web site hit counter History of the Second World War - Ebooks PDF Online
Hot Best Seller

History of the Second World War

Availability: Ready to download

History of the Second World War, B. H. Liddell Hart's last work as well as his magnum opus, embodies the fruits of twenty years of research and a lifetime of thinking on war. It abounds with controversial judgments, including provocative assertions about the true causes behind France's defeat in 1940, Hitler's failed invasion of Russia, and Japan's stunning victory at Pear History of the Second World War, B. H. Liddell Hart's last work as well as his magnum opus, embodies the fruits of twenty years of research and a lifetime of thinking on war. It abounds with controversial judgments, including provocative assertions about the true causes behind France's defeat in 1940, Hitler's failed invasion of Russia, and Japan's stunning victory at Pearl Harbor; the effectiveness of the Allies' strategic bombing of Germany; the questionable necessity of detonating atom bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and much more. This monumental history is both a crowning achievement and a final summation by one of the greatest military thinkers of the twentieth century.


Compare

History of the Second World War, B. H. Liddell Hart's last work as well as his magnum opus, embodies the fruits of twenty years of research and a lifetime of thinking on war. It abounds with controversial judgments, including provocative assertions about the true causes behind France's defeat in 1940, Hitler's failed invasion of Russia, and Japan's stunning victory at Pear History of the Second World War, B. H. Liddell Hart's last work as well as his magnum opus, embodies the fruits of twenty years of research and a lifetime of thinking on war. It abounds with controversial judgments, including provocative assertions about the true causes behind France's defeat in 1940, Hitler's failed invasion of Russia, and Japan's stunning victory at Pearl Harbor; the effectiveness of the Allies' strategic bombing of Germany; the questionable necessity of detonating atom bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and much more. This monumental history is both a crowning achievement and a final summation by one of the greatest military thinkers of the twentieth century.

