Good book on WWII?

[Little_Nemo]

OTOH, Keegan’s “Mask of Command” gives clues why Hitler, an enlisted man in WWI who understood war from at his level but not The Big Picture, was doomed to fight WWII from the standpoint of both an enlisted man and a dictator, leaving the pros out of the mix.

I’ve always felt that the key factor in World War II was that as the war went on, Stalin learned to listen to his generals more and Hitler kept listening to his generals less.

[Algernon]

I recommend A War To Be Won (Murry, Millet).

It covers the scope requested by the OP, and is fascinating. I’ve read a lot of WWII books, and while any book that covers the entire war rather than some isolated aspect will be found by some to be lacking, this book is excellent.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

I would recommend *Delivered from Evil *by Robert Leakey. It includes an excellent account of the Guadacanal campaign and a very moving account of the Seige of Leningrad. It’s nearly 1,000 pages long, but is very readable. Leakey served in the war and relates a couple of hilarious anecdotes about his service.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@dropzone

GREAT EFFING BOOK! Keegan apologizes (Six Armies in Normandy) for his childish belief that the Allies would inevitably win, but Overy explains how and why it was inevitable.

I’m curious about what explanation Overy gives.

All the battle guys seem to think that the war was fought on a razor’s edge. All the economists look at a landlocked country fighting two wars and ask “what were you smoking?”

It’s the same for the U.S. Civil War, BTW. The battle enthusiasts go on and on about the South’s generals. The economists point to the Union’s supply chains and the fact that the North got one million immigrants during the war. (Many of whom came over to get paid to join the army. Uniquely, the North had more men of fighting age at the end of the war than at the beginning.)

The home fronts in both the North and the U.S. in their respective wars prospered. The South and Germany starved.

The battles get all the PR. But they were surprisingly meaningless in the outcome of these wars. You can’t tell that to people who can give every detail of a Gatling Gun or a Panzer Tiger. But its the right answer for the OP.

[Damfino]

I would recommend Len Deighton’s Blood, Tears, and Folly, which gives an excellent strategic account of the prelude to the war and the major campaigns until Japan’s entry into the war. Readable and well illustrated with maps and diagrams.

[An_Gadai]

@JerseyMarine2092

Two books that cover the period 1944-1945 well serve you well. Retribution: The Battle for Japan 1944-1945 and *Armageddon: The Battle for Germany 1944-1945 *, both by Max Hastings.

These are both excellent books. Retribution is called Nemesis here.

[mlees]

@Exapno_Mapcase

I’m curious about what explanation Overy gives.

All the battle guys seem to think that the war was fought on a razor’s edge. All the economists look at a landlocked country fighting two wars and ask “what were you smoking?”

It’s the same for the U.S. Civil War, BTW. The battle enthusiasts go on and on about the South’s generals. The economists point to the Union’s supply chains and the fact that the North got one million immigrants during the war. (Many of whom came over to get paid to join the army. Uniquely, the North had more men of fighting age at the end of the war than at the beginning.)

The home fronts in both the North and the U.S. in their respective wars prospered. The South and Germany starved.

The battles get all the PR. But they were surprisingly meaningless in the outcome of these wars. You can’t tell that to people who can give every detail of a Gatling Gun or a Panzer Tiger. But its the right answer for the OP.

Supply & industrial might alone doesn’t neccessarily gaurantee a victory (for example: the US & the Vietnam War), although it’s extremely important.

You win by convincing the enemy to stop fighting.