I’ve done a fair bit of reading lately. A while back, I realised my general knowledge of the Second World War – that is, the exact progression of events – escaped me. So I endeavoured to remedy that.
This was the result, sitting on the side in Waterstones. I had originally gone into the shop wanting to try something by Max Hastings, someone who I have heard writes excellent non-fiction on the subject (I have already read one Beevor book so I wanted to widen the scope and try a new author). Alas, they did not have his equivalent title, so I ‘settled’ (which is not really the right word) for the beefy The Second World War, a book almost as thick as it is wide. I seem to have a later reprint edition, which has a swanky matte finish.
The book covers the entirety of the war, from how the war broke out to the surrender of Japan in August 1945. It is a lot of ground to cover, much more than the First World War, and the book has the length to match. I certainly feel like £12 or so I paid for the book was worth it for the quantity alone. It also comes with four sets of historical photos which, while awkwardly placed in four equidistant points in the book, certainly do enhance by giving you a physical image of what is being described, especially things like the Far-East Asian front. The historical photos thing is something that is in every non-fiction book about history, so it is an issue (if you can call it an issue) not limited to just The Second World War. It is a non-issue because primarily it is necessary to physically produce the book in an effective manner. Also, one can just flick back and too to the pictures, then to the text (though I always feel I’m ‘spoiling it’ for myself if I flick ahead of the photographs).
Having read specific histories of individual battles like Berlin, Bagration and D-Day, this overall history did feel invariably… basic. Obviously you are not going to be able to get nearly as much detail in as an entire book dedicated to one battle against one that has to cover the entire war in roughly the same length, but still, it did bother me perhaps a little bit (but I can imagine that is simply because I have read this book long after I have been introduced to WW2).
What I’m saying is that The Second World War is an ideal book for an introduction to the subject, or even if you want to get the general overview of what happened, when. Things like the German invasion and subjugation of Norway and Denmark, the happenings in the Baltics, the more precise contributions of Italy, Hungary and Romania, or the reason that Nationalist Spain did not join the war on the Axis side. Even things like the specifics of the Asian front with fighting in Burma and the defense of the British Raj, the fall of the Phillipines and other Pacific Islands to the Japanese invaders, and the exact reasons the British Empire effectively crumbled after the war. The happenings in China – a very important aspect of the Pacific front – was also covered in a great deal of depth. EVen some of the reasons for Communist China’s rise are shown.
It was great to finally see the entirety of the war, and the general progression of events (as I have already mentioned) as well as a few interesting bits, like Churchill’s plans for a Norwegian invasion, intervention in the Balkans (with the purpose of halting Soviet influence) and the political maneuverings of Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt as the war progressed. Particularly towards the end, the leaders of the ‘big three’ had one eye on the state of post-war Europe.
Indeed, one of the most interesting parts of the book involves the political intrigue between the somewhat fragile alliance between the Soviet Union and Western Allies. Stalin was one of the best, if not the best manipulator in recorded history. He allowed Roosevelt, and by extension Churchill, to believe they could ‘handle him’ – the truth could not be further than that. The truth was that Stalin practically despised (yet still begrudgingly respected) his counterparts in the big three. Ideological differences, of course, drove this. Stalin simply could not comprehend being beholden to the will of the people like leaders of a Democratic nation were. He knew that, deep down, were the Soviet Union democratic, he would have been removed long before the Tehran Conference in 1943 for his disastrous handling of Operation Barbarossa.
Of course, there’s also other areas, like Africa and the Mediterranean, although sadly we do not get to see much, if any, of Italy after Mussolini’s Fascist regime is toppled in 1943 (having said that, the front is basically a stalemate for the rest of the war). Having said that, it still covers some of the finer aspects of Mussolini’s relationship to Hitler, and some of the driving reasons for his choices.
This book covers so much, yet there is so much more to this subject. Not to say it is an underdeveloped book. Far from it. What I am saying is that this provides you with the framework to the war – it is up to you to then read and learn about the specifics that interest you further to build on that framework into an extensive structure of knowledge.
For a first time reading these kinds of books (perhaps it is a sign of my own knowledge increasing, or that of the opinion stated), I encountered a viewpoint that I wholeheartedly disagreed with. A viewpoint that deeply unsettled me. One of Beevor’s more…wayward claims made me really think twice. I can quote it to you from memory. Unfortunately I cannot remember precisely what page it is. Anyway, Beevor says:
“The British did not produce a truly battle-worthy tank, the Comet, until the end of the war”.
This, in my opinion, is totally false. In the early war, the Valentine was a reliable and well-protected little machine – albeit a little slow. The Matilda did the job well, and the Sherman Fireflys and Cromwells were also extremely battle-worthy. I suppose the problem with Beevor’s statement comes from the general ambiguity of the term ‘battle-worthy’.This could mean anything from just about able to stand toe to toe with the enemy, to being generally superior.
The argument could be made for any British tank to be battle-worthy. At the end of the day, I think it is wrong to discard more or less the entirety of Britain’s tanks as ‘not battle-worthy’. He did not mention the Centurion, a tank which was ready in 1944, one that quickly became revolutionary as the first proper MBT. Unfortunately, only 5 prototypes arrived on the front just sa the war came to a close in 1945. Little factoids like this are what you unfortunately have to forgo when boiling down a six-year world war into a single, albeit long, volume.
It is a deadly conundrum – having to balance detail with a manageable length. In the end, though, I think Beevor did a good job. His writing is a tad…extravagant at times, like he is trying to add a bit more drama to things than there already was – that is just down to his word choices. Sometimes, they could be a little bit better. I suppose that is more down to Beevor’s editors than himself.
But that does not detract from the book as a whole. The flaws of The Second World War are far outweighed by the pros. It’s a great introduction to WWII – as I have said a few times now. I came away from it feeling a new power of my knowledge of the period. It’s a good feeling to have, especially for someone who pretends to know a fair bit about it.
It's Only A Model 