30 review for History of the Second World War

  1. 5 out of 5

    Evan

    In 1969, Sir Captain B.H. Liddell Hart -- a World War I veteran and poison-gas survivor -- inked the finishing touches on this towering overview of World War II after working on it for 20 years, and thereafter, ironically, died immediately in the comfort of his own home. The book is a grand legacy of a lifetime of brilliant and innovative military thinking, and up to its time was probably the best and most authoritative general overview of the war yet written. Maybe it still is. The copy I read h In 1969, Sir Captain B.H. Liddell Hart -- a World War I veteran and poison-gas survivor -- inked the finishing touches on this towering overview of World War II after working on it for 20 years, and thereafter, ironically, died immediately in the comfort of his own home. The book is a grand legacy of a lifetime of brilliant and innovative military thinking, and up to its time was probably the best and most authoritative general overview of the war yet written. Maybe it still is. The copy I read had sat undisturbed in my parents' library for 40 years until I decided in late summer 2011 to finally give it a go, and once inside I treated it like a military campaign--proceeding cautiously at first, steeling my resources like General Montgomery, and then, once confidently ensconced, striding forth with blitzkrieg speed, gathering ever-faster momentum like generals Guderian and Patton. And what a great achievement it is, all three pounds of it. The sight of me cradling this 2 1/4-inch-thick behemoth prompted someone to ask if I was reading the Bible. If I was heretofore in doubt as to whether this would qualify as my annual big-ass summer read, that question laid it to rest. So, is Liddell Hart's book on WWII perfect? No, not at all. There are omissions and certain instances of over-coverage on subjects nearest and dearest to Hart (the North African tank battles, for instance). At the same time, it is hard to imagine a better job being done in only 715 pages of text, which, to be fair, is really not a lot of pages in which to try to cover a six-year occurrence as massive as the second world war. Liddell Hart was not a great writer, but his prose is clear and uncluttered and user friendly; appropo to his clear and cold-blooded analysis of the strategies and tactics employed. He also, to his credit, eschews hyperbole; there are no instances of "greatest this" or "grandest that" in his account. At the same time he critiques with gusto and well-reasoned authority the mistakes made by the Axis and Allies high commands and political leaders in conducting all aspects of the war. Unlike Ambrose and Ryan and Toland and their ilk -- WWII writers who pinpoint and hone in on details of particular battles or events with a novelistic, anecdotal flourish -- Hart set out on the far less sexy task of conveying macro strategy, and its tactical manifestations, so there's not a lot of room for anecdotal flavor, even though his postwar interviews with surviving German generals and others do lend great insight and authority to the account. Liddell Hart has been criticized as being a bit of a braggart know-it-all (he cites himself and his own previous military works a lot along the way), but the fact that he can cite documents that actually prove his own "I told you so" foresight only lend greater weight and credibility to his analysis, in my view. Hart was a great authority on warfare, new military theories and on WWII in particular, and him saying so either directly or indirectly does not detract from the fact. What's in here is often brilliant and made me think about WWII in whole new ways. I learned a shitload from reading this. Some of what I learned from the book: * There was a logic to the island-hopping campaign in the Pacific and the desert warfare strategy in North African that I previously did not grasp, thanks to Hart's placing them into a more sensible strategic context. Diverting the Axis to the desert theater shifted valuable troops away that Hitler needed in Russia and could have used more profitably in Italy to stop the first Allied invasion of Europe, and also paved the way for the Allies' complete air and sea control of the Mediterranean. * The Allied demands for unconditional surrender from both Germany and Japan probably delayed the war for many months and led to the unnecessary deaths of millions of soldiers, civilians and concentration camp prisoners. * The rosy portrait of Winston Churchill that has so long prevailed does not jibe with Hart's severe criticisms of the prime minister's many strategic and tactical blunders, including his misadventures in Greece, Norway and Italy. * British approaches to the war were often overcautious, too tied to rigid plans, and failed to exploit new opportunities. Hart is especially critical of Montgomery's delaying tactics in jumping from Sicily to the toe of Italy, the Allied command's failure to use more amphibious landings in northern parts of Italy and on the East coast where there was little resistance toward a Roman drive, and the fiasco of the destruction of Monte Cassino monastery and the poorly executed invasions of the beaches at Salerno and Anzio. Throughout the book, Hart sides with commanders who favored quick adaptation to changing conditions (such as Patton) and forward momentum rather than those who reverted to old and slow attrition tactics. * Battleships were shown to be outmoded dinosaurs in WWII, hardly useful as anything other than shore bombardment. By contrast, Hart attributes the greatest success to U.S. subs in the Pacific war, which sunk 60 percent of Japanese shipping and cut off the supplies they so needed to continue the war. There are a number of omissions and disputable points in the book. There are good, if often incomplete, battle maps herein. Hart's coverage of the Normandy invasion seems slighter than it ought to be, and his presentation almost makes the operation sound like a cakewalk; a point I doubt would sit well with the men who were there. The book has nothing about the breaking of the German Enigma code, which proved very valuable, or about the operation of the cipher-breakers in both Britain (at Bletchley Park) or the Navajo Code talkers who stumped the Japanese -- obviously because these ops were still classified as top secret when Hart wrote this book. Some have also accused him of romanticizing German tank commander Rommel. Hart devotes disappointingly little ink to the siege of Leningrad, where 1.5 million starved, or to the remarkable battles inside Stalingrad, or even to the Holocaust. He only mentions the concentration camps in passing, when at the very least they would fit well into his arguments about how the Axis undermined themselves in fruitless projects that wasted resources needed on the fronts. Although Hart's coverage of the Battle of the Bulge is very good, his treatment of the Battle of Arnhem, one of the bloodiest of the war, is bafflingly slight. The level of detail about some of the battles (especially all the flanking moves and countermoves) can get dizzying at times and test your attention span. His insistence that Britain was the birthplace of nearly all advanced modern war theory seems to take a biased nationalistic, and -- in his case -- self-serving tone. I don't doubt that a lot of what he says, and certainly understand Hart's frustration that his theories were not adapted more fully and quickly by the British and Allied leadership sooner, which would have helped foil or lessen the severity of one of the great tragedies of human history. The material Hart gleaned via his postwar friendship with German generals is invaluable, often offering a fascinating look at the decision-making behind the scenes in Hitler's inner circle. Also good is his sense of revulsion and elegant rejection of the strategic use of the atomic bomb on Japan, which he says did not really affect the outcome of the war and was merely a barbaric gesture. As a one-volume work of WWII strategy and tactical maneuvers, the book could hardly be bettered. But if you're looking for more of the "on-the-ground" human flavor of the war, you are best advised to go elsewhere. Anyone interested in the war to any degree would be doing that anyway. ([email protected], 2011, with some slight updates and amendments in 2016)

