What do you think?
Rate this book
How to Lose WWII: Bad Mistakes of the Good War – A Fact-Filled History of Battlefield Blunders by Axis and Allies
How to Lose WWII is an engrossing, fact-filled collection from Bill Fawcett that sheds light on the biggest, and dumbest, screw-ups of the Great War. In the vein of his other phenomenal compendiums of amazing battlefield blunders, How to Lose a Battle and How to Lose a War, Fawcett focuses on some amazing catastrophic missteps of Axis and Allies alike.
286 pages, Paperback
First published July 25, 2010
90 people are currently reading
105 people want to read
About the author
Bill Fawcett
122 books42 followersBill Fawcett has been a professor, teacher, corporate executive, and college dean. His entire life has been spent in the creative fields and managing other creative individuals. He is one of the founders of Mayfair Games, a board and role-play gaming company. As an author, Fawcett has written or coauthored over a dozen books and dozens of articles and short stories. As a book packager, a person who prepares series of books from concept to production for major publishers, his company, Bill Fawcett & Associates, has packaged more than 250 titles for virtually every major publisher. He founded, and later sold, what is now the largest hobby shop in Northern Illinois.
Fawcett’s first commercial writing appeared as articles in the Dragon magazine and include some of the earliest appearances of classes and monster types for Dungeons & Dragons. With Mayfair Games he created, wrote, and edited many of the Role Aides role-playing game modules and supplements released in the 1970s and 1980s. During this period, he also designed almost a dozen board games, including several Charles Roberts Award (gaming's Emmy) winners, such as Empire Builder and Sanctuary.
Fawcett’s first commercial writing appeared as articles in the Dragon magazine and include some of the earliest appearances of classes and monster types for Dungeons & Dragons. With Mayfair Games he created, wrote, and edited many of the Role Aides role-playing game modules and supplements released in the 1970s and 1980s. During this period, he also designed almost a dozen board games, including several Charles Roberts Award (gaming's Emmy) winners, such as Empire Builder and Sanctuary.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
February 27, 2014
Half the reason I bought it was the cover and title, which seemed to indicate a fresh and interesting take on the war. But make no mistake, this is an awful, thrown together, and inconsistantly written book that only gets one star because the underlying material is so interesting. Spelling errors, overuse of confusing and unnecessary military designations, repeated subjects, and corny chapter titles made this book almost embarrassing to hold in a crowded plane.
But at least now I finally have a neon green book.
But at least now I finally have a neon green book.
April 1, 2024
Although World War II was of course global, the stories in this collection are restricted to the European theater. They are written in a populist tone and describe specific failures of the leadership of both sides. Sometimes the people of failure are the political leaders and other times it is the military that blundered. While the failures of Adolph Hitler are the background of many popular and academic histories of WWII, it was pleasing to see some of the blunders of Winston Churchill included as well. The stories are by multiple authors.
The story I am referring to is “Sacrificing Africa and Greece,” by Douglas Niles. In it, he makes a convincing case that if British Prime Minister Winston Churchill had not insisted on defending Greece, the British forces that were on the verge of defeating all the Italian forces in North Africa would not have been called back and used in Greece, where they were defeated at great cost. Had the British cleared North Africa, the Axis forces would have been removed from North Africa and there would have been great pressure on Mussolini. Another three years of warfare in Africa would have been avoided.
The stories range from basic and understandable misjudgment to foolishness. Probably the greatest failure was that of Joseph Stalin in the days before the Germans attacked the Soviet Union. Even though the signs of imminent attack were everywhere, Stalin simply refused to believe that Hitler would attack. In the Soviet Union at that time, questioning Stalin was almost certainly a death sentence.
There is a major factual error in the story, “Blitzkrieg in the North,” by Douglas Niles. On page 23 there is the phrase, “Although Denmark has been a part of the Kaiser’s Germany during World War I, the Danes were a proud people who retained their own king . . . “ That is decidedly false, Denmark was an independent and neutral country during World War I.
While the stories are generally interesting and give a perspective on the conduct of the war that is not always exposed, the populist nature of the writing is at times a bit simplistic in the use of phrasing. It is worth reading, but some of the attempts at a humoristic tone fall a bit flat.
