The Battle for the Rhine 1944

Battle of the Bulge and the Ardennes Campaign, 1944

De: Robin Neillands

Narrado por: James Adams

The post-Normandy battles that the Allies fought as they struggled for seven months to advance from the Seine to the Rhine were complex and controversial. Even after 60 years, the questions remain of who was responsible for the failure at Nijmegen, the destruction of the British First Airborne Division at Arnhem, and the failure of Operation Market Garden. Could the war in Europe have been won in 1944 with better strategies?

Historian Robin Neillands gets to the truth of what really happened. He examines the often difficult relationships between the Allied generals and the nature of Eisenhower's exercise of his role as Supreme Commander. With superb battle narratives throughout and clear analysis of success and failure at every point, the author casts a new and informed light on the long-drawn-out and costly struggle for the Rhine.

©2005 Robin Neillands (P)2007 Blackstone Audio Inc.

Reseñas de la Crítica

"Thoroughly researched...Neillands' volume has a place in any collection serving World War II history students and buffs." (Booklist)

Balanced and informative

I enjoyed the book. We've been spoon feed how Monty was the big bad buggy man for so long. This author gives a balanced look at things. But Monty is not the focal point of the book, like some of the other reviewers would make you think. There is much to take away. This book is basically a samplier pack of the major pushes after normandy.

Need to Hear an Alternate View

Would you recommend this book to a friend? Why or why not?

Author's thesis is to give an alternate view of the Rhine and Battle of Bulge campaign emphasising the views Field Marshal Montgomery and British perspective. It is well worth hearing the argument that General Eisenhower and the US approach to the campaigns of 1944 were not flawless. Gave me food for thought. If you don't agree then don't change your mind. I came away with a fresh perspective and ready to hear his argument--the true spirit of academic debate.

How could the performance have been better?

I was surprised of how many narrative errors there are. They were not edited out. At a number of points the reader stops, sighs and starts again. If an editor had listen to the final product they would have known this. That said, it is not too distracting.

OK, but.....

The authors main premise is that Montgomery was a great general, and the Americans were foolish for not giving him control of the ground offensive in Europe in WW II. The book is flawed in that the author does not discuss (at all) the circumstance that Montgomery's failures at Caen in Normandy led the Americans (especially Eisenhower) to conclude that he was timid and hence they would not let him command American troops. Despite this, the book is very interesting in that it gives a different perspective on Allied leadership in WW II. This book is about strategy and is written at the level of divisions, corps, and armies, and does not discuss what it was like for the troops. It's a good listen if you can be patient about the Montgomery discussions.

Very disappointing

What could have made this a 4 or 5-star listening experience for you?

The narration was tedious

What do you think your next listen will be?

a Harlan Coban novel

Who would you have cast as narrator instead of James Adams?

I love listening to almost anything Scott Brick narrates

What reaction did this book spark in you? Anger, sadness, disappointment?

Boredom

Any additional comments?

The quality of the recording was poor. There were areas where it skipped and others wh.ere it repeated

Biased view of D-Day and Battle of the Bulge

This author is consumed with the merits of Field Marshal Montgomery, how sinful it was that he did not get total command of all the land forces during the D-Day and Battle of the Bulge campaigns. The author forgets that Monty took more than a week to take Caen when he expected to take in on day one. Why didn't Ike give Monty full control? For the same reason after Gallopi the ANZAC forces of New Zealand and Australia refused to be led by another British commander. Same goes for the Canadians after the Brits led them to the slaughter house at Dieppe. General Pershing had the good sense not to turn over AEF to the British or French. Forget about (although the author does acknowledge it) the US having the greater number of troops and Monty's butt was riding around on US made equipment. It is a well detailed account of troop movement but the author is far too biased when evaulating commanders, most especially Bradley and if he used the phrase "Anglo phobia" one more time when referring to FDR, Ike, et al I think I would have lost it. Try "Six Armies in Normandy", "Seven Roads to Hell" or "Band of Brothers" they're all a far more enjoyable listens.