  2. 4 out of 5

    Anthony

    I decided to read Liddell Hart’s History of the Second World War because I had seen it cited in many places as the definitive one-volume guide to a subject I have watched too many tv shows on but read few books about. (Surprisingly, it seems to be out of print, but I found several old hardcovers [not the one pictured here:] at the Strand.) I would recommend it to anyone interested in a one-volume history or the war, with the caveats below—most of which will probably not trouble the English speak I decided to read Liddell Hart’s History of the Second World War because I had seen it cited in many places as the definitive one-volume guide to a subject I have watched too many tv shows on but read few books about. (Surprisingly, it seems to be out of print, but I found several old hardcovers [not the one pictured here:] at the Strand.) I would recommend it to anyone interested in a one-volume history or the war, with the caveats below—most of which will probably not trouble the English speaker and broadly replicate the limitations of the familiar “History Channel” treatment of the subject. The book is long, but well organized and rather readable, with the exception of several instances where the volume of units and geographical landmarks become too dense to follow. The plentiful maps are generally very good—I found myself referring to the them constantly while reading the text—but, inevitably, they are occasionally not quite detailed enough. Perhaps unexpectedly, Liddell Hart devotes an undue amount of time to the matters he most familiar with, those involving the British Army. As a result, probably too much of the book is devoted to North Africa and Burma. Conversely, the book skimps on much description of the strategic outlook from the Soviet perspective; the chapters dealing with the Soviet offensives in 1944 and 45 are notably brief. Some of this may be due to a lack of access or resources; nonetheless it is noteworthy compared to the depth in which Hart covers the German leadership. This is really a military history—there is very little in here about politics. The closest Liddell Hart comes is his treatment of disagreements between allied commanders (famously, Montgomery and Patton), which are good reading but fall short of what I remember from Keegan’s WWII overview. I would have preferred more on industrial and logistic factors, which arise mostly only when needed (allied amphibious resources in the Mediterranean, the Japanese shortages of oil cramping naval operations). Interestingly, the book was quite interesting at those points where the narrative dips into politics and strategy. Liddell Hart’s handling of the outbreak of war in the neutral Low Countries and Norway was a new approach to the topic for me. He also emphasized the legitimacy of the British and American embargo of Japan as a causus belli, something I don’t think I’ve read very often. Nonetheless, the book’s strengths really do lie in the authors’ military analysis, especially with respect to the Western and Germany armies. I understand that Liddell Hart got to know many of the German commanders well after the war, and this comes through in the text. At times, it seems bit too much like he is rooting for the Wehrmacht—in particular during the retreat from the Caucuses and Russia—but this also very much reflects the fact that Liddell Hart has a strong opinion on how the war should have been fought, and when commanders did not (in retrospect) follow his advice, he’s critical and vocal about what might have been gained had they done so. This bias comes through most clearly in his description of the fall of France. He sees Guderian’s offensive as the key to the campaign, rightly so, but there’s a valid criticism to be made that this is justification after the fact, as well as that not enough weight is given the workings of chance (or politics, in the case of the British escape from Dunkirk, which I’ve read persuasively attributed to a political miscalculation on the part of Hitler to make peace with the British). It also features prominently in the chapters on the Russian offensives on the Eastern Front—Liddell Hart constantly criticizes Hitler for not allowing his general to adopt a more flexible defensive posture. Yet, as a reader, while this makes perfect sense, the author does not explain what exactly this would achieve beyond a delay of the inevitable. It’s also worth remarking on Liddell Hart’s criticism towards the end of the book of the Allies’ demand for the Axis powers’ unconditional surrender. It’s a stance that I don’t think I’ve reader often before, if ever. When the author uses it to argue against the dropping of the atomic bomb, I’m somewhat sympathetic, but I think he too readily discounts the political arguments (i.e., preempting Russian involvement in the Pacific theater) that he mentions briefly and which I understand to more commonly hold sway. The book’s conclusion is also strangely sad. While this is undoubtedly due to the fact that it was written in the middle of the Cold War, presumably leaving Liddell Hart to question an outcome that led to the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, it strangely omits the obvious upside to defeating Germany and Japan. It’s arguable that any history of WWII, even a military one, cannot ignore the war’s unprecedented effect on civilian populations, overwhelmingly (though not entirely) carried out by the Axis powers. In a book that takes understandable umbrage at the RAF’s approach to area bombing, there surely could be some place to mention the atrocities of Nanking and Auschwitz. That said, if one is willing to swallow the caveats above, the History of the Second World War is an engaging and detailed one-volume of how WWII was fought and won. ###

  3. 5 out of 5

    Miltiadis Michalopoulos

    The book is an all times classic. It is definitely the best account of World War II. Brilliant and insightful, it covers all the events of the greatest conflict in the world. Thousands of "histories" have been written since the publication of this book, but the conclusions of this essay still retain their validity. Πρόκειται για την καλύτερη ίσως εξιστόρηση του Β΄Παγκοσμίου Πολέμου. Ο σερ Μπάζιλ Λίντελ Χαρτ είναι ένας καταξιωμένος ιστορικός ο οποίος ως στρατιωτικός είναι ιδανικός για να περιγράψε The book is an all times classic. It is definitely the best account of World War II. Brilliant and insightful, it covers all the events of the greatest conflict in the world. Thousands of "histories" have been written since the publication of this book, but the conclusions of this essay still retain their validity. Πρόκειται για την καλύτερη ίσως εξιστόρηση του Β΄Παγκοσμίου Πολέμου. Ο σερ Μπάζιλ Λίντελ Χαρτ είναι ένας καταξιωμένος ιστορικός ο οποίος ως στρατιωτικός είναι ιδανικός για να περιγράψει τις εκστρατείες, τους συσχετισμούς δυνάμεων και τους στρατηγικούς ελιγμούς. Το εκτενέστατο βιβλίο του διαβάζεται ευχάριστα. Το ύφος είναι ζωντανό και οι περιγραφές συναρπαστικές με διάχυτο το βρετανικό φλέγμα. Η αντικειμενικότητα είναι το μεγαλύτερο προσόν του. Αν και Βρετανός, δεν χαρίζεται σε κανέναν και ιδιαίτερα στους συμπατριώτες του. Χαρακτηριστική είναι η περίπτωση της κατάληψης της Νορβηγίας από τους Γερμανούς τον Απρίλιο του 1940. Τότε οι δύο αντίπαλες χώρες, Αγγλία και Γερμανία, έκαναν αγώνα δρόμου για να καταλάβουν τη Νορβηγία και η Γερμανία πρόλαβε να την κατακτήσει την τελευταία στιγμή. Στο τέλος του πολέμου η Αγγλία είχε την "αδιαντροπιά" να καταλογίσει στη Γερμανία ως έγκλημα την κατάληψη της Νορβηγίας. "Μια τέτοια πράξη" σημειώνει χαρακτηριστικά ο Χαρτ είναι μια από τις πιο χειροπιαστές περιπτώσεις υποκρισίας στην ιστορία". Πρόκειται χωρίς υπερβολή για ένα έργο ζωής ενός μεγάλου ιστορικού ερευνητή.