The story I am referring to is “Sacrificing Africa and Greece,” by Douglas Niles. In it, he makes a convincing case that if British Prime Minister Winston Churchill had not insisted on defending Greece, the British forces that were on the verge of defeating all the Italian forces in North Africa would not have been called back and used in Greece, where they were defeated at great cost. Had the British cleared North Africa, the Axis forces would have been removed from North Africa and there would have been great pressure on Mussolini. Another three years of warfare in Africa would have been avoided.
The stories range from basic and understandable misjudgment to foolishness. Probably the greatest failure was that of Joseph Stalin in the days before the Germans attacked the Soviet Union. Even though the signs of imminent attack were everywhere, Stalin simply refused to believe that Hitler would attack. In the Soviet Union at that time, questioning Stalin was almost certainly a death sentence.
There is a major factual error in the story, “Blitzkrieg in the North,” by Douglas Niles. On page 23 there is the phrase, “Although Denmark has been a part of the Kaiser’s Germany during World War I, the Danes were a proud people who retained their own king . . . “ That is decidedly false, Denmark was an independent and neutral country during World War I.
While the stories are generally interesting and give a perspective on the conduct of the war that is not always exposed, the populist nature of the writing is at times a bit simplistic in the use of phrasing. It is worth reading, but some of the attempts at a humoristic tone fall a bit flat.
August 23, 2022
Enjoyable read about WWII.. especially interesting even after a large number of WWII book that I have read. The author’s focus on mistakes of the war (on both sides) provides some new insights as well as informing one of less publicized events of the war. I never knew that Germany invaded Norway prior to invading France; wonder how I missed that. Also thought the later chapters on aircraft and tanks was very insightful. While it did seem that the author repeats himself in parts, overall, it is still a very good read. A true student of history doesn’t just read about prior successes; they must also read about mistakes to gather those additional lessons learned. Key excerpts below:
- ... Hitler's Nazi armies were ready to wage war against the West. They had learned many things from the new tactics they employed in September 1939. The invasion of Norway produced further lessons... The French and to a lesser extent the British might as well not have been paying attention. P42 PJK: It remains amazing that after Germany invaded the Sudetenland, Poland, and Norway that the Allied powers of Europe remained so unprepared for the invasion of France and the low countries in 1940.
- While FBI director Hoover would later discredit himself in the hunting down of alleged communists... Considered untrustworthy by the president in 1942 Roosevelt quickly filled this now glaring hole in American national security by creating a wartime foreign military intelligence service called the Office of Strategic Service. P242 PJK: Did not realize this mistrust of the FBI was part of the catalyst to eventually create what would become the CIA.
- ... Hitler's Nazi armies were ready to wage war against the West. They had learned many things from the new tactics they employed in September 1939. The invasion of Norway produced further lessons... The French and to a lesser extent the British might as well not have been paying attention. P42 PJK: It remains amazing that after Germany invaded the Sudetenland, Poland, and Norway that the Allied powers of Europe remained so unprepared for the invasion of France and the low countries in 1940.
- While FBI director Hoover would later discredit himself in the hunting down of alleged communists... Considered untrustworthy by the president in 1942 Roosevelt quickly filled this now glaring hole in American national security by creating a wartime foreign military intelligence service called the Office of Strategic Service. P242 PJK: Did not realize this mistrust of the FBI was part of the catalyst to eventually create what would become the CIA.
July 22, 2019
A good prior knowledge of WW II in a chronological order is a prerequisite for reading this book. This one is not a chronology like most, but a series of “articles” by many authors, that discuss blunders made in WW II. So knowing the chronology of the war allows the reader to keep his/her sanity, as this book bounces around in time and geography.
One of the other annoyances is that there is much repetition of facts, due to coming from many keyboards over many years, with no pre-plan of content.
So if you don’t mind a series of short stories, with little “flow”, this book is tolerable, as while being somewhat educational.
One of the other annoyances is that there is much repetition of facts, due to coming from many keyboards over many years, with no pre-plan of content.
So if you don’t mind a series of short stories, with little “flow”, this book is tolerable, as while being somewhat educational.
