The Battle For The Rhine, 1944

Could the war in Europe have been won in 1944 if the right strategies had been employed Historian Robin Neillands casts a new and informed light on the long drawn out and costly struggle for the Rhine.
The Battle For The Rhine Could the war in Europe have been won in if the right strategies had been employed Historian Robin Neillands casts a new and informed light on the long drawn out and costly struggle for the Rhine

  • Title: The Battle For The Rhine, 1944
  • Author: Robin Neillands
  • ISBN: 9780297846178
  • Page: 488
  • Format: Hardcover
  • 1 thought on “The Battle For The Rhine, 1944”

    1. This book points out some of the best and worst things that can come about from studying history. The author seems to have come into this project with a goal and thus is at times more focused on this agenda than on presenting the facts. His Agenda is a simple one and one that doesn't lack in merit. He wants to redeem Field Marshall Montgomery and show that he was the only viable and the correct choice to be the Ground Force Commander in the ETO. He seems to have a number of basic arguments why t [...]

    2. A good look at the strategy of this period of the war. He claims to bridge the Monty-vs-Patton argument that historians, amateur and otherwise, break down, but he's clearly on Montgomery's side. He does a very good job of backing it up, though.He's not very complimentary to most American generals, and perhaps rightly so, but I think he is excessively harsh on Patton. That said, I'm emotionally a Patton-o-phile, but I am convinced that Montgomery had some right ideas.

    3. This is a deeply detailed and exhaustively research account from the first hours after D-Day up to The Battle of the Bulge. Sometimes repetetive as a Montogmery apologist, this author also takes Patton down a few notches. This account makes for good balanced reading to the dramatic and simplified popular accounts of the movies "Patton" and "A Bridge too Far"

    4. This book should have been called, "Monty's Battle to Overcome the Stupidity of the American Generals and Beat the Nazis single-handed." That would have more accurately indicated the tone of the book. While I appreciate that the author had a thesis, and that he backs up his claims with quite a bit of evidence, the tone was overbearing and extremely taxing. I am an American, so admittedly this may have bothered me more than it would bother other readers. But the impression one takes away from thi [...]

    5. An enlightening account of what happened between the breakout from Normandy in August '44 and January '45. Not really a book to bother with though unless you are interested in such details as why did it take the Allies so long to make the Rhine when things were going so well? Of course, parts of the answer are Arnhem and the Bulge but they are not the whole story, as they are two months apart. A fuller picture includes a lack of a clear strategy; people not following the strategy such as it was; [...]

    6. A well written, well researched historical analysis of the time period. He argues logically that General Eisenhower's strategy from September through December 1944, was ineffective and may have prolonged the war several months. He hails Eisenhower as a great Supreme commander, but an indifferent ground forces commander. In the author's opinion, Ike failed to adequately grip his immediate subordinates especially George Patton and Omar Bradley. The author argues that General Montgomery's assessmen [...]

    7. Less of a history and more of a misplaced dispute on how history has regarded personalities of the war and who was responsible for winning. Generals Ike, Bradley, Patton and MacArthur are consistently torn down and the praise for Monty gets repetitively nauseous.

    8. Neillands' book covers the Allied effort to reach and cross the Rhine River, following the breakout from Normandy. In the main, the book is a British perspective on what went wrong with this campaign, with a focus on command arrangements and strategy. While Neillands offers some well considered and supported criticism of Eisenhower as Ground Force Commander (but not Supreme Allied Commander), there are some things the he repeatedly harps on that detract significantly from his arguments. The moan [...]

    9. Wish I could say I enjoyed this book, I only got the book out as I am planning on visiting Holland in May 2013, and specifically Arnhem, were the battle of Arnhem occurred, the book is filled with details, which is understandable, as that is what it is all about, it seems to me there were a lot of lives lost due to stupidity on the part of those in charge, it is my contention that war is horrific, and those in charge worry little about loss of lifes, as they are never in the front lines, and mak [...]