  4. 4 out of 5

    Jeff Dawson

    I’ve been a fan of Sir Liddell Hart since I was a teenager. I couldn’t wait to get my hands on anything he wrote until today. This book put a fresh perspective on his writings and opinions, many of which I vehemently disagree with. I was hoping this work would be along the lines of Earl Zemke’s books on the Eastern Front or even a a good companion to Shirer’s Rise and Fall. Sadly, it was none of these. I was not pleased with the broad stroke coverage of Iwo Jima, Okinawa or the savage Kamikaze a I’ve been a fan of Sir Liddell Hart since I was a teenager. I couldn’t wait to get my hands on anything he wrote until today. This book put a fresh perspective on his writings and opinions, many of which I vehemently disagree with. I was hoping this work would be along the lines of Earl Zemke’s books on the Eastern Front or even a a good companion to Shirer’s Rise and Fall. Sadly, it was none of these. I was not pleased with the broad stroke coverage of Iwo Jima, Okinawa or the savage Kamikaze attacks, yet he covers in detail the Battle of the Bulge. I was glad to see he called out Monty for his arrogance in stating how he stopped the Northern thrust and saved the day. Yet no mention of General Ridgeway. Why is their absolutely no mention of the Holocaust? Did it not occur? Did it not demand at least one chapter? Damn right it did because as the book starts winding down, Mr. Hart criticizes the harsh “unconditional surrender” terms the allies strapped on Germany. At the time, even though reports were filtering out on the atrocities, would the SS and Himmler have received clemency for these heinous war crimes? I couldn’t help but think how Mr. Hart was coming across as a refined and complicit Chamberlain. Mr. Hart makes more then two references to the use of the atomic bomb. He is 100% against it and states is should have never been used. Japan would eventually surrender with her navy and merchant marine fleet decimated. Did Leningrad surrender during their 900 day siege? No. So what makes him think the Japs would surrender? Our fleets with the aid of Great Britain and Australia would have had to set up a formidable block-aide around the islands and hoped for the best. How many more sailors and ships would become victims the “Divine Wind.?” How long would public opinion deal with the loss of men and ships with no vision of the strategic objective? Americans would not have supported this Medieval thinking and demanded, “either end it or bring our boys home.” Yes, the allies dominated the air, as they did in Europe. Did I miss the news flash that Germany threw in the towel in ‘44 because they lost air supremacy? The answer is an obvious no. The US already knew the bomb worked when it was tested on July 16, 1945 at Alamogordo, NM. Let us remember, the US didn’t start the Manhattan Project until word came out that Germany was working on one. It took FDR several attempts to convince Einstein to help with the project. Was its use required? Ask the men who would have been in the first wave that would invade Japan. Those I talked to had no problem with its use. If it wouldn’t have been used, when would the world have knows the catastrophic effects it would have on a city and its population? The Russians knew all along about our progress as they had a spy working at Los Alamos. I guess neither side would have known its full potential until they were used in West Germany or Warsaw. Think of us not going through a cold war but a nuclear war. How would the world look today? Another complaint is the lack of good maps. Those supplied were rudimentary and lacking. If an author/historian is going to go into detail on a particular battle, broad maps do not do it justice nor give the reader a good fell on how the forces were laid out. Overall, this is a good work for those who want the highlights and broad strokes of the war and where many of the strategic battles occurred, just ignore the running commentary that adds nothing. Three and-a-half stars

  5. 4 out of 5

    Jack

    Good overview of WWII. Liddell Hart provides a broad coverage of the major campaigns with enough detail to entice the reader while providing the stratagems for the thinker. A classic author and strategists providing a classic work.

  6. 5 out of 5

    Saurabh

    a classic depiction of the modern war.2 learned a lot of hitlers tactics nd his mistakes which backfired came to know dat WW-2 was not jus about hitler nd germany it was more about bravity of allied forces nd especially russia nd britain A new general who jumped on watchlist is rommel will read more about him... exact stats on number of aircraft used etc nd manpower used is more enthrilling especially in battle of britain.pearl harbour nd battle of statlingrad

  7. 5 out of 5

    carl theaker

    I got & read this book when it first came out. It was much anticipated as Hart was quite the respected historian. Obviously 713 pages isn't really that much for all of WW2, so it's a high level perspective and a good basis for knowledge. I got & read this book when it first came out. It was much anticipated as Hart was quite the respected historian. Obviously 713 pages isn't really that much for all of WW2, so it's a high level perspective and a good basis for knowledge.