March 23, 2020
This book has an interesting focus, the big errors made by both the Allies and the Axis politicians and generals in WWII. It does provide some interesting facts and does reveal some common patterns but it fails to develop them well . Perhaps the problem is that it is a collection of essays by multiple authors as opposed to one author who has researched different theatres of the war looking for common themes.
June 14, 2018
How to lose WW2 IN EUROPE ONLY! with particular focus on the west. Most of this book was just errors caused either by the fog of war, or hubris. So everything that goes on in a war. Nothing special or shocking.
July 11, 2023
Overall this book is just ok. I feel like it could have been better, didn’t really have a good flow. I enjoyed the stories and the tank breakdown. Also the German plane designer part was really interesting, a lot of what ifs!
February 24, 2018
Funny and witty on how the WW2 outcome was determined by the mistakes of the leaders.
August 7, 2018
Hodgepodge compilation. Some good analysis, some good theoretical conjecture, a fair amount of self-important nonsense. Most of it seemed to miss the brief of the book's title.
November 7, 2019
Very to Mildly Interestng
But what I wanted to know was who were those who did the writing? What are their credentials.? How do they know what they know?
But what I wanted to know was who were those who did the writing? What are their credentials.? How do they know what they know?
April 26, 2021
Nice quick read. Did bounce around a bit from more detailed to more general history of WWII. But for someone reading on the subject for the first time it's worthy for sure!
December 18, 2024
Just okay.
October 2, 2025
Good read, and very informative.
October 24, 2012
This book is about the mistakes made by both sides during the war. It covered everything from the near defeat of Britain at Dunkirk to the destruction of the German 6th army at Stalingrad. This wasn't a book that went on and on about a single military campaign; it covered everything in a short and easy to read way. The way things were presented in this book was great, with occasional humor that only someone who knew about World War II would understand. For example, in the back of the book, there was a section about the axis and allied tank strategies in that section the US strategy was labeled "Shermans Everywhere". If you are a history buff then you would know that the United States almost exclusively used Sherman tanks during the war. The Russian tank section was called “Keep it Easy Comrad” another funny piece of the book.
The book did not only show you mistakes of the war, but it also showed you the mistakes that led up to the war, such as Nevvile Chamberline's policies of appeasement which allowed Hitler to annex Austria, re-militarize the Rhineland, and invade Czechoslovakia. It wasn't one-sided either; it include blunders on all sides. It also talked about why Hitler and his Wehrmacht invade such places, for example near the beginning of the book the campaign in Norway is talked about and the reader is told that the reason Germany went after Norway was because they had large amounts of iron that Germany needed for its war machine.
Sometimes this book gets a bit out of order, for example at time it references to later chapters in the book. Other than that minor error the book is great. Lots of other people don't like it and say that it can be too jumpy, which is somewhat true. Sure it didn't provide much new information, but it seems to be more focused on giving a brief overview for people that don't know much about WWII. In my case I learned some stuff about WWII even though I would say I know quite a bit about it.
I really enjoyed this book, and it was fun and easy to read. If you like WWII then you will probably like this book. If you have only a little knowledge about the war then read this to understand the war even better. Go out and read it!
The book did not only show you mistakes of the war, but it also showed you the mistakes that led up to the war, such as Nevvile Chamberline's policies of appeasement which allowed Hitler to annex Austria, re-militarize the Rhineland, and invade Czechoslovakia. It wasn't one-sided either; it include blunders on all sides. It also talked about why Hitler and his Wehrmacht invade such places, for example near the beginning of the book the campaign in Norway is talked about and the reader is told that the reason Germany went after Norway was because they had large amounts of iron that Germany needed for its war machine.
Sometimes this book gets a bit out of order, for example at time it references to later chapters in the book. Other than that minor error the book is great. Lots of other people don't like it and say that it can be too jumpy, which is somewhat true. Sure it didn't provide much new information, but it seems to be more focused on giving a brief overview for people that don't know much about WWII. In my case I learned some stuff about WWII even though I would say I know quite a bit about it.
I really enjoyed this book, and it was fun and easy to read. If you like WWII then you will probably like this book. If you have only a little knowledge about the war then read this to understand the war even better. Go out and read it!
