholarship has evolved past that now to recognizing the deep ambiguities surrounding what Rommel knew and didn't know, and when. The end line I think is well summed up by the author : "In reality Rommel was neither the one [a Nazi] or the other [a full-on July 20 conspirator]. He had intrinsically understood neither National Socialism, nor the resistance to it...He followed the Fuhrer, who had restored the self-esteem of a humiliated nation, into disaster and whilst doing so believed he was only doing his duty."
With all that said, why only three stars? Well, as mentioned this is a short book. I think it's tough to write a short book well, covering the necessary information and not getting distortions into your interpretation as you try to condense complicated things into small manageable chunks. Some authors manage it, some do not, and this one I don't think does. There's a number of glossed over points in the interest of simplicity that I think run the real risk of being distorting or misleading -- not on purpose, mind you, but because he's decided that something is only going to get a few sentences' worth of description. Hence, for example, this :
"Personnel changes at the top of the Wehrmacht became necessary when it was revealed that von Blomberg [the defence minister]'s new bride had once worked as a prostitute, and that a stable lad had accused von Fritsch [the chief of the army general staff] of homosexuality."
And that is the sum total of the entire play that this affair receives. Frau Blomberg's mother once worked as a prostitute, which I think is where this is coming from, but mostly she was guilty of taking some erotic nude photos. This was scandalous, especially as Goring had been the best man and Hitler had been at the wedding and taken photos with the couple, but it didn't necessitate a personnel change. What necessitated a personnel change was that Goring and Himmler took the information and ran it to Hitler because of private quarrels (both men probably had ambitions to take his spot), and even then Hitler -- while outraged -- mostly confined himself to "well then he'd better divorce her". It was only after Blomberg refused to do so, and Goring threatened to publish everything, that Blomberg resigned.
And the Fritsch affair was even more ludicrous -- a known liar and blackmailer [calling him a "stable lad" seems like a gross distortion of his criminal career] called in to the police and said "haha I saw this guy Frisch having THE GAY SEX a couple times in a public bathroom". Since it worked so well with Blomberg, Goring & Himmler decided to run essentially the same scheme again and make a play with this to force him to resign. Turns out Frisch is a different guy in the army, and Fritsch was totally innocent. He demanded a full court of honor to prove his innocence, and it later acquitted him, though he did not get any of his old rank back and was later killed in Poland because that demotion put him on the front line (whoopsie).
Anyway that's a lot of ink spilled over this just to say that the author's assertions about Frau Blomberg are pretty false, and those about von Fritsch are at a minimum severely lacking in context about the power struggles going on between the Party and the Army at the time. Again, I don't think it's deliberately wrong, but it's a consequence of what happens when you try to condense a big complicated subject into a one-sentence summary.