  8. 4 out of 5

    Leew49

    Sir Basil Liddell Hart was a widely respected and influential journalist, teacher, military historian and student of strategy and tactics. He enjoyed the friendship and correspondence of key figures of his era, and his thoughts on military tactics were much sought after. In preparing this history and other books he also had the advantage of having interviewed soldiers and commanders who fought on both sides of the second World War and taking careful notes of those conversations while the events Sir Basil Liddell Hart was a widely respected and influential journalist, teacher, military historian and student of strategy and tactics. He enjoyed the friendship and correspondence of key figures of his era, and his thoughts on military tactics were much sought after. In preparing this history and other books he also had the advantage of having interviewed soldiers and commanders who fought on both sides of the second World War and taking careful notes of those conversations while the events were still fresh in their minds. Liddell Hart's history covers the entire war in considerable detail, from the events leading to it as well as its aftermath. If I had to criticize the work I would point out my own failing in sometimes not following his detailed accounts of battles and campaigns as closely as I might. His writing is scholarly and understated, and his insights and criticism of historical figures and the decisions they made thought-provoking. Liddell Hart felt that the war could have been avoided by wiser and earlier intervention on the part of England and France. He points out military blunders on Hitler's part: bowing to the Luftwaffe during the English retreat to Dunkirk rather than using tanks in their pursuit; wasting troops and supplies in Tunisia; not having a plan for the invasion of the British Isles; attacking Russia thereby opening a second front; underestimating the gasoline requirements of his mechanized war machine; stubbornly refusing to allow tactical retreats by his generals; maintaining too wide a front to be intelligently defended. The Allies also receive their share of intelligent criticism. England and France failed to appreciate the tremendous capacity of a fully mechanized army. Poland and France, having more divisions than Germany at the outbreak of the war, were too slow to convert to modern warfare, Poland actually using mounted cavalry to defend against panzers. Britain's theoretical belief in the unstoppable power of bombing led to ineffective bombing runs and tremendous loss early in the war. Eisenhower unwisely took gas rations from Patton and sent them to Montgomery, who was less effective. The Allies' insistence on unconditional surrender forestalled the end of the war when there were factions within both Germany and Japan who might have been willing to negotiate a peace. Japan might have surrendered without the use of the atomic bomb, given that the island nation's supplies were cut off, her navy all but decimated, and the threat of Russia moving into Manchuria. HISTORY OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR is well-written, copiously illustrated with maps, detailed in its description of the ebb and flow of military campaigns, and thought-provoking in its analysis of the politics of the time.

  9. 4 out of 5

    Ross

    First read around 1980 but dipped into many times since. At the time of it's publication this was probably the best overall account of the WWII. It is now considerably dated both due to subsequent information availability and in and emphasis on different aspects of the conflict. Even in the original edition it can be argued there are errors and omissions. One reviewer has pointed out a total lack of reference to Hitler's 'final solution' and as an Australian I find his treatment of the pacific w First read around 1980 but dipped into many times since. At the time of it's publication this was probably the best overall account of the WWII. It is now considerably dated both due to subsequent information availability and in and emphasis on different aspects of the conflict. Even in the original edition it can be argued there are errors and omissions. One reviewer has pointed out a total lack of reference to Hitler's 'final solution' and as an Australian I find his treatment of the pacific war far too superficial. Of course some omissions are beyond Harts ability at the time he was writing: an obvious example is the key role of Ultra in many aspects and incidents in the War. I won't go on but for areas of the war where I have read widely there seem to often be factual errors and disagreements with majority contemporary opinion. However, even where general opinion is against Hart, e.g. the Atomic bombing of Japan, Hart's counter view as a respected scholar is worth considering. Having said all that this is no doubt a classic with much value to students of the War and I admit that I'm yet to read a single volume account that I'm satisfied with. Perhaps the War is just too big to be properly reported and analysed in one volume no matter hoe fat? 3 stars