August 2, 2011
A Good Overview ..., August 30, 2010
First, the downsides of the book: I purchased this book hoping it would delve into recent discoveries or documents that shed light on blunders that affected the outcome of World War II. Unfortunately, for me, this was not the case because "How to Lose WWII" did not present any new or groundbreaking information. Alas, there is the issue with the title; it is a little deceptive as book's contents exclusively deal with the war in Europe, as there is no substantive reference to the Pacific Theatre in this book. One may surmise that titling the book "How to Lose WWII", the author is implying the war in Europe mattered more, but...
Now the positives: From the first few chapters, I realized the book was not what I was hoping for, however, I still wanted to read it entirely because I enjoyed the way the material was being presented. Starting with the end of World War I, each "mistake" represents a chapter that covers the War in Europe chronologically, all the way to the Battle of the Bulge (curiously, the last battle-related blunder covered by the book ... no Battle for Berlin). The last few chapters cover topics that are not necessarily battle-related, but involve strategic decision-making errors that impacted the scope of the European Theatre. Each 4 to 6 page chapter is written individually from a group of three or four authors. This format allowed for a quick and fun read as the writers simplify and convey complex information in a short, but concise and readable manner. Adding to the mix are the authors' asides that literally mock some of the blunders and highlight the occasional ineptitude exhibited by Hitler, Eisenhower, Churchill and the like.
"How to Lose WWII" will probably not satisfy those with a comprehensive knowledge of World War II because the coverage of events is broad in nature and nothing new is presented. However, it still may provide an enjoyable, fun read. I think this book would be great for those wishing to enhance their limited knowledge of World War II (in Europe) or as a means to generate an interest in the conflict.
First, the downsides of the book: I purchased this book hoping it would delve into recent discoveries or documents that shed light on blunders that affected the outcome of World War II. Unfortunately, for me, this was not the case because "How to Lose WWII" did not present any new or groundbreaking information. Alas, there is the issue with the title; it is a little deceptive as book's contents exclusively deal with the war in Europe, as there is no substantive reference to the Pacific Theatre in this book. One may surmise that titling the book "How to Lose WWII", the author is implying the war in Europe mattered more, but...
Now the positives: From the first few chapters, I realized the book was not what I was hoping for, however, I still wanted to read it entirely because I enjoyed the way the material was being presented. Starting with the end of World War I, each "mistake" represents a chapter that covers the War in Europe chronologically, all the way to the Battle of the Bulge (curiously, the last battle-related blunder covered by the book ... no Battle for Berlin). The last few chapters cover topics that are not necessarily battle-related, but involve strategic decision-making errors that impacted the scope of the European Theatre. Each 4 to 6 page chapter is written individually from a group of three or four authors. This format allowed for a quick and fun read as the writers simplify and convey complex information in a short, but concise and readable manner. Adding to the mix are the authors' asides that literally mock some of the blunders and highlight the occasional ineptitude exhibited by Hitler, Eisenhower, Churchill and the like.
"How to Lose WWII" will probably not satisfy those with a comprehensive knowledge of World War II because the coverage of events is broad in nature and nothing new is presented. However, it still may provide an enjoyable, fun read. I think this book would be great for those wishing to enhance their limited knowledge of World War II (in Europe) or as a means to generate an interest in the conflict.
April 13, 2014
From previous reviews, most did not receive this well and but still I respect their opinion and stand on it. Here's what I can say to why this has a 3.5 rating.
I bought this because I thought that it would provide analysis on the mistakes and the correct things to do that made an engagement favorable to a belligerent. I moved from essay to essay only to realize that it's more of a criticism of combat rather than an analysis. Furthermore,some were the retelling of what happened without explaining the mistakes and the correct things. As a whole, it's not what you would expect as analytical but just criticism or retelling of events.
The 3.5 rating is due to my appreciation of reacquainting myself with the battles and learning some things that may have been overlooked.
In conclusion, it's a book that I could say as a sideshow when in between books.
I bought this because I thought that it would provide analysis on the mistakes and the correct things to do that made an engagement favorable to a belligerent. I moved from essay to essay only to realize that it's more of a criticism of combat rather than an analysis. Furthermore,some were the retelling of what happened without explaining the mistakes and the correct things. As a whole, it's not what you would expect as analytical but just criticism or retelling of events.