    10. This book discusses the allied push to the Rhine after Normandy. It was argued that Eisenhower's broad front strategy, i.e attacking the entire front all the time , forcing the enemy to retreat, was problematic on several counts. Firstly, as Antwerp was not opened, the army could not be supplied properly when supplies became longer, esp when coupled with an overly bureaucratic and unaccountable supply chain. Secondly, the large front meant that the forces could not concentrate for attacks when t [...]

    11. This is a look at the allies' breakout from Normandy and their attempts to gain a bridgehead over the Rhine. On the way it covers the ill-fated Market Garden operation and the Ardennes offensive - otherwise known as the Battle of the Bulge.Neillands doesn't shy away from the things that went wrong. Failures of command and personality clashes between generals, stretched supply lines, poor intelligence, dubious strategy and bad planning.Having read this book it's hard to escape the conclusion that [...]

    12. This book was well written and well laid out. Information was presented in a easy to follow manner. That being said, this book was hard to choke down. Written from the decidedly British point of view, the author had no kind words to say about any of the American or Allied leaders. Essentially, if it weren't for Montgomery, the bumbling American Generals would have lost WWII. Sigh it was pointed out to me, each country has its heroes and we must respect that. Montgomery was as integral part of th [...]

    13. A good book, offering a different view of one of America's largest military endeavors. The author does not put Eisenhower, Bradley, or the other American commanders on a pedestal but instead gives them a critical evaluation especially as compared to the British leaders. Though I don't think I entirely agree with the resulting conclusion, it is healthy to have to re-evaluate these cherished opinions. This work demonstrates, better than many others, that warfare is primarily about logistics, that [...]

    14. I give this book a 4 rather than 5 stars mostly because it seems a bit 'light'. It is not a hugely in-depth treatment of the topic. What makes this book interesting to read is that it is part of an emerging revisionist take on WWII. Namely, Neilands is attempting to revive the reputation of Field Marshal Montgomery, who has long been held in contempt by American historians, while taking Eisenhower down a peg or two. Well written in the English fashion.

    15. This book poses a question that any book on war could ask: Could we have won the war sooner had certain plans worked out better?'I didn't read this book for the answer of the "what ifs" but there is much to be learned/applied to real life. The book also gives a good snapshot of this particular time period of WWII. ****possible spoiler*****The answer is yes. Of course the victors of any battle or war, in hindsight, may have executed better or differently and shortened the timeline.

    16. A very in-depth look at the Battle for the Rhine, from September through December 1944. I learned a lot about what happened during that time, not just the highlights that most people know. You really get into the heads of the commanding generals, and see the conflicts they have to go through. At times, it's almost too much information.I recommend having a map at hand, because you'll need it to get a feel for the whole battlespace.

    17. Interesting perspective on the political infighting between Eisenhower, Bradley, and Montgomery. Originally read this because I thought it was an operational account of the Battle for the Bulge but instead it provided the strategic framework for the European theater in late 1944. Three cheers for not reading the back cover.

    18. This book is more of an Op-Ed piece on how the British and "Montgomery the Great" defeated the Germans in spite of the incompetence and poor leadership exhibited by Eisenhower and the American generals. This point was so belabored that the history and significance of the campaign was lost to the author's biased arguments.

    19. A very good enlightenmentI found this book to be excellent at dispensing with the myth of American command greatness. I always believed many men's lives were waisted by commanders too eager for self glory. The Hurtgen Forest battle for example was just bizarre when so many other options were available.

    20. This book is a good alternative to the traditional view of WWII Allied generals and leaders. It has a perpsective that should be heard. Understanding that the author thinks Field Marshal Montgomery was the second coming and world savior, the ending conclusion about Ike's overall strategy will come as a surprise.

    21. A pro British view of the post Normandy campaign in the west. Argues that the broad front Eisenhower strategy was wrong and slowed the defeat of Germany. Not the most stunning proses but well argued

    22. It was good to read an English account of this time period. I have read so much from American sources that hearing Monty described as the best commander of the war is hard to swallow.

    Leave a Reply

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