  10. 4 out of 5

    Justinl

    History of the Second World War. This book is great. I liked this book so much. It interested me so much I just couldn’t stop reading it. Even through this book was over 700 pages I still read it over 600 in 3 days. That is how much I liked this book. It was a part of history that no one who was in it or was alive during that era that is still alive now will forget. The war cost the lives of 48 million people. The Nazi’s or Germans killed 6 million Jews, and 5 Million other people who Hitler did History of the Second World War. This book is great. I liked this book so much. It interested me so much I just couldn’t stop reading it. Even through this book was over 700 pages I still read it over 600 in 3 days. That is how much I liked this book. It was a part of history that no one who was in it or was alive during that era that is still alive now will forget. The war cost the lives of 48 million people. The Nazi’s or Germans killed 6 million Jews, and 5 Million other people who Hitler did not approve of. They started the war by invading Poland on September 1, 1939, early in the morning. On September 3, 1939 England and France declared war on Germany. The Americas wanted to stay out of the war until December 7, 1941 “A date which will live in infamy”. On that day Japan Without warning they attacked the naval base in Honolulu, Hawaii. The next day President FDR said that December 7, 1941 was “a date which will live in infamy”. Then the United States of America declared war on Japan, Italy, and Germany. On June 4, 1944 The Allies began the invasion of Northern France nicknamed “D-Day”. When Hitler found out about the invasion he was not happy. He decided to take out his anger on the Jews and The other “undesirables”. He started murdering more Jews and The other “undesirables” of Europe. He and Goering along with Himmler and Goebbels started murdering all the Jews and other “undesirables” That they could find. The next part is that while Hitler and his Nazi’s where murdering Jews, the German army was dominating the Continent of Europe. After Invading Czechoslovakia the Germans targeted Poland. After invading Poland on September 1, 1939 Germany started the deadliest war in history World War 2. 2 days after Germany invaded Poland on September 3, 1939 England and France declared war on Germany. In the 1940’s Germany invaded Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, and The Netherlands were all conquered by the Germans in the war. During the war the Germans murdered more than 6 Million Jews, Slavs, Homosexuals, Catholics and all political opponents hundreds of thousands were executed, millions were tortured. Millions were murdered in gas chambers, some were hung. One of the Nazi’s victims was a little girl named Anne Frank. Anne Frank and her family hid from the Nazi’s for two years hiding in an annex in Holland. The Nazi’s killed millions of people in the years of the war. At the end of the war the full horrors of Nazi rule revealed. The allies found these camps. Inside these camps there were bodies stacked on top of each other. At that moment the allies discovered that the Nazi’s murdered more than 6 million Jews during the war. The Nazi’s also murdered more than 6 million other “undesirables” of Europe, Gipseis, Homosexuals, Catholics, Slavs, and all political opponents. They did some murderous things on the eastern front in The Soviet Union. There they murdered millions of Russian men, women, and children during their invasion. During the war the Nazi’s started to invent powerful weapons. They invented the V-1, and the V-2 Rocket. During the Nazi invasion of Britain the Germans used the V-1 Rocket first to defeat the RAF. But after that did not work the Germans decided to use the V-1 Rocket to scare the civilians instead. Then the Germans invented the V-2 Rocket to do even more damage to the Britain population. It destroyed the Britain city’s and the England people’s homes. Winston Churchill the Prime Minster of England decided to take the battle to the enemy. The RAF did their own night time bombing raids of their own on Berlin, Germany. He was not as ruthless as Hitler. Hitler did not last the entire war, on April 30, 1945 Adolf Hitler Committed Suicide in his underground bunker beneath the ruins of Berlin, Germany. After Hitler committed suicide, The Germans decided that they could not win this war without their leader. The German army finally surrendered to the Allies on May 5, 1945. On May 8, 1945 Germany officially surrendered to the Allies. Nazi Germany was finally defeated. Only after the Allies defeated Nazi Germany was the real truth of Nazi rule revealed. During the war the Nazi’s murdered more than 6 million Jews. The Nazi’s had set up death camps though out Europe. The most deadly of these camps was Auschwitz. Auschwitz was a deadly death camp. After the war ended the Allies decided to hunt down Nazi war criminals. The Allies sorted out their prisoners by having them raise their arms because the SS wear a special tattoo under one arm which shows their blood group though useful when wounded. As the Allies looked for SS officers, the British captured the Chief of the SS Heinrich Himmler. In 1945 after having been searched he swallowed a cyanide vile concealed in his mouth. The Nazi minster of propaganda Joseph Goebbels was being hunted. To avoid capture Goebbels committed suicide. Hermann Goering Marshall of the Reich and number two of the regime is captured. As he imagines he’ll be able to deal with the Allies. He holds a press conference in front of ten cameras on of which is a color camera. Rudolph Hess went to Scotland in 1938 on a peace mission, he has spent the war in jail. Dr. Josef Mengele the Nazi doctor and murder at Auschwitz is so close to being captured by the Allies. He manages to flee to South America where he will live for the rest of his life. He goes to live in Argentina where he will die of old age. He stays under his real name. Anne Frank a little girl who her and her family hid from the Nazi’s for two years in Holland. She and her family were captured by the Nazi’s because the betrayal of their informant. The frank family was sent first to Auschwitz and then to Bergen-Belsen death camp. Anne Frank died in Bergen- Belsen on May 5, 1945 just 3 days before Germany surrendered. Adolf Eichmann the murder at a lot of death camps. He managed to hide from punishment until 1960. In 1960 Eichmann was found in South America his was captured. He was jailed. Then he was put on trial. Over the years the Allies executed over 500 Nazi war criminals.

  11. 5 out of 5

    Jason

    What a ride! This is a 700+ page, exhaustively researched and almost painfully detailed, account of every last corner of WW2, written by possibly the period's most distinguished historian. From this dispassionate academic angle, even the famous actions look completely different, and the big victories and defeats look way less organised and more chaotic. And it's only through examining many actions that's it's possible to get a handle on Rommel's genius, for example, or the strengths and weaknesse What a ride! This is a 700+ page, exhaustively researched and almost painfully detailed, account of every last corner of WW2, written by possibly the period's most distinguished historian. From this dispassionate academic angle, even the famous actions look completely different, and the big victories and defeats look way less organised and more chaotic. And it's only through examining many actions that's it's possible to get a handle on Rommel's genius, for example, or the strengths and weaknesses of the Montgomery or Patton. The main picture that emerges is how small seemingly irrelevant events can have such a huge effect on something as enormous as this war. It would only have taken a handful of decisions taken differently to prevent the whole thing, for example, or shorten it by almost a year, or keep the Russians out completely. Finally, with the war as it stands, it's quite clear that the Hitler lost his war by refusing to let his military do its job. The mistake of dictators since time immemorial. Left to their own devices, the German generals could have ground the Allies to a stalemate from which suing for peace would be the only option. Rather sobering.