The 3.5 rating is due to my appreciation of reacquainting myself with the battles and learning some things that may have been overlooked.
In conclusion, it's a book that I could say as a sideshow when in between books.
September 13, 2016
Interesting look at the biggest errors in judgment of WWII. Some are obvious. Others, not so much. The number of allied officers (especially American generals) who got sacked in the middle of a fight is staggering. It appears, though Fawcett's writers never quite say so, that actual war was steadily winnowing out the political generals from the pre-war period in favor of warrior generals given the rate at which the older guys get sacked. Unfortunately, the carnage doesn't reach some of the higher ups, like Mark Clark, who somehow manage to avoid the consequences for their screw-ups by sacking the officers below them to whom they gave orders impossible to obey successfully. A different look at the Good War and well worth your time. If you've ever read Sun Tsu looking for advice on "strategery", this is kind of the anti-Sun Tsu - a "what not to do" guide for the military strategist.
August 31, 2012
Meh. Mr. Fawcett has assembled several essays of varying quality. Some of them are great and easy to understand. Some of them are quite difficult to figure out (would it really kill you to include a map of a remote battlefield in Tunisia?) The result is a somewhat random book.
Oh, and I guess I should point out that there was this whole other side of World War II called the Pacific campaign. You know, Japan, China, the US, etc.? He could have at least taken the obvious choice of Pearl Harbor to include in the book, but apparently World War II, only means Germany and Europe.
I finished it, but it wasn't exactly amazing.
Oh, and I guess I should point out that there was this whole other side of World War II called the Pacific campaign. You know, Japan, China, the US, etc.? He could have at least taken the obvious choice of Pearl Harbor to include in the book, but apparently World War II, only means Germany and Europe.
I finished it, but it wasn't exactly amazing.
February 16, 2016
It is a collection of articles, more than a single book, from different authors. Some of the articles actually overlap themselves, presenting at times a sort of duplications.
The style is thus mixed, and the tales told are different.
There is nothing at all about the Pacific side of the war, which seems a big lack.
On the positive side, is it very easy to read, and the articles are between about 5 to 10 pages max, which makes for an easy read. But also for a possible glossing over details, sometimes, as the subject is just broached.
The style is thus mixed, and the tales told are different.
There is nothing at all about the Pacific side of the war, which seems a big lack.
On the positive side, is it very easy to read, and the articles are between about 5 to 10 pages max, which makes for an easy read. But also for a possible glossing over details, sometimes, as the subject is just broached.
December 5, 2014
an exercise in counterfactualism, which is not itself a bad thing (it is unavoidable)--but in this type of argument, locating a mistake must assume ceteris paribus that the result will be the same. thing is, change one variable to avoid the 'mistake,' and am not sure if the ceteris paribus assumption otherwise works out.
June 7, 2016
Great read
A really good review of WWII. Some history for those who have no clue about how it all happened. Some great history on the socialist attempt to take over the world. Appropriate reading for our upcoming election. How to get the youngster to read it.
A really good review of WWII. Some history for those who have no clue about how it all happened. Some great history on the socialist attempt to take over the world. Appropriate reading for our upcoming election. How to get the youngster to read it.
June 21, 2013
not too bad.
October 1, 2013
Good read, I found a number of stories that I had never heard about. A book on WWII that I would recommend to anyone.
April 21, 2014
This is a compilation, most of the articles were very well done, a few were ok. Definitely a book with insight into WW2 strategy.
June 19, 2015
Some parts were dry, but there were a lot of tactical errors & interesting personalities discussed.
January 25, 2016
First book completed of 2016 and very disappointing. Many of the essays had nothing to do with with the theme/premise of the book, and others read like poorly written high school book reports.
May 29, 2016
Interesting but some errors crept in some places.. Soviet foreign minister Litvinov being identified as envoy to Berlin was the most egregious..
November 12, 2016
Any body who has an inflated opinion about how the Americans won WW2 alone and handily should read this book!!
August 25, 2019
Eurocentric and I would not recommend. The analysis (if you could call it that) is not robust enough as you would expect with the short chapters.
Read
July 11, 2011Todd
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews