Help: Recommend a comprehensive WWII history book?

I'm a newbie to WWII history but in the past year or so have become increasingly more and more interested in learning all I can. Unfortunately, I didn't appreciate the subject in high school and didn't retain much. I read 'Citizen Soldiers' by Stephen Ambrose when I got it for Christmas, which I thought was an amazing book. That's really the only book I've read on WWII. After seeing 'Band of Brothers', and the recent TV shows about D-day and so forth, I am definitely interested in reading more.

I was hoping some folks could help recommend some books that are generally accepted as the best books on WWII. I would really like to start with an expansive, comprehensive history of the war and then move on to more specific subjects that interest me.

I've read about 'A World at Arms' by Gerhard L. Weinberg, is it considered the best?

What's the best book on D-day? Stephen Ambrose again?

I thought 'Citizen Soldiers' was great, but focused mainly on the American GI's. Is there another, more comprehensive book on the European theater?

What's the best bio on Hitler, specifically during the war years?

Thanks for any help and suggestions.

<email>

-snip-

I would recommend the second volume of Ian Kershaw's 'Hitler', subtitled 'Nemesis'. In fact, I would recommend the first volume, 'Hubris', as well. Don't be put off by the rather arch titles. Kershaw is very readable.

all the best

You cannot get the history of world war II in one book. For the Pacific there are several excellent books.

The Bitter Years MacArthur and Sutherland by Paul P Rogers

The Battle of Leyte Gulf 23-26 October 1944 by Thomas J. Cutler

American Caesar by William Manchester

The General by Roger Olaf Egeberg MD.

At the top of the list should be Touched by Fire by Eric Bergerud

Having spent a part of my youth in the Pacific I have found these books to fairly reliable.

I would recommend getting John Keegan's 'The Battle for History: Re-Fighting World War II.' It is an excellent survey of the histography of the war and makes many suggestions for further reading. It is short, only 118 pages, and well worth the time spent on it.

Any one volume history history will leave itself open to a variety of criticisms. It's always easy to second guess the author's choices in what was covered or not covered. It is extraordinarily difficult to write a comprehensive history of WWII steering between too much detail, too much detachment from the everyday tragedies, too diffuse narrative.

'A World at Arms' is a good effort but not beyond criticism. It is at its best when concentrating on the European theater and Germany in particular. And on some subjects it is an excellent reference. Unfortunately its prose is uninspired and colorless making it a challenge to wade through its 1200 pages.

I'd recommend Williamson Murray and Allan Millett's 'A War to Be Won: Fighting the Second World War' and John Keegan's 'The Second World War.' Both are far more accessible than Weinberg and good starting points for further reading.

Stephen Ambrose is an excellent retailer of war stories but I'd never accuse him being a incisive historian. Ambrose's greatest fault is his unquestioning acceptance of oral history. Every German tank is a Tiger, every gun is an 88 to Ambrose. I suppose he couldn't have started the 'Greatest Generation' bandwagon rolling any other way.

Peter Mansoor's 'The GI Offensive in Europe: The Triumph of American Infantry Divisions, 1941-1945' is a much better appreciation of the strengths and weaknesses of the US Army in Europe than anything that Ambrose has produced.

Others have recommended Max Hastings's 'Overlord.' I would too though it sometimes leaves me wondering if the Allies were so out-gunned and out-generaled how they managed to bring off the stunning success of Normandy and France.

Carlo d'Este's 'Decision in Normandy' does better than Hastings. For some strange reason histories of the Normandy campaign are contentious. d'Este is deals fairly to all parties.

'Eisenhower's Lieutenants' by Russell Weigley covers the European theater well but sometimes indulges in Monday morning quarterbacking of Allied generalship.

Andrew Warinner <email>

Dear twin Earth,

World War II is a vast area of history,memoirs, biography, and opinion. I know of a U.S. college textbook that might be good for a beginning reader. 'World War II - A Short History' by Michael J Lyons. It provides the beginning reader in World War II an acceptable level of overview and the additional reading list at the end of the book points to vast amout of books to read about the subject. If that is not your style and level of World War II, the previous recommendations are also excellent. but if you want to wade into some extensive reading, there are numerous multivolume publications printed by every major participant in the war. if you skilled enough to read the foreign langauges other than english. also be prepared to spend major amounts of money on books and haunt used book stores.

yours truly,

try to get hold of one of those 'world war 2: day by day' books, they should cover all the fighting and battles. not sure of books about politics of the war

On a completely different tack from other respondents, if you are stimulated by cartography, then the following may interest you : - The Times Atlas of the Second World War; ed John Keegan; ISBN <phone> (1st edn 1989)

I picked up my copy in a 'remaindered' bookstore in Poole Dorset for about £8.00 Sterling, about 8 years ago.

It is divided into a series of chronologically ordered chapters, each representing a theatre or sub-theatre and comprising a narrative and maps plastered with symbology representing the disposition of forces, lines of advance and battle fronts. Some sub-theatres are revisited at later stages of the war. Each chapter also includes one or two photos, typically battle scenes or military personnel/hardware. There is a limited number of bar-charts and tabulated data to illustrate things like 'Bomber Production 1949-1943' or 'Allied Merchant Shipping Losses Apr 19412 - Mar 1943'.

I would not pretend that this book offers the most erudite discussion of WWII, providing instead a generally uncontentious factual narrative. I find it an invaluable augment to other WWII texts.

It is certainly expansive. It is comprehensive in breadth though not in depth.

A good book, certainly, and well worth getting, but it is one person's opinion. Read it, and read the books he recommends that appeal to you, but don't stop there.

I've seen valid criticisms of all the ones I'm familiar with.

One of my favorites.

Murray and Millett are my third favorite book. My favorite is Willmott, 'The Great Crusade', although others have called that dry. The nice thing about these one-volume histories is that reading a few of them is an excellent way to get all sorts of different viewpoints on the whole war.

It seemed to me to concentrate rather heavily on the British and Canadian side, which I found interesting.

There is one paradox of books on Normandy: if you cover the events at a high, rather general, level, you'll read something about the Allies landing in Normandy, slowly advancing, and then breaking out in a spectacular exploitation. If you look at a lower level, you'll read about various failures. Many of the British and US divisions in fact fought rather badly in that campaign, although obviously well enough.

As far as the biggest of the land campaigns go, Glantz and House write many of the best books. I'd strongly recommend 'When Titans Clash' as a start.

I'm not really sure what to recommend as a one-volume starter on the war in the Pacific. Most take part of the war and concentrate on it, and the one-volume general histories often give it less coverage than I might