  12. 4 out of 5

    Lonnie

    A very broad overview of the military events of World War II with the strategic insight of someone who knows how this game is played. The best part is the epilogue, but does require reading the rest of the book to fully appreciate it. It's a long book and can take a while to read but there's a lot of insight to be gained from it. In particular, regarding human arrogance an failure on both sides that unnecessarily extended "the unnecessary war" and led inexorably to the cold war that followed. It A very broad overview of the military events of World War II with the strategic insight of someone who knows how this game is played. The best part is the epilogue, but does require reading the rest of the book to fully appreciate it. It's a long book and can take a while to read but there's a lot of insight to be gained from it. In particular, regarding human arrogance an failure on both sides that unnecessarily extended "the unnecessary war" and led inexorably to the cold war that followed. It also highlights that ultimately all wars are wars of attrition. The nature of the war moved dramatically away from a local squabble when the deep pockets of the Soviet Union and the United States were brought in. Finally, as you'd expect from Liddell Hart, there's lots of attention paid to the role of strategy (as opposed to grand strategy and tactics). This attention can provide insights into aspects of various part of our lives. It's a slog but definitely worth reading. I learned things that I definitely hadn't picked up from other sources.

  13. 5 out of 5

    Hugolane

    This is very much a top down history that is shaped very much by Hart's interest in tank warfare and blitzkrieg as a combined strike. Hart's reputation as an historian has fallen since this book was written, and while that doesn't get in the way of the overall story told, it casts a shadow over the book, especially when he cites from the interviews of German officers that were published in _The Other Side of the Hill_. There are some moments where one gets a sense for Hart's brilliance. Early on This is very much a top down history that is shaped very much by Hart's interest in tank warfare and blitzkrieg as a combined strike. Hart's reputation as an historian has fallen since this book was written, and while that doesn't get in the way of the overall story told, it casts a shadow over the book, especially when he cites from the interviews of German officers that were published in _The Other Side of the Hill_. There are some moments where one gets a sense for Hart's brilliance. Early on he lays out about 20 items that were necessary to wage war at the time and makes it plain and simple. After reading this book, I also have a better understanding of how the shift to the North Africa theater happened. Yet, reading that part of the book in particular, I got the frustration of Stalin over the sloth which which that campaign was wrapped up. Also on the plus side of this book is Hart is not afraid to criticize Churchill, especially in respect to his musings about coming up through the the Balkans, and how that may well have made North Africa campaign a much longer affair than it needed to be. He also is not as big a booster of Field Marshall Montgomery as I was expecting. Beyond that it is certainly comprehensive for a one volume history, as long as one is interested in conventional operations level military history alone. It is dated though. As a specialist of Eastern Europe, his consistent use of Russia rather than Soviet Union is irksome. The lack of discussion of niceties, or rather the lack thereof, in respect to treatment of Soviet prisoners stands out to a modern reader, as does the utter lack of any reference to the Holocaust. Indeed, if I were inclined to military history, I would want a book that discussed the soldier's experience more, but this did serve its purpose.

  14. 4 out of 5

    Dale

    I am a big fan of Hart believing he is one of the top strategists of our era. This is an outstanding overview of World War II at the operational level. Recommended for my military planner friends and anyone interested in military history.

  15. 5 out of 5

    Emil Ohlsson

    Good summary, but perhaps a bit focused on individual troop movements than I was really interested in

  16. 4 out of 5

    Syed Gilani

    The book and the author, both are authority when comes to learn about World Wars.

  17. 4 out of 5

    Gregory

    Boring, couldn't get past the first page. Boring, couldn't get past the first page.

  18. 4 out of 5

    Nina V

    Volume 1 of 8 - quite cool to see from a closer time source to the event. Obvious era biases

  19. 5 out of 5

    Minhaz Saif

    Excellent and informative!

  20. 5 out of 5

    Espen

    One of my enduring frustrations with books about WWII is poor mapping and relatively little focus on operational strategy. One reason for this, I have now found, is that Liddell Hart wrote the definitive book on the war in 1971, and every book since then either will have to concentrate on more details (such as Anthony Beevor's books on Berlin and Stalingrad) or take a more "themed" approach (such as John Keegan's WWII). The book is cold-blooded and argumentative - with a focus on maneuver (nicely One of my enduring frustrations with books about WWII is poor mapping and relatively little focus on operational strategy. One reason for this, I have now found, is that Liddell Hart wrote the definitive book on the war in 1971, and every book since then either will have to concentrate on more details (such as Anthony Beevor's books on Berlin and Stalingrad) or take a more "themed" approach (such as John Keegan's WWII). The book is cold-blooded and argumentative - with a focus on maneuver (nicely mapped) and evolving tactics. Liddell Hart spends more time on tank battles (in particular Rommel's campaigns in North Africa) than strictly necessary, and frequently introduces footnotes about his own role, pointing out how he had written critically about various weaknesses in British and US defenses long before anyone else. Then again, he has the right to do so - many of the newer tactics such as the Blitzkrieg and the "indirect approach" were developed or inspired by Liddell Hart's pre-war writings. This is war from the viewpoint of a professional soldier, with the benefit of hindsight and not a little admiration for the other side's competence and fortitude. More here.

  21. 5 out of 5

    Susheil Kumar

    The book is well written and covers the Second World War holistically primarily from military point of view though adequate attention has been given to political, logistical and grand strategy of belligerents. The work shows authors deep understanding of the subject, the unbiased representation of facts and dwells on those battles as well which did not caught public attention but were extremely important in their own right. The Russian point of view and their preparations have not been covered as The book is well written and covers the Second World War holistically primarily from military point of view though adequate attention has been given to political, logistical and grand strategy of belligerents. The work shows authors deep understanding of the subject, the unbiased representation of facts and dwells on those battles as well which did not caught public attention but were extremely important in their own right. The Russian point of view and their preparations have not been covered as lucidly as other countries but that can be attributed to soviets nature of putting a shroud on their affairs especially during that time. A must read for students of military history as are Liddell hart's other books.

  22. 4 out of 5

    David Warwick

    An excellent military history of the war. The book is focused on strategic military decision making, and takes a academic balanced approach that gives rounded insights that do often come across in general WWII histories. Focuses a little too much on British campaigns, and a little less detailed on other areas (such as Russia or the Pacific). There are also little bits where you feel the author is a touch vain in the certainty of his thoughts and he likes to highlight his involvement at the highest An excellent military history of the war. The book is focused on strategic military decision making, and takes a academic balanced approach that gives rounded insights that do often come across in general WWII histories. Focuses a little too much on British campaigns, and a little less detailed on other areas (such as Russia or the Pacific). There are also little bits where you feel the author is a touch vain in the certainty of his thoughts and he likes to highlight his involvement at the highest levels during and immediately after the war. These are however minor quibbles; if you're interested in strategic thought, it's a fascinating read.

  23. 5 out of 5

    Siria

    Very good general history of WWII, written by the man who was one of the key thinkers in formulating the kind of battle strategies in the 20s and 30s which would be so instrumental in inspiring the idea of the Blitzkrieg later. It was first published shortly after Liddell Hart's death in 1970, so there has since been a lot of new research in the field; however, his summations of the kind of strategies used are unlikely to ever be surpassed. Very good general history of WWII, written by the man who was one of the key thinkers in formulating the kind of battle strategies in the 20s and 30s which would be so instrumental in inspiring the idea of the Blitzkrieg later. It was first published shortly after Liddell Hart's death in 1970, so there has since been a lot of new research in the field; however, his summations of the kind of strategies used are unlikely to ever be surpassed.

  24. 5 out of 5

    Erik Graff

    Although author Hart is (deservedly) opinionated, this is an authoritative history of the second world war and the first such broadly sketched history I'd ever read, everything else having been restricted either to a theatre or a particular campaign. Although author Hart is (deservedly) opinionated, this is an authoritative history of the second world war and the first such broadly sketched history I'd ever read, everything else having been restricted either to a theatre or a particular campaign.

  25. 5 out of 5

    Moethedog

    Wonderfully done - as far as I can tell it is an accurate depiction of the War. I've read many dozens of books on this subject and rate this one near the top. If you are a fan of Admiral Samuel Elliot Morrison (Naval historian) and his works then you will be happy the similarity in styles here. Wonderfully done - as far as I can tell it is an accurate depiction of the War. I've read many dozens of books on this subject and rate this one near the top. If you are a fan of Admiral Samuel Elliot Morrison (Naval historian) and his works then you will be happy the similarity in styles here.

  26. 5 out of 5

    Kenneth Burr

    Reading this book in conjuction with the world at war. was very interesting as they were written in different generations. So they have different points view. One is written in hindsight the other as a more contempory account. very interesting.

  27. 5 out of 5

    Mati

    The major events and battles were covered and analyzed from different point of view. The military strategy or lack of it was pointed sometimes in very enjoyable way even for one, who is not military historian.

  28. 4 out of 5

    A K

    Great account of WWII. Only blemish is that Hart is friends with the family of Rommel as per the notes so he seems a little over-the-top partial and biased in his depiction despite Rommel's objective greatness. Great account of WWII. Only blemish is that Hart is friends with the family of Rommel as per the notes so he seems a little over-the-top partial and biased in his depiction despite Rommel's objective greatness.

  29. 5 out of 5

    Bill

    Best general history of the second world war that I've read, written by the man who came up with many of the revolutionary tactics and strategies that defined that conflict. Best general history of the second world war that I've read, written by the man who came up with many of the revolutionary tactics and strategies that defined that conflict.

  30. 4 out of 5

    Stephen Gordons

    I know of no other history of the Second World War which I would place greater weight upon.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...